See below for full text:
July 20, 2023
Councilmember Megan Dunn
Snohomish County Council
Robert J. Drewel Building, 8th Floor
3000 Rockefeller, M/S 609
Everett, WA 98201
megan.dunn@snoco.org
Councilmember Mead
Snohomish County Council
Robert J. Drewel Building, 8th Floor
3000 Rockefeller, MIS 609
Everett, WA 98201
jared.mead@snoco.org
Mike Mccrary, Director of PDS and SnoCo Fire Marshall
Snohomish County Planning & Development Services
3000 Rockefeller Avenue, M/S 604
Robert Drewel Building
Everett, WA 98201
Delivery to email: m.mccrary@co.snohomish.wa.us
RE: Ambleside SFDU 19-115