Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Staff report CU-08-40 with attachments.pdf
PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS To: File #CU -2008-40 From: Mike Clugston, AICP Planner Date: FEBRUARY 10, 2009 File: An application for a tree cutting permit for Gregory and Katherine Strand I. INTRODUCTION A. Application Strand Tree Cutting File No. CU -08-40 Page 2 of 7 B. Description of Proposal As part of a court settlement with the upslope neighbor regarding the maintenance of an existing view easement, the applicant is proposing to remove three Douglas fir, a Western red cedar, and a larger number of black cottonwood and red alder toward the eastern edge of the subject parcel (Attachments 2-3). This is not a Native Growth Protection Easement but rather a private view agreement between adjoining landowners to which the City is not bound except to the extent that it holds the burdened landowners to perform work regulated in ECDC Chapter 18.45. This project involves making the best of a difficult situation. All of the trees in question on the eastern portion of the subject lot are in good condition and health according to the arborist's report (Attachment 7). They would not be candidates for removal except for the fact that they may encroach someone's view. IL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 1. Site Development, Neighboring Development, and Zoning: a) Facts: (1) The site is approximately 13,500 square feet and zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -12). Like the subject lot, the surrounding area is similarly zoned and developed with single family residences. (2) The eastern half of the parcel slopes uphill from west to east at approximately 35%. Vegetation in the area consists of the trees in question as well as typical residential landscaping including shrubs, lawngrass and groundcover. (3) The McChntick view easement describes three parcels burdened by the easement (Attachment 4). These parcels were created in the McClintick short subdivision of 1986 (Attachment 5). New homes were constructed on Parcels 2 and 3 in 1990, according to the Snohomish County Assessor's website. Parcel 1 was subsequently subdivided again in 2004 (Attachment 6). The subject site is Lot 2 of the 2004 short plat. (4) The applicant provided no indication of whether the trees in question actually encroach the view easement or not. b) Conclusions: (1) The applicant must provide a management plan for the trees in question. The management plan must meet the requirements of pertinent City code and should also address the view easement question. B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance 1. ECDC Section 1$,45 (Land Clearing and Tree Cutting) a) Facts: (1) ECDC Chapter 18.45.030 exempts clearing on an improved single-family lot, except for that portion of the lot that has slopes exceeding 25 percent. (2) The subject parcel has slopes in excess of 25% which was confirmed through the submission of a critical areas checklist (CRA -2009-0001). Strand Tree Cutting File No. CU -08-40 Page 3 of 7 (3) ECDC 18.45.050.8 states that "trees shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible." (4) The arborist's report (Attachment 7) indicated that the trees in question are all in good health and condition. (5) With respect to topping, the arborist's report states: "This practice would greatly decrease the lifespan of these trees, essentially killing them, requiring removal and replacement in the future. Continuing to top them would only result in killing them." b) Conclusions: (1) A permit is required for the work in question since the activity will occur on a slope in excess of 25%. (2) An arborist's report, Tree Inventory, and Proposed Trimming Plan (Attachments 7-9) were submitted per ECDC 18.45.050.B.2. (3) Topping is not considered to be routine landscape maintenance; it is indiscriminant cutting which is harmful and leads to the premature decline in the health of trees. (4) A management plan for the trees should include a discussion of appropriate methods of tree trimming which would allow the trees to remain and thrive. 2. ECDC Section 20.15A (Environmental Review — SEPA) a) Facts: (1) The City of Edmonds, acting as lead agency, issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the project on January 16, 2009 (Attachment 10). No comments were received. b) Conclusions: (1) The applicant and the City have complied with the requirements of ECDC 20.15A. 3. ECDC Sections 23.40 and 23.80 (Environmentally Critical Areas) a) Facts: (1) The subject parcel contains slopes in excess of 25% as identified in CRA -2009-0001. Generally, vegetation in such critical areas is to be retained. Select vegetation may be removed (per ECDC 23.40.220.C.7) and trees may be removed if they are hazardous, pose a threat to public safety, or pose an imminent risk of damage to private property. (2) If trees are to be removed from critical areas, ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b.iv states: The land owner shall replace any trees that are removed with new trees at a ratio of two replacement trees for each tree removed (two to one) within one year in accordance with an approved restoration plan. Replacement trees may be planted at a different, nearby location if it can be determined that planting in the same location would create a new hazard or potentially damage the critical area. Replacement trees shall be species that are native and indigenous to the site and a minimum of one inch in diameter at breast height (dbh) for deciduous trees and a minimum of six feet in height for evergreen trees as measured from the top of the root ball. (3) The applicant submitted three geotechnical letters and reports describing the slopes in the area of concern (Attachments 11-13). These describe the stability of the slope where the trees are located and indicate that appropriate removal of trees would not negatively impact the stability of the slope. It is recommended that the stumps are left in place to stabilize the slope. Strand Tree Cutting File No. CU -08-40 Page 4 of 7 b) Conclusions: (1) If the trees are removed, the stumps should remain as small snags or be flush out in order to provide additional stability on the slope. (2) Trees in critical areas must be replaced per ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b.iv. C. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Compliance 1. Land Use a) Facts: (1) The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and those in the immediate vicinity as "Single Family — Resource" (2) The Comprehensive Plan has the following stated goals and policies for Residential Development and development within areas of sensitive soils and topography which apply to this project. Soils and Topography C. Goal. Development on steep slopes or hazardous soil conditions should preserve the natural features of the site, in accordance with the following policies: C.3. Erosion Control. C.3.15. Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible to reduce erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill property line. C.3.c. Slopes should be stabilized with deep rooted vegetation and mulch, or other materials to prevent erosion and siltation of drainage ways. Vegetation and Wildlife B. Goal. The city should ensure that its woodlands, marshes and other areas containing natural vegetation are preserved, in accordance with the following policies: B.2. The removal of trees should be minimized particularly when they are located on steep slopes or hazardous soils. Subdivision layouts, buildings and roads should be designed so that existing trees are preserved. B.3. Trees that are diseased, damaged, or unstable should be removed. B.4. Grading should be restricted to building pads and roads only. Vegetation outside these areas should be preserved. b) Conclusion: The proposed conditions of approval ensure the permit is consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. D. Technical Committee The proposal has been evaluated by the Engineering Division as well as the Public Works and Fire Departments. The Engineering Division submitted comments that are included as Attachment 14. Engineering has concerns regarding slope stability and recommends following removal and site stabilization procedures like those recommended in the geotechnical reports and by the project arborist. Strand Tree Cutting File No. CU -08-40 Page 5 of 7 E. Public Comment: The City received no comments regarding the application. III. DECISION Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, the application for a Conditional Use Permit for tree cutting is APPROVED with the following conditions: The applicant must submit a management plan developed by the arborist that discusses appropriate management (including removal and trimming) of the three existing Douglas firs, the Western red cedar, and the black cottonwood and red alder trees. The plan must take into consideration the requirements of ECDC 18.45 and 23.40. If the management plan is also intended to address viewshed encroachment issues, a cross-sectional view height survey that establishes the height of the viewshed over the former McClintick Parcel 1 and which shows the locations and heights of the trees will be required to assist in that determination. The management plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to any work being done at the site. 2. If the arborist determines that removal of one or more of the trees is the best management option, the tree(s) may be removed so long as the work is performed in accordance with the arborist's report of December 17, 2007 (Section 6.0) or similar, if subsequently updated in the management plan discussed in Condition 1. If any of the trees are to remain, they shall not be topped but rather trimmed and maintained as described in the management plan. If any trees are to be removed, an updated tree replacement plan, planting schedule, and cost estimate must be created by the project arborist (per ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b.iv) that considers vegetation appropriate to the steep slope and drainage of the area as well as the view casement. Specific species, sizes and locations for replanting must be indicated. A maintenance plan for the new vegetation must also be developed that describes ongoing upkeep of the plantings. Both documents must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to any removal. 4. The following erosion control practices shall be implemented: a. All planting must be done by hand using hand shovels. b. No mechanical equipment shall be used in the rear yard. c. Excess soil must be removed during replanting shall be removed from the site. d. Three to four inches of wood chip mulch must be placed over the exposed soils below each plant. 5. All cuttings must be removed from the site except that any wood chips created from any trees removed from the subject parcel may be spread as mulch to enhance erosion control as discussed in (4d) above. 6. Two years from the date of final installation of the new vegetation, the applicant (or his designee) must contact the Planning Division to schedule a final site inspection to ensure compliance with the approved replacement and maintenance plans. If the inspection determines the landscaping to be in compliance with the approved replacement plan, the maintenance bond will be released. 7. All future land clearing and tree cutting work undertaken by those burdened by the McClintick viewshed easement must be done in accordance with all applicable City codes. Strand "tree Cutting File No. CU -08-40 Page 6 of 7 IV. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS 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. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.95.050.B.2 allows for staff to reconsider their decision if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the posting of the notice of the decision. B. Appeals Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a staff decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals The time limits for Reconsideration's and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time "clock" for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continued for the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request. V. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 18.45.045.C. states "Any permit granted under the provisions of this section shall expire one year from the date of issuance. No work may commence on the permit until the appeal time limit has expired. Upon receipt of a written request, a permit may be extended for six months." VI. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land Use Application 2. Applicant Statement, dated May 31, 2008 3. Applicant's Revised Statement, received October 10, 2008 4. McClintick Viewshed Easement — Filing # 8705120211 5. McClintick Short Subdivision Map — Filing # 8611040404 6. S & K Joint Ventures Short Subdivision Map (S-04-58) 7. Arborist's Report, dated December 17, 2007 8. Existing Tree Inventory (Plot Map A) 9. Proposed Trimming Plan (Plot Map B) 10. Determination of Nonsignificance, issued April 14, 2008 11. Letter from Associated Earth Science, dated May 27, 2008 12. Letter from Associated Earth Science, dated July 30, 2007 13. Geotechnical Report from Associated Earth Science, dated January 3, 2006 14. Engineering Division Comments, dated May 7, 2008 Gregory and Kathleen Strand S&K Joint Venture Planning Division 1703576 th Avenue West 7503 Braemar Drive Engineering Division Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Michael Hathaway Ron DenAdet 1526 49' St. NE 902 6`'' Avenue South Tacoma, WA 98422 Edmonds, WA 98020 RECEIVED city of edmonds- JUN a3 2008 land use application DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER A ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 9 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FILE # 11y2N30a40 ZONE 0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/+ 0 HOME OCCUPATION DATE p� 3 Q REC'D BY C l 5 a 0 FORMAL SUBDIVISION FEE I S Q _ RECEIPT # 6 SHORT SUBDIVISION A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE — A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 6 HE 6 PB A ADB OCC A OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT 6 STREET VACATION 9 REZONE A SHORELINE PERMIT A VARIANCE / REA,1SONABLE! ��USE XCFP TON 5 OTHER;�c�nc� Lfnl�a�iIJNC � �(`e,�C�s tn� PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION + � ' ` � L PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) t'C& WfA J PROPERTY OWNER rem L il�k�.S��# 4 ADDRESS 5 26 A i E-MAIL ADDRESS FAX # TAX ACCOUNT # C� j SEC. _ TWP. _,____ RNG. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED] USE CIAt APPLICANT –d' U- ADDRESS . 760'/ i E-MAIL ADDRESS R+ CONTACT PERSON/AGENT ADDRESS E-MAIL ADDRESS S V I Ir 81%,iv' V �vtTws�'.� PHONE # Cowl CC%6C 1''PAk #I The undersigned applicant, and his/herlits 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. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file triis applicatio n the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT �,' '� DATE–� Property Owner's Authorization By my signature, I certify that 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 inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE , 4,17,L/P6 This application form was revised on 1/27/00, To verify whether it is still current, call (42 n L:1LIBP-ARYT1-ANNINC\Pomis & HandLLlsTublic Handouts\Land Use Applimion.doc Attachment 1 CU -08-40 RECEIVE® JUN 4 3 2008 May 31, 2008 DEVEWPMENT SERVICES COUNTER Mr. Michael Clugston, City Planner City of Edmonds 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Tree Pruning, Topping and Cutting Submittal Dear Mr_ Clugston: We, the developers of 17036 76th Ave_ W., hereby submit an application for tree pruning, cutting and/or tree removal permit in a critical area in order to comply with a local neighborhood height restriction covenant litigation settlement. To assist you in reviewing our submittal we have attached the following documents: 1. Soil Engineering report re. Construction of retaining wall. 2. Soil Engineering report re. Removal of Cedar trees 4. Plot map of lot 2 i.e. 17036 76th Ave. W. 5. Plot maps of property before sub division 6. Plot map of rejected sub division 7. Plot map of final sub division 8_ Arborist report 9. Soil Engineering report of deciduous /water area The first soil report was completed to comply with the retaining wall engineering permit process. The second soil report was completed for the purpose of determining the viability of removing the cedar trees at issue. These soil reports were completed prior to the arborist report and the soil engineer did not take into consideration the issue of the deciduous (alder) tree roots near the flowing water were the arborist suggests total removal including roots and all. Thus the third soil report. The attached arborist report is supplied by an arborist assigned by Mr. Hathaway, one of the parties in the neighborhood covenant restriction, in collaboration with S & K since this arborist was doing the Hathaway property for his tree cutting permit submittal_ Because of the steep slope in this critical area, we are under the opinion that a far more minimalist approach to be taken. We oppose to any heavy equipment to enter the steep slope or drain ditch in order to remove trees and large tree stumps and root systems. In our opinion, the deciduous alder and the one cottonwood trees are of a hardy variety and should all survive a heavy topping. As developers of this property, we are questioning who would be ultimately responsible and liable should the slope become unstable and cause a slide of water and dirt to enter into the house. On this note, kindly take note that the City rejected our first sub division submittal because they opposed to a road being cut into the this steep slope as one of the reasons for denial. (See attached). Attachment 2 CU -08-40 We sincerely do wish to comply with the height restriction covenant and for all necessary replanting, however within a minimalist approach; an approach which in turn complies with the City's guidelines, and limits anyone's exposure to future litigation as S & K joint ventures does not own this property any longer. Note that lot 3, at address 97029 76th Ave W., has been under different ownership since 2007, and is not a part of abovementioned submittal. Thank you in advance for your kind cooperation and consideration. Sincere �el Ron Den Adel S & K Joint Ventures Richard Kirschner E. NVED OCT 10 2008 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Mr. Michael Clugston, City Planner City of Edmonds 5th ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Tree Pruning, Topping and Cutting Submittal Dear Mr. Clugston: We, the developers of 17036 76th Ave. W., hereby submit an application for tree pruning, cutting and/or tree removal permit in a critical area in order to comply with a local neighborhood height restriction covenant litigation settlement. To assist you in reviewing our submittal we have attached the following documents: ++Soil Engineering report re. Construction of retaining wall. ++Soil Engineering report re. Removal of Cedar trees ++Plot map of lot 2 i.e. 17036 76th Ave.W ++Plot maps of property before sub division ++Plot map of rejected sub division ++Plot map of final sub division ++Arborist report ++Soil Engineering report of deciduous /water area ++Existing Landscaping Plot map #A ++Proposed replacement Landscaping Plot map #B ++Copy of City of Edmonds letter re. Drainage Ditch The first soil report was completed to comply with the retaining wall engineering permit process. The second soil report was completed for the purpose of determining the viability of removing the cedar trees at issue. These soil reports were completed prior to the arborist report and the soil engineer did not take into consideration the issue of the deciduous (alder) tree roots near the flowing water were the arborist suggests total removal including roots and all_ Thus the third soil report. , The property is part of several in the vicinity that are located on the west side of a slope, with a downward aspect to the west. It is situated at the base of a slope with a considerable downward angle. In conjunction with this slope is a presence of a waterway, classified as a drainage ditch. It enters the property near its northeast corner and continues westward through the property_ Neither the slope nor the drainage ditch is classified by the city of Edmonds as an Environmentally Critical Area (ECA). Attachment 3 CU -08-40 -2 - The back yard (eastern portion) is landscaped with about assorted 175 shrubs, bushes and, trees, a mixture of native and non-native species. In some areas the soil is bare, however, it does not slope, and therefore there is no concern over erosion there. While the property does not possess any classified (ECA) steep slopes, it does step downward from east to west in the back yard. Tree Conditions: All of the trees in the backyard of the property are in good condition and health. They include a variety of native species that include the following: ++ Red Alder (Alnus rubra) ++ Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) -t++ Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesil) ++ Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) Nine of these trees are significant i.e. trees as those with trunk diameters of 6 inches or greater. These trees are as follows: ** Douglas fir - Three (3) along the eastern property boundary measuring 8, 14, and 14 inches dbh. ** Western red cedar — One (1) along the eastern property boundary with two trunks, the largest trunk measures 22 inches dbh ** Black cottonwood — Three (3) in the northeast corner of the property, each measuring approximately no more than flinches dbh- * * Red alder — Two (2) located in the northeast corner of the property measuring approximately 8 inches dbh. Combined, the total inches of all these trees are 98. It has not been determined if any of these trees exceeds the height limit per covenant definition, and if so, where on these trees they would need be topped I order to comply with the covenant. Recommendation: To re establish the views we recommend the following with regards to the significant trees: *Removal of the three (3) Douglas Firs *Removal of the one (1) Western red cedar -3 - This constitutes a total diameter inches of 58 inches. *Topping of the three (3) Black Cottonwood *Topping of the two (2) Red alders In our opinion, the deciduous alder and the cottonwood trees are of a hardy variety and should all survive a heavy topping. Besides, given the dense stand of black cotton wood in the northeastern corner, it would be impossible, to plant in that location. Per chapter 18.45 of the ECDC, mitigation for removed trees is to be with up to three trees of same species for each tree removed as long as there is adequate growing space for maturation and the replacement trees should be of adequate caliper to replace those removed. Per these requirements, at 3 caliper inches a piece, to replace the 58 caliper inches removed, require to plant 19 trees. Given the available space on the lot, there more than likely not enough room to accommodate this number of trees, i.e. same species as removed, those being Douglas fir and Western red cedar. Doing so would only result in encroachment into the view corridor. The property width, from north to south, is approximately 90 feet. Providing the recommended 20 feet of crown clearance will permit only four to be planted in a row from north to south_ Because of the steep slope in this critical area, we are under the opinion that a far more minimalist approach to be taken. We oppose to any heavy equipment to enter the steep slope or drain ditch in order to remove trees and large tree stumps and root systems as per the recommendations from the soil engineer (Report submitted). Therefore, it is recommended to find species with narrower crown spreads so as to be able to fit more in the back portion of the lot. Plan A describes the lot including trees already planted. On the most easterly boundary, from the drainage ditch, a row of evergreen trees interspersed with Photinia evergreen shrubs have already in place. In order to provide replacement for the removed trees and to also maintain the view, we propose the following approach, also outlined on the enclosed .Landscape Plan B. ++ Plant 12 of evergreen trees (with 3 inch caliper) interspersed with photinia evergreen shrubs which will thus continue the screen along the whole western property boundary line. -+--+- Plant 4 of evergreen trees {with 3 inch caliper) from the south eastern lot corner along the southern property boundary until it connects with evergreen trees already planted, per Landscape Pian A and B. -4 - Species used should be any evergreen such as the Leyland cypress (x.Cupressocyparis leylandi) and the Emerald Green Arboravitae ((Thuja occidentalis 'emerald green'). *All planting to be done by hand using hand shovels *No machinery is to be used in the back yard. *As much of the soil as possible is to be placed back into planting holes. Any excess soil is to be placed elsewhere on the property or removed. *Wood chip to be placed over exposed soils below each plant. Schedule: Project to scheduled within 2 weeks after issuance of the City permit, weather permitted. We do sincerely wish to comply with the height restriction covenant and for all necessary replanting, however within a minimalist approach; an approach which in turn complies with the City's guidelines, and limits anyone's exposure to future litigation as S & K joint ventures does not own this property any longer. Note that lot 3, at address 17037 76"' Ave W has been under different ownership since 2007, and is not a part of abovementioned topping and tree removal submittal as well as any covenant dispute. As developers of this property, we are also questioning who would be ultimately responsible and liable should the slope become unstable and cause a slide of water and dirt to enter into the house. Thank you in advance for your kind cooperation and consideration. ce on en Adel is ar I irschn r S & K Joint Vent res Attachment 4 CU -08-40 j - - . Actor recording return bo: Boom. WA 98DW JMMT =8T=CTrO"MWM MU C13MPANV rq ell MT 12 Am 0 01 Cq TO AM WHOM TIME PRESENTS CONCEMZ 4,AVM�ma5MUAwi movie. 14 hereby given that NMZL Wil,101, moo=,= VWX `oP&rmt* Estate, Owner Of f the following 44ffQr1b1d 'prportJ*U, Witl-tE4 In the c-—tr Or anch.-Ih. stake Of W..hL.1ta to wits 00 That Portion Of Tract 122. Keadowdaxe according to the plot thereof recorded in volume, Plmt6- On ago5 of 30. racer of Smahoulmu County, Wa8bIvAJt0n, described am Ca4lOvot B -ginning at point an the vast line Of 'mid Tract L22 which is 305'2'S toot K 0-2990ow g of the Southwest corner of said Tract 123F thence 0.2090g" a ]Line Of said Tracalong tho vest t 122,Na dJjFtAW*',t 181.46 toot, thence a7*06,00" 5, a distance of 247.11 coati thence s 1!451101 R a distance of 910.44 fest? thence 8 07.06-00- E. 21.96 f..tj thence 6 2*45,10" Z. a distance Of $1.13 feet to from which the point a point of beginning bears Ws thence R 07113'00" W a distance or 276.43 feet tothePoint of beginning. EXCEPT the v*Gtarly 10.00 test thereof tar. road. WOO )MOWn 08 Parcel I of Edmonds Short Subd1valon No. 6-45-861 as the memo 16 recorded under AMUtorlm Film No, 6611040404, records of Snohomish County, Washington. That Portion Of Treat 122, HaadcFwdftjg teach according to the Plat tb*Vwot recorded in Plato, an Page 3E, L Volume 5 Oi records of Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows, toginning point at a On the West line of said Tract 486.72 122 which Is Maid.Tra2stat N *'20'000 3 of the southwest corner of 1220 which Point at beginning is $07 feet north and 20 fact allot of the went quarter corner of Section 8, Township 27 North, FAnge 4 East W.W.; thence G 1171e6lool R the True point of ' a distance of 147-11 foot to 269i"ning Of this description, thence continuing. 6 87o06900" E. a dIstonag Of 243,00 feet'more 'a' less, to anIntersection with & line drawn parallel With End lyingr the 150.00 fast westerly of line Of Said 'tract -east 122, thence Southerly, a'" sold Parallel line, a distance of 99.44 tests thence R 87.06-00- W. thence K I distance Of 243.00 Cost# 3*45'10" Wthee o True point of beginning. (Also known an Parcel 2 of Edmonds Short Subdivision NO. 6-6-86, as the Same 18 'recorded under Awl(tor's rile No. 8611040404, records Of Washington.) Snohomish county, that Portion Of Tract 122, Headowdals Reach, according to the Plat thereof recorded In Volume 5 of Plato, on page 38, records of Snohomish C* oun Washington, described as follows, BegrInning attya, 8705120 211 VOL 2 0.5 3?AGE2 6 6 5 Attachment 4 CU -08-40 j is point on the west line of laid Tract 123 which of 3o5.26- fast w Q'30'O4" 8 of t7ia soatAi a distanceest of said Tract 1221 thence S 97.13 00' _f nning of this 276.,3 fast to the Trice Point of, ' tenoe of 91.15 dascriptionl thencethence R x•;5'1,00K 1C0" Mr dis of 221.04 Cost, toot , wore or lees o6to — intersection with a3ine drawn parallel with and lying 1S0.00 feet westerly of the east line of maid Tract 1221 thence southerly along said parallel line, a distance of 90.70 fact ress a point from which the True point of beg n ting b of 'S 67.13,00" N7 thence H 67'13'00" W. point of 221.00 toot. wore or lass, to the True beginning. (Also known as parcel 3 of 6dsonds Short subdivision s VO. 6611040 0i rrecards of g howiah Base to recorded under Auditor's rile y�shington.) for and in consideration of benefits to sacra, to herself. bar �ieirs, successors, e»d assigns, by "aeon aL isposinq certain reatrictions gaverning the height of trees and other vegetation on .the hareinabovs described properties for the purpose of Vreservinq scenic views of Puget Sannd from said properties, doea hereby declare# establish, agree, and.eonsent as follows, to witi. 1. No trees or vagetation within the hereinabove described Parcel 1, including such as presently exist or are planted purf11t extend othe above within a aline m dram be permitted to gra or six (6) feet below a westerly parallel with and lying teriy from the lowest line of sight extending weeon interior floor levellevel of the principal residence 3•ie to the hereinabove described parcel 2 or pew{ soul the eastorlymost limits of the raters of Pug As Parcel l morose said from saidparcels2 t Units nand/or re e 3. Furthermore' the owners, their heirs, succesnors, and assigns. of the beroinabove described parcels 2 and 3 shall have the rigqht of entry to eso= parcel for trees °or o. triwaing, topplhq. lience with such vegetation to assure oesp restriction, 2.: ho trees ar„vegetation withie�l�° irsclw,din4i saw f thefhereinaboys daaeiibPd' tlJa,:.to the as pre6ently _-aiiist ar-'��ara�- or extend above? vlthin d4ta, awly be perw.itt to Or�T korai:: is".;!heicl,iaa • 1ir' 161 Moet aF'easued fc+o+a',-I!a:. a the ?bane or:^mead trees or .vegetation. anit, of nd the' owners, their belts, �pprcel e3 ,hails have the the kereinabOva deacrlbad ee of right of entry to said parcel 2 for the purpo trees Or trimsing. topping. or pruning said with such vegetation to assure oompiienoe restriction. 3. No trees or vegetation within tics west including such of the hereinabove described parcel 3, in as presently exist Or are planted pursuant to the within date, may be permitted to grow or extend above last as weasur from natural a height of six (6) v etatlon, and ground at the base of said trees or eg the owners, their heirs, successors, end assigns, of Yal. �O � �pA6�Z G Bpi i :.t ti the harsinebova described Parcel a shall have the Parcel 9 for the, purpose of w" right of entry said trisi , topPin9s or P �q said trsea h Angg mot413anae with such ` vegatatian to aware This instxuwmt shall be a .tavananb running with the lands aped is bimu, upon the undorelgr—d, her hereinabove dNoribed hairs, sa�aasors. and assigns. forever. `a we hereunto Met our afgstatares and seals if 1N gg wunmr, this j7VI day of Jrr`i , 14E7 7►. d. �r 9b 8L "Cee ff ^� rK s� STATS OF VASHINGT�H� :3 covxxr Or'54..'ea4 - -need On this day parsonally before na IgUp_ISL QANICL individual described in seal - be HcCLTxrICxr are lmavn to be the and foregai"g 1astrumAnt. and , who sxecated the within that she signed the gams asatheleja #, ackn wiedged mentioned- act and deed, for the Uses and Purpa head and otfiaal seal this '7rF day of ��. :4 V�'• :.� GIVBN under *Y �.4. rr±//•••r'•. Note Pa$ io 1A 4i7d far the � -. - �•, • � ;�, ,�F?r � Stet o! Naa�ingto� S residing at . AL C ' .� 4/„= •i w9111� rJ, �A . �• St ' _ - _ •�. - yy. - i a.r VOL.2053PAGE26�'7 a 8705120 211 h ••^ _ GARY UEXHI IT A RL S'iEF t�t2AR0 r„IASOI�1f2Y,liJG. ` 0 740+h AVENUE W. � o n � �I r OHM, f 4 L I 0Z: 70 NDr-d i I m INI v��I I m� L'J 1 b ''0 in �p j I m �D C i DQ N I I Dm fl o D fin �X I / m .4) Q C 70 1 1 I =I0 °� Ila, O n. r I g N (11 Ito' N ; A- / p 0 �? $ ro { m v fA b'I_N ~IN 90.44' ( 0 it ort �� N? jyj'j �N - , m� I 110' ta}IJIi..1LIF.S I q ,� i EITHER SID Sti �1 �, a 35' TOTAL N r, cE��_� �IIo52 60inH f75I1IqN.I�-�Q N:.0 . m R ' �°° -{�o oi pp a m �I a j 0 I Q lo' I f1i1t1atJA11 NOTE: Approval of thi'S �.: -4 m I 61THER5109 short subdivision is a1:3s' TOTAL ( �- subject to the conditions . (Aj of r lit eK7TH 61OPS c? � I {� BFsR found in City Edmonds it r N 80.44' I 4 D I b C Mm In s .tb N !" L m rn-�to D m iw I () -Jmn A Q)0M4. o a o s} loll � I I 74th .�---�--�__ 55.E UTILITY �S 'T r Q �" E)C.30`� 4 '19C�IO�a.014Fa) _J W c� AVE• o c _ �� Lo Attachment 5 IF cu -08-40 611040404.1_.................._..:.- - � �h �� y �-���"vi '�,� ;��'•,s` Pim �'3� `r fir'`' �� r :�e� t -,�� xrt ,: av _ , - F -,i' - I rt ' I POEM, 122 3 dG FADOMOA Chu Legend: Bows of sewing: y tai. rr (-~� t` J ) Q6p®L. 6. FM 30) + oarAlc ArA.evr W salx.'1 kr. MalismrJ '„Ex .. I 3 r0'IJe+s. Cyrsz 6ei• _ pai ,¢er• zn, Ir• - a arwa°um�du is /ss++] o to -6L\ M: In ry M yLvemenr de y i na OVY 3SN hJ ry 1 t INCH .. YO In xer+omT: pnP' ��P^noz E � 4ti., v+amw � t- / wee uy+• ��� � - N1 I E Notes: Joint Access Easement �ITr I E f Ia9'me"MV Mainterwnce Agreement? wanwrmsa•1 E E 8 F. ro ar.e¢um to re � ���N1°'Oro" . "� rxo+r sr, !+•e� arpAAllnf S3}.^ E I Aroacie laDwe mroa ix i va F ,a]e] v. (ceassl �" x mmevrs v AwnaAr aw* u Arr so as H wrA:F wr rl�.ss Aa meas v ? : z,. i 70. E 3 $ mra x nr nwt ma ne saa] saxrxaw i ! � � � c S � � s�A at wr v mulm• ern rca°xr m'�AaAcsawr d�»s,ur f 3 �' Ii E BI� E�--18uw�rowu�a^wonv An aww;vaar >k'+�,,r�;.; 3 I I e i tiz 1 rr i ..m rs I rrE r Hold Harm Agreement: �w i..I ! E ,m.w• -___ kTcirH Herr uHs na mixiuo,�'icvA'a aaaas " YI alar xw,u a°mc Axrsw amaa,. ,e®r,lr.�)aa - � y s+E ; - seAm•a+'w mr ar ¢iwos sxu n rar xlaAew r Ks amps rwv.wr a.' b ssa°r]I"�•ua°.wlc.ro°aa°°`.®aaAn Irt raA .�• oaarAQ � auH+m ow¢ Grp �' r � _F � I � � i ` an.:e-agave' r.�ar er��aaaxw or sn onuo roams acv y ' I =' I 1 � - 1 w � IlwrAavrf Ave � a s+v awry � aa+rals � I E 3 i n0F'J.rss ,zmr MErJ. `� s _APP oDnlg; ., .. I2a' !d I � 6 n M Awwm,xm hw � m M arr d iDrprs ' I Tr E��E i !. '�� w I� �/cwm-u�vwba• iC `- n+'�.'��� Som��a..� s`-' x� ry ' f '--- --- -- m.aa• i i - mcr« w .dlauA, .a.� . �I -� .wrlsno ra,'zvr �J�9I 1 z��, rxi,a• ars 't arrc�,—,mss - �'1� ' IAcknowledgments: ]' becleratkn of Sdtidiylslon Cove vents. RIR F udN+,cvl�aJe,r;,nesNa.aw[,ar7Kva«w,cAra�.mxrnr __amu 1'' . lI� earrtrshebn+wd nr>wlr rak aaxem djMS nlRMIHk HAWrfFAAIE Pa w.An agnsr w-ve raaA legal iiC5lt',iptian: r aTerr dv, su a xlle vrsArmer +�^�-ter A� �,'�Ai,'esees� Ago Im,ns asi uaFR MP or Au asw; Arcaa A�.pc,•rAS Ar act„Af NE'fcP xtl wv»•mi•�uc arsrr ccxw,a miwr +°wr+,.w w^Art+ooemnt eiArH. Accmv+cm n,v uaa Se.�c x wm.zz>ecr� mw,c IQeimw tae,gesa'aris weaks rs axorx ax ore rte - w ++xfs eu rws Ar eucr xc w srrarrw,sl oawm: :fai mm ae rexskwso �n ro �wtn �,a uo i rlrt arc wRu m nle a'ae wnl+�avr. xst nr xnc nr w�e,ra ,assswr '+� aawem Fa,nwsr paM,µv AGs ryA ae I@s Ab ISTrAm•T 1 31tty Fov Ltif9 Mtl !ul ;IUF.19R BaRYS IRaA_ 1R 4A l pr ros w a PE W4m'+14r IXMNLM?W ASA t � 0.4 M£ M6r iMY Of SW MIG! r]S a� 9 "• M9 9tl crew APrO4f✓m iw! �.mm� M19rEM drAue OlIGr9 GAIL 1K f�Mq aAd1S ara12SRfi E1G 9qN I(%t% MA1 pE.hM m' GSl OF ME SOVMA£51 77Z, nM'IX U' S+ID IAY:r P+ ouM.mtm mvSH els to OiUY k15A31f O,W lM Ad055 Nry 1W OR Wt T+iF �IN„4,r uc A IaRl+L mA� $ av 'RhTe£ M frpemFAsrAL(WP Irk' alST GAE OF >Alai&Gf,u•Aru'laT:uxAdsruct•o•�a%r5 r¢rcE +vnc wxmnsna osxrs ,.1:f ea7 /.> 1 E'er F I, S.W. 1/4+ ICRP. 1/4, SEC. B. TWP. 21 N., RGE. 4 E. W M �F •^ RECOPOER'S CERRFICA rE: SURYEVOR'S CF.AiIF1CATE. Short Subdivision rum nr .---_ - ^•• •F+, �.+�rw ma ,fir mFnecnr PePrsasx'r++s A'srr rl+oe ee ue The West Group Inc. for i4 TN6_ coxParixeo croPv wmr. w daccmrr M oo.•e-Drawer 1, „rc,.r_ ��,,;,,,�, �ex� s x nmeea,a S& K Joint Ventures 1? axvrrs 200501105180 1 PO ] M ama0oexrs d' THE srrnssv P[eeaotr ALs M Ina ae- k x ; s+xwc 0110-x06 pp9g 8oam 5s65,00 - assnu w«,... °+ - atmxd 9NOHIk1la" WIWfY� SJA4HTH0T0N %]E9^lferltt Ave, ate-l"Oaq M.. duxx ar: MrE xW In �'.y�.,�N: v�exe; w'.. eeaor azn-282-7;os sA� o.aw. fr, rz/27/os tori-zr a;,11�y! eewrrn er: sAW r, srlsrr/cw ,� ' °rco+as ro 0.c.w, dr, r" a zo' 1/r F fi :. RECEIVED - .:a. . 1 RLITr CWHTER t, - 14�'r! Attachment 6 CU -08-40 ARBORICULTURAL CONSULTING, €. LE December 17, 2007 Ron Den Adel Soundview Builders, Inc. 2008 RE: View Corridor Management Plan and Tree Replacement Plan 'Depz- 17035 76f` Ave. W, Edmonds, WA. Mr. Ren Adel: This report is provided to you as a fellow -up to our site meeting held at your property on 7& Ave. W on November 28, 2007 and as a means of making recommendations for actions to open up the view corridor as called for in the neighborhood covenant created for the purpose of insuring that views of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains to the west will be maintained in perpetuity. At present, there are several trees on your property, both significant and non- significant in size, that have reached heights encroaching into the view corridor for the houses upslope, particularly that owned by Mt. Michael Hathaway, also in attendance at our meeting on November 28, 2007. 1 have reviewed the site conditions with respect to significant and non-significant trees on your property, available landscape space and height restrictions for trees on your property. This report presents information on the existing landscape, crakes recommendations for opening up the view corridor and mitigation for actions to be taken to open up the views, as required by the City of Edmonds. 1.0 Project History Your property is part of several in the vicinity that are located on the west side of a slope, with a downward aspect to the west. This affords many homes in the area the opportunity to possess views of Puget Sound, the islands and the Olympic Mountains off in the distance to the west. Mr. Hathaway informed me that several years ago, your community formed a covenant regarding tree height with the goal of maintaining those views in perpetuity. This covenant requires that no trees reach a certain height in relation to the height of the house in each participating lot. Your property happens to be situated at the base of a slope with a considerable downward angle. In conjunction with this slope is a the presence of a waterway, according to you classified as a drainage ditch. It enters your property near its northeast corner and continues westward through your property. It is important to note that the residence on this property is not occupled; it was recently constructed by Sound View dome Builders, Inc. and is currently for sale. 1492-3 lits` Ave. RF Mill Creek- WA 99012 Tele.nhnne- 206-755-2971 Attachment 7 CU -08-40 Ron Den Adel RE: thew Corridor Management Plan and Replacement Pian 12/1712007 Page 2 of 8 2.0 Site Conditions As previously stated, your property is located at the base of a slope that has a western aspect. Neither the slope nor the drainage ditch are classified by the City of Edmonds as an Environmentally Critical Area (ECA). The back yard (eastern portion) is landscaped with several trees and shrubs, a mixture of native and non-native species. Much of the sail is bare, however, it does not slope, therefore there is no concern over erosion. A waterway, classified as a drainage ditch, enters your property near its northeast corner and continues westward. While your property does not possess any steep slopes, it does step downward slightly from the east to the west in the back yard. 3.0 Tree Conditions The City of Edmonds classifies significant trees as those with trunk diameters of & inches or greater. Ail of the trees in the .back yard of your property are in good condition and health. They include a variety of native species that include the following: Q Red alder (Alms rubra) Black cottonwood (Popufus t chvcarpa) O Douglas fir (Pseudofsuga menziesir) Western red cedar (Thuja piicata) In total, I counted nine trees that, because of their diameters, are classified as significant. These trees are as follows: Douglas fir — Three along the eastern property boundary measuring 8", 14" and 14" dbh. * Western red cedar -- One along the eastern property boundary with two trunks, the largest trunk measures 22" dbh. • Black cottonwood — Three in the northeast comer of the project site, each measuring approximately no more than 8 inches dbh. Red alder -- Two located in the northeast corner of the project site measuring approximately 8 inches dbh. Combined, the total diameter inches of all these trees is 98. All of these trees are tall enough to encroach into the view corridor for the homes up slope, therefore mitigation of same iorra will be required to re-establish those ARBORICU1 TURAL. CONSULTING, LLC Ron Den Adel RE: View Corridor Management Pian and Replacement Plan 1211712007 Page 3 of 8 views. There are several other frees in the backyard that do not have trunk diameters of six inches or greater, and therefore are not classified as significant. They include approximately 15 black cottonwoods in the northeast corner of the project site. If they don't already, these trees will soon encroach into the view corridor, therefore whether or not they are tail enough at present, mitigation is recommended. 4.0 City Requirements Because the city has not classified the drainage ditch as an ECA, the regulations governing tree removal and replacement on your property fall under fall under the land clearing and tree cutting code in Chapter 18A5 of the Edmonds Community Development Code which specifies replacement for significant trees removed on single family residence sites. This lot is considered improved single-family residence lot that is not capable of being divided into one additional lot. Because of its statuds, per 18.45.430 Exemptions of the ECDC, this lot is not exempt from the preservation and protection of trees. Per section 18.34.075, article 2, of the code, "for each tree removed, replacement planting of up to three trees of the same species in immediate vicinity of the tree(s) which was removed so long as adequate growing space is provided for such species. The replacement trees shall be of sufficient caliper to adequately replace the lost tree(s). Replacement trees shall be a minimum of three inches in caliper and shall be replaced at the direction of the planning division manager." Section C. of article 2 states, "restoration shall also include installation and maintenance of interim and emergency erosion control measures until such time as the restored ground cover and trees reach sufficient maturation to function in compliance via performance standards identified in ECDC 18.45.050." 5.0 recommendations The following recommendations are for actions related to tree replacement, as is required by the City of Edmonds, but also for establishing healthy trees that will not encroach into the view corridor. Therefore, the selected species must be slow growing in height so as to not reach heights in excess of 15 to 25 feet, depending upon where they are planted in your landscape (how far west). 5.1 View Establishment In order to maintain clearance for the views, as required by the covenant, the AR84DRICULTURAL CONSULTING, LLC "/ Ron Dere Adel RE: View Corridor Management Pian and Replacement Plan 12/17/2007 Page 4 of 8 heights of the trees need to be below an average of approximately 20 feet. For all of the trees that are in the landscape, maintaining the views would require repeated topping. This practice would greatly decrease the lifespan of these trees, essentially killing them, requiring removal and replacement in the future. Continuing to top them would only result in killing them. In an effort to establish and maintain healthy trees, any regular and repeated treatment, such as topping, is not recommended. Therefore. I recommend that all nine of the significant trees be removed and replaced with trees that will not encroach into the view corridor. In addition to the removal of the significant trees, I recommend that the non- significant trees are also removed. These include approximately 15 black cottonwoods in the northeast comer of your lot. If desired, the stumps of the removed Douglas firs, westem red cedar and red alders can be ground out. They should not be pulled as this would require access by large Machines which would result in considerable disturbance to the landscape_ They can be left in place provided there is enough space for the replacement trees with the stumps in place. 5.2 Replacement The purpose of mitigation in the form of tree replacement is to install trees that will replace those re€'noved, but also species that will not reach heights into the view corridor. Per chapter 18.45 of the ECDC, mitigation for removed trees is to be with up to three trees of the same species for each tree removed so long as there is adequate growing space for maturation, and the replacement trees should be of adequate caliper to replace those removed. Per these requirements, at 3 caliper inches a piece, to replace the 98 caliper inches removed, you would be required to plant approximately 33 trees. Given the available space on the lot, there is not even close to enough room to accommodate this number of trees. In my opinion, there's barely enough room to accommodate 9 trees, for replacement at a 1:1 ratio. The property width, from north to south, is approximately 90 feet. Providing the recommended 20 feet of crown clearance will permit only four to be planted in a row from north to south. Therefore, it will be necessary to find species with narrower crown spreads so as to be able to fit more in the back portion of the lot. In my opinion, not only is it not possible to plant the number of replacement trees required by the city, but it Is also not recommended that the same species removed, those being red alder, black cottonwood, Douglas fir and westem red ARBORICULTURAL CONSULTING, 6.ILC _.diPfYh. Ron Den Adel RE: View Corridor Management Plan and Replacement Plan 1211 712007 Page 5 of 8 cedar, are planted as replacement. Doing so would only result in carrying on the same problem at present, which is encroachment into the view corridor, requiring maintenance of some form, most hely topping of species that are not capable of withstanding such practices, to maintain clearance of the view corridor. In fact, there are no native trees which can be used as all will eventually exceed the height requirement. Therefore, in order to provide replacement for the removed trees and to also maintain the view, I recommend either one of the following two approaches, or a combination of the two. I. Plant 0 or more (depending upon species) evergreen trees suitable for a screen along the western property boundary, and perhaps some along the northern and southern property Boundaries, as well. Species used should be those which can be repeatedly topped in order to maintain the view. The two most recommended species are Leyland cypress (x. Cupressocyparis leylandii") and emerald green arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis `Emerald Green`). Mind you, this approach would require regular maintenance in the form of topping of these trees to keep them from encroaching into the view corridor_ While both of these species are commonly used as a hedge and can withstand repeated topping, the topping would ultimately decrease the lifespan of these trees requiring their replacement. However, this would not be necessary for several years. The Leyland cypress trees would easily be found in 3 inch caliper stock, however, it is less likely that the arborvitae world be available in such large stock. If the Leyland cypress are used, there would only be enough room for nine across the eastern prop" boundary. However, if the Arborvitae are used, There would easily be enough room for twice that amount as these trees Have a spread of no more than 4 to five feet at maturity. In terms of longevity, the arborvitae would be the preferable selection. 2. The second option is to plant nine or more ornamental trees that are very slow growing and will take marry years, if ever, before reaching heights even near the view corridor. In my research on small trees, I did not find any trees that will not exceed heights of 20 feet in their lives. However, all of the trees recommended below average in height at maturity between 10 and 20 feet and all are noted as being slow growing which translates into many, many years before they even come close to maturity and heights beyond 20 feet. In situations where views are to be maintained, it comes down to three options: no trees, trees to be regularly maintained to reduce height, or small, slow growing trees that will neer to be replaced periodically. ARBORZCLlLTURAL CONSULTING, LLC Ron Den Adel RE., View Corridor Management Plan and Replacement Pian 1211712007 Page 6 of 8 Following are eight species I recommend to plant as replacement for those removed: • Strawberry tree (dwarf variety ), Arbr tus_urtedo 'coma' This tree is an evergreen that will remain short throughout its life. Being that this is the only evergreen recommended, it would be a good candidate for planting more than one. While a dwarf variety, this tree will reach heights of 15 feet over its lifespan. Korean fir Abies koreana — This tree is a slow-growing, short in height conifer/evergreen that does very well in our climate. a Japanese maple,Ocer japonicum) -- There are several cultivars of Japanese maples that can be used, Selection of those that will remain the shortest should be consulted with a nursery professional. a Staghorn sumac {Rhus ty hrp_ __ nal -- This is a deciduous tree that may develop multiple trunks, but will stay low for its entire life. a Japanese Garninus (Carpinus japonica) -- Another deciduous tree, but this one will maintain a single trunk. It is very slow growing so will live many, many years before reaching the height of the view corridor, if ever. a Goldenchain tree. (Laburnum x watererr This is a highly ornamental, deciduous, single leader tree that will stay low for many, many years, if not its entire life. a Japanese stewartia Stewarfia seudocameiiia — This is another highly omamentat, deciduous, single leader tree that will stay low for many, many years, if not its entire life, as well. a ©oq►aod_ (Cornus „s>a) — There are several varieties of dogwood trees, many of which will stay very short throughout their lifespan. Amongst these, 1 would recommend the species Cornus kousa, as they tend to be slower growing and smaller in maturity. These trees are just an example of the many slow growing, small trees available in the nursery industry. rm certain any nursery professional would be able to provide several other plants that would t"at the restriction specifications. And, if the city will allow true dwarfs to be planted, there are hundreds of possible varieties that could be used, and since dwarf varieties are truly dwarf in all aspects, including spread as well as height, well more than nine could be planted throughout the lower portion of your landscape, Regardless of whether you choose to plant slower -growing, smaller trees or dwarves, or a combination of each, it may not be possible to find stock with calipers equal to, or greater than, 3 inches. P RSORICULTURAL Ron Den Adel RE: View Corridor Management Plan and Replacement Plan 12/170007 -Page 7 of 8 In the second scenario, it is recommended that the trees are planted as far west as possible so as to allow for as much freight growth as possible before the trees encroach into the view corridor. That is why the recommended numbers in this scenario are restricted to a 1:1 replacement ratio. Given the limited planted space in the back yard, in my opinion, there really isn't the option to increase the numbers much more than a 1:1 ratio for option 2. Dwarf varieties, however, could be planted in greater numbers and as high up the slope as possible and still remain out of the view corridor for their entire lives_ The accompanying replacement plan shows possible planting layouts per each scenario. Please note that given the dense stand of black cottonwoods in the northeast comer, it may be very difficult, if not impossible, to plant in that location. 6.0 Erosion Control Measures The city also requires the installation and maintenance of even interim erosion control measures. While in some situations, this measure may be necessary, however, l see no reason why erosion is or will be an issue on your site. Therefore 1 see no reason to install erosion control devises, such as erosion control fencing or distributing hay over the surface of the ground. I recommend that the following measures. be instituted to insure that no soil is lost during installation of the replacement plants: 1. All planting is to be done by hand using hand shovels. 2. No machinery is to be used in the back yard. 3. As much of the soli as possible is to be placed back into the planting hole. Any excess soil is to be removed from the backyard, or placed elsewhere on the property 4. Three to four inches of wood chip mulch is to be placed over the exposed soils below each plant. No mulch is to be in contact with the stem of any tree. In my opinion, the only forrn of erosion that could occur as a result of the plantings world be that of the soil removed for planting the trees. Implementing these measures will insure that no erosion happens. 7.0 Use of 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_ Reports may be adversely affected due to the physical condition of the site and the difficulty of access that may lead ARBORiCUL-TURAL CONSULTING, LLC AW Ron Den Adel RE: View Corridor Management Plan and Replacement Plan 12/17/2007 Page 8 of 8 to observation or evaluation difficulties. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by ISA Certified Arborists. leo other representation or warranty i$ made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. This report cannot guarantee the establishment of the plants or their survival following planting as this is ultimately dependent upon how and when the trees are placated and they are treated following outplanting. Cordially, .,1 !_-_= Tony Shoffner Consulting Arborist ISA Certified Arborist #PN- 0909A Arboricultural Consulting, LLC ARB0RFCUL'rfjHAL CONSULTING, LLC Y�� i Irryess, F & � � 74rty E 5 nt ,kk-06 -g,04,9t, ZOS neon N N N II III \\\ \\\ VVV v Lf1 - _ � �v O� rri t7 rrj 0 tri v — us C7n�. Q C0 � O 00 Nco � o €s ,kk-06 -g,04,9t, ZOS neon N N N II � v us 0 a 0 1Y Ingess, E ess d iftility \ NOT20'00'x\ �i cs�wrrrr� \w S N �P �+ -P k'06 � 3 01, 5't'.ZOS a 1 � o b M p cfi c-0 oa a x a a µ: CITY OF EDMONDS �St Is9° 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: (File No. CU -2008-40) This proposal is described as the Strand Tree Cutting permit_ The proponent is seeking a conditional use permit to remove and/or top several trees in an identified Critical Area. A replacement plan is offered to mitigate the proposed work. Proponent: Greg and Kathleen Strand (rep. S&K Joint Venture, LLC) Location of proposal, including street address if any: 17035 76'h Avenue West (ID # 00513100012224). Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The lead agency 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. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(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_ There is no comment period for this 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 January 30, 2009. Project Planner: Mike Clugston, Planner Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1425-771-0220 Date: J GInU Signature: �r reo have 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 January 30, 2009. 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 January 16, 2009, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office_ Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist_ Attachment 10 SEPA DNS.DLIC Page 1 of 2 CU -08-40 IR3109.SEPA • Mailed SEPA Determination to properties within 300 feet of the site. • Mailed SEPA Determination and the Environmental Checklist to the following: XX Environmental Review Section Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 XX Richard Kirschner S&K Joint Venture, LLC 7503 Braemar Drive Edmonds, WA 98026 pc: File No. ADB -2008-40 SEPA Notebook XX Gregand Kathleen Strand 1703576`h Avenue W. Edmonds. WA 98026 City of Edmonds Zoning Map, November 18, 2008 Page 2 of 2 SEPA DNS.DOC 7113/09.SEPA Associated Earth Sciences, it-tc. :; 0 N CefeG an�y Gw 25 Veatyof service May 27, 2008 Project No_ KE050728A Soundview Romebuilders, Inc. 902 6"' Avenue South Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Mr. Ron Den Adel Subject: CuttinglReplacemeat of Trees on Slope 17035 76'' Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Mr. Den Adel: As requested, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) is pleased to provide this letter presenting our opinion regarding removallcutting of several trees from the slope located behind (east) of the above -referenced. address. This letter is based on our visit to the site on July 25, 2007, our previous work at the site, as summarized in our geotechnical engineering report for the lot dated January 3, 2006, and review of a draft letter prepared by Arboricultural Consulting LLC. The subject site consists of a multi --story, single-fannily residence constructed into the bottom of a slope that is inclined at approximately 1.5H:1V (fforizonW: Vertical). The finished, landscaped slope behind the house is separated from a small, level backyard by a rockery. The slope itself is primarily covered with low -growing vegetation except for three larger evergreen trees located near the back property line and a clump of deciduous trees at the northeast corner of the lot. The slope continues uphill to the east and forms the backyard of the neighboring house to the east. A channelized stream nuns down the north side of the lot. Based on the soil and slope conditions we have identified in our previous work at the site, in our opinion, cutting of the three taller evergreen trees and the clump of deciduous trees located near the back property lime will not adversely impact the stability of the subject slope. In our opinion, complete removal of the trees would require large equipment for which there is no Kirkland ■ Everett Tacoma 425-827-770.1 425-259-0522 253-722-2992 www.aesgeo.com Attachment 11 CU -08-40 access and resulting site disturbance that could damage the channelized stream that runs nearly. We recommend. leaving the stumps of the evergreen trees in place to aid in stabilizing shallow soils around the stamps. For this purpose, it does not matter if the trees live or die. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call us at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington Jon N. Sondergaard, P.G., P.E.G. Principal Engineering Geologist JNSAd KE05072SA3 ProjectsUM5072MENVJP 2 07/31/2007 11:25 4258277701 FAX Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 6e� 225 vain ofse July 30, 2007 Project No. KE050728A Soundview Hornebuilders, lne. 902 6" Avenue South Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Mr_ Ran Den Adel Subject: Cutting of 'frees on Critical Slope 17035 76" Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Mr. ben Adel: p.1 PAGE 02/03 As requested, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) is pleased to provide this Jetter presenting our opinion regarding removal of several trees from the slope located behind (east) of the above -referenced address. TJtis letter is based on our visit to the site on July 25, 20107 and our previous work at the site, as summarized in our geotechnical engineering report for the lot dated January 3, 2005. The Subject site consists of a multi -story, single-family residence constructed into -the bottom of a slope that is inclined at approximately I.5H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical). The finished, landscaped slope behind the house is separated from a small, level backyard by a rockery. The slope itself is primarily coverers with low growing vegetation except for three larger evergreen trees located near the back property line and a clump of deciduous trees at the northeast corner of the lot. The slope continues uphill to the east and forms the backyard of the neighboring house to the east. A channelized stream runs down the north side of the lot. Based OR the soil and slope conditions we have identified in our previous work at Cne site, in our opinion, cutting of the three taller evergreen trees and the clump of deciduous trees located near the back property line will not adversely impact the stability of the subject supe We recommend leaving the stumps of the evergreen trees in place to aid in stabilizing shallow soils around the stumps. Kuidand Ofi'im • 911 F&_hAvanue, Suite 100 - Kirkland, WA 98©33 -Pi( ) 827 M • P � (4251827 i�E7- c€ttt •z�tit� �, ,sua �-�,voA98201-P1(425)259-0522-F1(425)25234as Attachment 12 "``°' CU -08-40 p.4 0713112007 11:25 4258277701 FAX PAGE 03103 We appreciate the opportuaiq to be of service to you on tM8 project. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call us at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington 704L � 7 d Geo nd(ir-q and .Ton N. Sondergaard, P.G. , P -E. G. Principal Engineering Geologist JNW(( XM50728A2 €r0j=98ffM0728lKf '.VP 2 J r 0i.'$4I209b 12=83 4258275424 R SF PAGE 0211A Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. r January 3, 2006 Profect No. KE0595 JA S!ouad'view Horrmbudders 902 & Avenue South Edmonds, vVasbington 98020 Atterdion : Mr. Rua [Deft Adel 'N Subject'. Subsurface Explomdou and Geotechnical Engineering Letter Ri�-po t Proposed Edrwnds Two-L-ot Short Plat 17039 76S° Avenue Fest Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. dent Adel, This letter sitlI1m.-aizes the reSulLs of our subsurface explor-scion perforri-i-ed yeste-Tda r, and provides design criteria for foundations and retai-fling bails for the m -o proPQSFd homes to be built on the sul ect property. A geotechnical report is required for tris praperzy based on Section 19.10 of the Citi of Edmonds Mu icin:0 � i for proper-, i wkh slope inclination; exceeding 15 percent and Cit} of .Edv:�oi ds re -view ca xr,er+ts issued for your project: oto. December 28, 2005. Subsurface ;ti x oration We cornpiett_-d one exploration pit itc each buildinge euveiopr or j ary 2, 2006. In the nortneina lot (EP -2,,, Ure encountered l{) inches of topsoil cater 3 feet of m-En-d;ur: stiff/dense sandy silt to silty sand overlying medium der:se gradiug to dense sand wib silt to a depth of 11 feet (approximate elevation 11"1)_ Beaanib the sand_ we flrtcouutered bard gray silt to the maximum depth explored of 12 feet - In the southern lot (EP -I), we encountered 12 inches of topsf)il neer 1 tcoe .,f loose sand with roots overlying brows' gratli_ng to gray, Medium stiff' grading to lard, saiady silt 4 -)the maximunn depth explored. of 10 feet (approximate �levatio_n 11 ). le4ratien estimate.3 are based o"- plotting- the exploration pit locations on a site survey provided by you (photocopy attached). Veit' slow, percbed ground wamr s epage was observer at µ depth of 4 feet in the pit completed for the norih lot (l^P-2), and at 2 feet "'ji'f :in tb-- „;it excavated for the south lot (ET -1;_ seepage depth represents the coutact between Ch'- loose h'loose slurncial sediments and underlying deenser Samples were coPected at Pa9f l_O k_ f .Ul.0 '.W '!4.7 cL tivere '4: , h Hewi"_ r...; , Suitc L 7v9-.; 91104/200& 12.033 4253275424 ASSY each strata charrjdc. P. S PAGE. 03110 Vie interpreted the sand to be Vashou advance oumt ash and the ;,ilt to be Pre --brazier sediments consistent with those Napped on 11�_ "Co osi:e Geologic Map o� the Sno- King Area, " Booth et. al., 20134. Advance out -%,ash consists of sand that has been d cisitr d in front of an advancing glacial ice sheet and has bmn aw!rridde-n by several thmsaud feet of glacial ice- Pre -Frazier fine grained sediments are sediments deposited ir. a large pros -glacial lake formed by ive-dams. that blocked the c udt ;t to Lite Pacific Ocean prior to the advance of Lho ice sheet that eventually ccrveied the Puget SouiA'tea during the Frazicr olaciafion. As such, this material has also been aver --Consolidated by the weight of *facial ice_ Recc inendatio arta lei gt�tesi Emsirara D&iqgatio , Measures The site slope& are defined as Erosion Hazard Areas by the Cetyy of Edmonds, Fite surface sediments underlying the site generally oortain silt and rine sand and will b - sensitive to erosion and Mistime, especially iai the slop-Ang Portions of the ;lie. in ordcl to mace the amouat o sediment transport off the site dr rim! coL&"c:t on, the V followin- recomriremdations should be 011o wed- 1. Temporary silt fenccmg should be planed around the itwer perkneter of all clamed are-a;sj and at the base of sloped areas. The fencing should be periodically inspected grid maintained as ncc_rsswy to ciasure proper Nuction. 2., To th? extent pracfi& 1, earthwork -related comt.ractlop shoij3d vroceoi :luring the dri; r pario ds of the year and disturb�ed a-eas s ;_maid bL TeVegeWi -d as soon as possible. Temporan7 erosion control measures should be miaintai:ted until permaiicvt erosion cow7ol measures are esta.blistied. 3. Areas stripped of vegetation dti-Ang construction should be muicbeJ and hydroseeded, replanted as soon as possible, er oth_-ruise prate gid. During winter constrtictiosn, hydroseeded areas should be :.over with cigar plastic to €acilitate grass growth. A. if excavated soils are to be stockpiled or, th, site for reuse, rme.-�tsurcs should be taken to reduce the potential for LrosiDn fto n !he smc kpile_ hese could include, but are not Ihnifted to, covering thr- pilo with p=aspic shoating, the use of low 3wckpijes ip- flat areas, and the use of s"w b des!silt fences around pile �rimeter�. Page 2 of 6 p.7 01/04/2006 12:03 4258275424 .CE51 PAGE 04/10 5. To the extent necessary. wteircemor stvak�s with rock check dams sbould by con -acted to divert stornt crater +rorn construction areas and to route collected storm water to an appropriate discharge locailoll. -6. A rock construction entrauce s1wi ld be provided to reduce the amount of sediment transported off -rite on truck teres. 7, All storm water from ixnpe eable surfaces, including the dr<ivtw2,rs and ne: roofs, should be tightiint-A into approved Aciiities and not be directed onto or abovc steeply sloping areas. jeTOra - Cut Sl�� In our opinion, stable constructicur ,lopes should be the respon-sibdity of the contractor arta should be determined during construction based on actual soil and ground eater conditions encountered_ For --stimating prapc3se�s, however, we anticipate tlsat temporary, unsupported cut slopes in the advance outwash sapd and u -rider yir:g prC- Frazier silt can be piartred at 1-511:11 (Hordortta Vertical} or ttcr. Per vert cvt_ or sr-rumral fill slopes should riot be. sicepe; than 2M, 1V exce% behead tngingwred retaining wails where they should not exceed -H_ IV. These slope angler are for areas where ground water seepage is noc eDcoumtere..d, and assutre tls'aC Stlr$aCe water 15 not a?1CS4V d to flow across the slo; faces. ff gI-O-Und or sin -face water is present whe_u the excavation slopes are exvosed., flatter slope ales W11111 be required. As is typical with eartltwork opei-at;ow, sonic slough* and raveling may occur and cut slopes may have to be ad -jested in the field. in addidan, WISHAiOSHA regulations should be followed at all tunes. Enginearirtg Desi riuvr ia Based on our calcuiations, 'ane east haklment ret4i ing NvaRs for hoth srrucMres must be ;,arap-letely founded within the very stiff to hard, gray sandy silt in girder to reduce the risk of slope failure along the sand/silt depositional plane the is eM-2cteristic of the failure rnecharism , inthin the Meadnwdaie Landslide Complex. Interior spread footia-z foundations and the vest and por;iems of the Ror-th and south walls of the home can be €ouDded in mediam deast to dense brown or gray sand (south lc,,) or rued:um stiff to hard bray silt (north lot). For Tesidential strumses founded urn the pre.sctibe�'i bearina straturn, spread footings may be designed for an allowable fotindation sod bearirg pressure of 1,530 pounds per square four (psfl ircluding berth dead nod Dive loam_ 3 tris bearing presstre is also appropriate fo approved gravular on -sire or imported MTucttuai fill, compaMed under ctir observation and testing to 95 perc'ent of ASTM D:1557 and to a finn, non -yielding condition. The on rite sa€ : is appropriate for Pagc 3 of 6 01104/2086 12 03 4258275424 AESI structural iii use. flowever, rbc silt isnot crrsAertd appmp iate ftyr use as strurtm-al fill due to ins extrerne moisrare sensitivity. Soils in which the amount of fine -grail material (smaller than the No, 200 siev-P) is greater than approximately 5 percent (-measured on the rdinras No_ 4 sieve size) should be considered -moisture-sensitive. Ute. of rnoisiure-sensitive soil in structural M?s should b-- limited to favorable dry weather and dry subgrade conditions_ If fiil cartt"iiug -moderate quantities of silt is placed during wet Breather or if pro= compaction cannot be obtainod, a select aa?ateria: consisting of a clef, free -draining aravo! andfrr sa„d shci td be rased_ Free-il.ruining till consiRts of non -Organic soil with Ehe artioun't of fine-grained material limited to 5 pe -u --tit by Freight whets measeized on thti --sinus No_ 4 sieve Faction and at least 25 percent rued or. the -No. 4 sieve. P. 6 PAGE 05/10 =ase recorrirmerdations; are predicated cn a mefr6er cf our firm observing footing di=d tion excavations to deters ie if the proper bearing capacity bas been reached. Arm,i ipat d szttlernent of foo?ings fovrid3s recomme&de€l shauld be on the order 4f k inch or lesv, W th differential settlme�t Ci 'h inch or less. Howyver. &Stub d rn term not remw.,ed l-om footing trcac:hes prior to footing placement could re,-,ul in increas. sett!s✓][7 eats Structural design of buildhig3 sbould ;oLow 2tYj3 i ?ternadorml Buildinf- Code (IRCi standaxds lysing Site Class `D” as defines] in Table 1615-1. 1, The 2003 IBC seisraic design pazameters for short period (SS) and. 1-=ond p.:ricru (.S1) spectral acceleration -�alues were determined by the latitude and. longiMde_ of the proem site us1n9 �e LErtired States Geological S ev (USGS) Nat nal 5eisnuc Hazzard t -app��g l�tt��t �vvbsi#� ttttp:/learthq_uafie_aasgs_goviha..�lssli. used un the rt -sore v�rrent 2t1f3 dam, tl;c� USES website interpolated ground morons at the project site to oe 1.22g and O.43ZP g, for building pericds of 0.2 and 1-0 secoBd&, r:.spzcxively, with a 2 pence- t chane of exceedance. in :p yeazs. kip slope frorn the east basement retaining walls, short r06—reny srmctures are cmeatly plaaned. We recommend that these struct � � b , replaced lith eagif�red :etaia)ng walls. The walls shauld b� fob at leas- g feet in horizontal distance from the east baseinent retaining wall on tedium stiff/dense to hard/dense native silt or send sedisneiits or on striwtural fill compacted to 95 percent of ASTIM D,1557. The slopes at�ove: flee walls should nee exceed 314: 1 V (horizantaLvertical). Horizontally ba4kfflletd basement Nails wbsch are free to yield laterally at least 0.1 pe,rcent of their height, may be designed using a -u etluivaiert fluid esliaal to 40 pounds ner cubic foot (Pcf). Rally restrained, pori ontaily baclstsll., rigid walls that cannot yi-eld should be designed xcr an equiv2d.-m fluid of 55 pcf. Free-standing ruining ,xalls to be coustructed upsl-ape from the basement %valls with sloping backfill up to a maxim -am- gradient of 3H_ IV should l-- designed using an equivalent fluid of bit pct for yielding conditions, if parking areas ate. adjasrea-it to walls. a surcharge em:ivalent sir 2 fee, of soil should be added to the wall height in determining lateral design force -s. _Pagc 4 of 6 P.5 01/04/2006 12: 03 42581 .24 AESI PAGE eSIIO As required by ibe 2003 MCC, retaining wah design sho include a seismic surcharge. pressure m addition to the Nwvalent fluid Pressures presented above_ Considering the site soils and the recommended wall backliill materiaL-. we recommend a seismic surcha_Tge pressure of 4H and SH psf where H is the waft hei.gM in feet, for the active and at -ret loading conditions. r:speetf iHy. The seismic Surcharge should be modeled as a rectangular distribution with the resultant applied at the iridpoittt of the € sil: The lateral pressures pres-eamd above are based ori the conditions of a u.aiform backfill consisdttg of excavated on-site grawliar (sandy) coil , or imported granWu structural fJI compacted to 90 perecut of TM -b 1557. ,A higher degree of campartion is nos reco-'Wmcnded as this -%AHII increase ie pra&sure acting on the walls. A lowu Compaction may result in settleme t of rale slaw -grads at other rauctures supported ai ovr the walls. i'lius, the w mpfacfiien level is Critical and ;:lust be tested by our t;rnl during placzment. �;rcharges from adjacent footkitgs or heavy cans � ctior� zquip;atesrr roast be adct-� io L -he above values Lateral loads can be resisted by fr-ietioa between the foundation and tete native rrieftmi stif£'dense to hardider-4 e soaL or supporting structural fig soils, or by passive eart'I p.tissure a^iing on the buried pordoas of ate foundations. Ile foundariom Muz k backfilled with- granular smictural M. compacted fa at le& -,f 95- pere.4ri of the md-xiw dry density,_ to achieve the. passive resistance provided below. We jecoinmeri[l ttte R)iiou ing allowable design parameters= m Passive equivalet 'Iuid — 2-50 Y --f s Caefeie:it of friction = _3g Drai Perimewr footing wain; should be provided for aJ retaining was and. 41botiogs. is Ls yinaperative that proper d ai-age be provided so that hydro tic pres3ures di nr't develop agaiust the walls. This would involve installation of a minimum l-foot-wi& blanket drain W within 1 foot of finish grads for the til WaJ height us?ag iniported 'vv:6btd grave] against- the Neaps. The retainhK wall detail dratwiiag syown on r;� building plans we reviewed included ihi.5 drain._ All footing drains, Ahould iso tightli; separately fom roof drains to an approved discharge: location. page 5 of 6. 01/04/2005 12:03 425K 424 AESI PAGE 07/10 C!©srum We trust tWs information meets your eurrew needs_ if you have any questions or require additional ife-marion, Tease cuntactw- iliiZL�F�I�' , ARSOCTATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, W asWagt,oaa ,r r ufy �na� Susan C. Bcckaam. P.E., P.C. senior Project Engineer Attachments: Fierce I - Sim and Exploratior Plat Exploration Pit Logs Cc: Mr. Vince Sessa, Sessa Corporafion PAY- 425-277-75593 Page 6 oft: x/3 p_3 01/04/2606 12:03 4258'- 24 AES! PAGE 09110 ,N av' Z ni uwyt<Or1D � �tGWS t%U'-3 7arw yr fy�+� _ i7ib ET••1MC+h4z4. Joh : #_v_4r � 4 17mg ,b -yr: Aw w. ! \ \ � s \\ E +,J 7 7 X i' �-- [—' i PIT- ��P!C_AtA� 40. L L }4a*mv4Y 7731E 74Th AVE7Z wk N j $ i o i f } f p r � �Ca � ! r7 L h f5, MIX EAZWEhT ftx-rNt45. ma - A Arnociatad Earth Scimncos, Jac- SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN FIGURE i FDMONDS SHORT PLAT DATE 1/06 ERDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROD. W- KE05957A F 11 11 i � 3- o } 4 � _ i SrGa�f7v }te1�S1�7�i j p.2 A1104l2006 12;63 425e '424 AES1 PAGE e5110 LOG OF EXPLORAirioN PIT NO. EP -1 South Home '!'his log is part of the reMt p%spared byAsspd ded Earth sc�snaes, jr w8E) ice: ttsa nar ed pprajeci a7d should be ? i reed together wtt:j that resod fUr COMP ale inlerpfetaWn. Thi summary a 0je-5 =4 to the :ocatFon of this french st the j ; i Come of exe2vation. Sabsutfgce c>ndtrians may Charge ai this tOC40D WK the Passage ci _ime- The da a presented are I a sirrsplrication cfi BMW cax;dit!"s encountered. i 4 - DESCRiPTION Topsoil — 7 -.- Wlesthered Sr�'ti';Cotliviurri — _-_. - -� Loose, veal moist, brown, silty SAND %Mth roots, fnottted. 2 4------- t3re1rraser tSif6 - --- i 3 Medium stiff, very moist, brotrm, sandy SILT, i a i t s 5 Madit" stiff to stiff, very moist, brown, Sandy SILT, little gravel. I Very stiff, moist, gray, sandy SILT, trace ;vet and cobbles. ¢ � 1 i � 1 Hard flow 9'. ' I Bottom or exph.ration pit at denSh 7'J fit I #2 i i I 13 J I 14 Edmonds Short Plat Edmonds, WA 4^ As-gociated Eajh S'dences, Inc, pxoved : otos r rc� rg:i No. K >A ;?A n ;�p�o�•ed;ay: 1 P. h01/0412006 12.03 4258' 124 4ESI FACE ze/10 LOG OF EXPLORATION Pik` NO, EP -2 North Jqorne f FrLc fog es pari Of ff3e report Prepa-ed b%lsso i5d a0 ys. ire. (AES;) for the na-nn W ppeojei amf !RbDuic to together yvHh that repays for come interpreta im. This summary apphas Qnvy� to tf►e iocatson of (,'iis trench at G11a fir of exrr�vatlon. siSsurtace card ions may r37aOge� & #hes Jecation oe� the pas;ag� Of lune- The data praLza �W are 3 Si�'iAf%catinn at actual randn�ris erfcourst2fed. I I DESCRIPTION —._ Y owfl - —_ � i ��eifieredAd;fancs�{tt�vasisr/�+a»tra+it!m --- Medium dense to stiff, very moist, brown, nifty SANID to SP-ndy SILT 9.ave!. 2 { i Advance Out h- ----Medium dense, very moil',, gray, Iine L0 rnmdiurn SAND With silt - Medium dense to dense, very MNst, rust, fire to medium: SAND troth silt i i q i 12 Had. gf. sandy SILT. Bette or expic;afion pit at cfer)ih 12 feet 14 - Edmonds Sho!°t Plat Edmonds, WA Associated Eat Sciences, Inc 92 AWN6 - Project No. KED5957A '1 M06 i f i 17 ig 19 -� f PA v t.2gy�4d hy: SCS Approved by - Edmonds Sho!°t Plat Edmonds, WA Associated Eat Sciences, Inc 92 AWN6 - Project No. KED5957A '1 M06 �.1 l oil_ % h �r II L 1� U �lid^� II � EEf �I (3;CL LjJ �.1 'C'01 x tom-. �_____--_•� '—'.` \ fix., � O'1 � � `,� l oil_ % r� L f S (3;CL � mf LU Ld KD Lz- CL �. Ql c't . F F-' 'C'01 x tom-. �_____--_•� '—'.` \ fix., � O'1 � � `,� l oil_ % r� L f S P.1© ,OL/04/2006 11.54 425E 424 AESF P46E 02/03 Title 19 BUILDNIG CODES Page 4 of 10 it is specifically approved for cxcmption by ordinance by the Edmonds city council. [Ord. 3502 § 1, 2064; Ord. 3215 § 1, 1998; Ord- 3035 §7, 1995; Or& 2938 §§ 1, 2, 1993; Ord_ 2666 § 1., 1988. Formerly 19.05.065J. 19.10-010 Application of chapter. :tiomitbstandiiig any cont*arr provision of tbcsc sections or the Uriifvurn. Building Codc, all applications for permits received..for any site, anv portion of which lies-%ithin a -i. eartb subsidence and landslide hazard arca, s1hai.l he governed by the provisions of this chapter. In addition to all other requrrernents of these sections, the restr.ctions and provisions of this chapter shall apply to all building, grading, fill and excavation perniLs (herein "permits"). A. All applications for permits shall disclose on tbeir..faee whether or not they lie w;ihin an, ea Citi. sttl�sidwrsce and lanishde hazard area_"13 ' 6t7fitia? � q: i r�;ixn�axy -. ; vestrgatiorl by aril app.>cant �vhv9e prcr�s :. _ .. or dna ntl'to a kno��' fia-ard axes; yrs nvlro.aeareawith steep sl or ii:,usira] tbpgean.+�r which has a-biMn" asf mOt ?tet: in ordEr to ossisr the bi*ilding official in fermilling wfidhar "`ids 'pszivisaotS. s u'e's4 > �i ' 9. Certain provisions of this chapter shall be limited in their application to siilgle-familY residential st-metures whetht,-T_ aunt singly or fhrougb a. planned rcsidcntial drvelopmetY (PRD). The plumose of that 1knitation is not to discriminate against multifamily structures and other terms of commercial devl�loprnerr but to provide adequate notice of any risk associated with the stricture to thio olxmrs thereof as Weil as tlrair lessees and business invitees. Since lessees ar.,ri business i::vitecs will ordinarily not, in the nom, al cot se of events, resort to r view of the Iand records of Srohornish County prior to leasit?g e, reYiderce or prior to snaking a decision whether to stii:op a3; ol;kc wrise patrn-jji7.p a commercial establisb.rne€nt, .he- property �,x'izcr's ability to provitle adequate rictice of the risk asW-_iztcd withbi occ-�.pancy of a suu!ciu;e thcSe reguiatiors is i.lnpaired. Ther,;lona, certain provisions of these ordiriancos shall not ble applicable to building; other than single_ family TesiC'ences, C. Nothing it this chapter sbould or sham be interpreted to guarantee iswuance of a peinii with respect to any property u.Wess the requircmezts of rbe Uniforrn Building Code as amended and interpreted by this ebapter have been met. [©rd. 3502 g 1, 2064; Card. 3215 1, 1998. Fornerly 13.45.010). 19.10.020 Definitions. TM folkwing te;Tns; when used wiffiln titin chapter, shall five the following definitions- A. "Architect" shall mGau a person licerised to practice architecture by the sUate -of Washington. B. "Building official" shall mean the building official ofthe ciry of Edmonds. C "Director" shall rnear_ thv directoT of community services its well as ai;y aWhori_zc d reprr,sentative of the director or corisultxit mired by the director. a In desic-c ' n4 laxi6lid hazard &raa" shalt Milian ahy afva of ; pity which, by: resort t71, exceSsivly 4th sapet, t-safisfc?fy' .}tnuurairr sipri�,�`siailt.ty a r tepogrgiil 'bias a tisk of earth . 'subsia>Yncr- and 1atlt lhd 'a:iia'ri in —cess . of -ja&. ial allawame&-- The 1979 report of Roger Loik:~ Associates, as amcnded by th; 1985 report of L: cocrnginms, 1.oc., and the landslide hazard snaps estab,isined as a hart of said reports, are 11012006 i,"'n- ?,rarr+.M r,. srV/n�xG)7nt,—wsav_tinter#rrt�3rE:c: udmflnd Ql}64l2P8b 1=. 9 4 '275424 AESi P. 1 Title 1.9 BUILDING CODES PAGE 9310 Page 5 of 10 iricoipvrated by k1lis reference and. nude a part of this rhaptcr as Fully as if herein sez forth. t eas xlissi$ o:t' said reaps- as-.havinj a ritk .of eart.}c s��b�d�a�ice � latzd�lyde s` laaaard, ` i si with- ,Fstopi"s t_dr that 15 .per&e i - arm ` w;ucll exhii3}.. S ale c'} �i sit s f' `rhoverner:t Pr inY other =a.identsfied ras having -a Wstory o.t earjh o re'f€i t 4t1a1f tie Presumed M EA'�e soh risk gid• shall 'lig f�c> �? ere tti be ear r. s irsi ri -and Wdslid'd �a "auras: i ms preslst Ption shall be rebuttable and tine decision if the director or building official that ar)y area lies uritbnin such earth subsidence and landslide hazard area sball he appealable as a staff decision it accordance with of CC}C 2Q . -Lo E33.k1q [ 4'y(4j. Cap:es of rhe reports and males shall be inair. aired in the offices of the city clerk, the p[a:rmi 1gg depa„mm�t, and ��ith the bilifdir)g o ictal and shall be available for irspecuoll during all normal working flour. Individja Capias of tae reports and trap may be obtained by the public upon the pa),werlt of th-- CO3i of r;,productio1j. '.,Nothixsg herein shall Aleve an awner of the OWNgation to take all reasonable and practical measures available to reduce or eliminate the risk cr hazard, Mcans a VMon who has earned a degree..€r, geology from an accredited col;eye cr Universitv and has at least five years of exp, 'Cr ; as « p.acti .ng gcalclgist o� lobe year of experience and at least two gears of port. -graduate study, rescercil ;,x teaching. practical CxPexicncz shali i;)clude at 1ea�-!,j three ;ears 1�o.?c "1 aMbed geology and landslide CValuation in -Awe associla'Jon With qU 111iedfr'1"ticin geoo gC€3teci3S3�i;alifC;vtl CFLgiZ1ee-S., �-gists ar:d l . "Cectec}inical engineer" a practicing, gcotec3i2n:cel/czr1 e*tgirt.er iice;aseds a profe.ssionat rival ertgirrer in tae state of Washington Who has a; icast four yea pr fess,onal er tplome—j t as a geotevHnical er.�z.�er in respcsriszt Ie charge, inctudi;ig landWide evzi tenon. G. "L lduive-/tit" rad€ s a persoyt who holds a WasbirlgtGi3 Bede, land sdrvcyor'5 iiccnse. H. "u<tg"' mea• -is the ernirc arm: wjCnJn the beundae:e-s, as described in a 14 `al dRscrlstig,�, of <l e r:rc�e I' that is to be dev�;op i. ` trr:ctz!ral At1 if]Etii" riyC liS pet o� 1icenscd t4p ras.t'ce state of was1•1ington, i szrilctt:ra erginFevrg by the shall mean that the risk of damageth +�..r e proposed ct� �e.3u�►net:t, or to Pf c,it6Ms, from soil instability shall be n)(69.tmal sur iect to the cop d.tlf,,rs sLt `�7rtz'3 in rile repo,`Ts developers nr-der vh- requirements of ECIBC <a_ t { ; aid t :e proposed developtnc111 �vili. not inv?4asQ the l?tten4ial for 5L�11'I1oL'Pi;-3C3i$, lit ii;e event t a`ilritE Vii.$$ an umde,-1, ir,g risk Of movement based upon, deep-seated emr*.h rrlc�ve_�cInt or large sc2ie ea -re' failure which is zot susceptible ofcorrection by ori -site iroprovemer]L,, suc;z h r shall n.)trender a site proposedfor single-faumily resiliences to be p,es-Einled i.;ni-,able for �e pllapyse of this Provision if the xzs;c of probability of earth tnovey,)._nt is rraeas;irec. 1 at 3 pEicc^1;t or 1Fs within a 25 -yeah nenod a1i�1 this hazard, alo, vri�h all n1 &sures taken to correue or reduce it ae finny di closcd in the covenant .required to be exec4sie;1 ti es to yen to ;ui±1; provisi.o,�s of this eha seer, ii1 ce which case the dcfin d- ris:i, may bb aPP:= V as an acceptable cs3nclitiar,. Ptd. 35-92 § 1, 2i? -14; Ord. 3215 § 1; 19s�F. Formerly 19,10-030 Regtilrwd zippjj"tion ,,jobmissio,ls. L 0AMer steal;'. provide a viciirity reap suitab=e for Iocati*g the :ate topo�ap sic map. a - C L'i.C3i r X31€, C�tv IatiC}73s, d ia1.1£d plans and]3rLb1Ej1T3Q rCV,�W by `ill z„-,..,-�lrT-rY�h .-.:rs.- lt,.,1;,-rrJ,��t,-waL• riISJP.�mr#m,"fr's�mn»Tib 9 �a-S; i?`��-- ter �nlate,fri=edt3d l%3/2005 CITY OF EDMONDS ENGINEERING DIVISION REQUEST FOR COMMENT FORM Project Number: CU -2008-40 Applicant's Name: GREG & KATHLEEN STRAND Property Location: 17035 76TH AVE. W. Date of Complete Application: 6/03/08 Zoning: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -20) _ Project Description: TREE CUTTING PERMIT Return comments to Engineering Division no later than: 6/17/08 _ If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: MICHAEL CLUGSTON Ext. 1330 City Department:"q� Name of Individual Submitting Comments: Title: This project would / would not (please circle one) affect this department. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): G o v o e®P/ rec f a A Q✓BS le no- 1-k e _Ai_l rte %t.r�.rCr Yc�e �/ e rd�Q74e /� a� �¢ � �//rr�c.c � Ae-?,?"'49e 3)aE y4 tn��1�'a % ySa,u.�- c G�Cf aAII/�r4 ��` T�i e f1ll.rro�e 1. C. CfC+f /tee � •�A� �� 1 J�4�. cz�GLt ��,OD I21etl� The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is nPPAP I- Date: (1a Signature: Phone/E-mail: s1W/ Attachment 14 CU -08-40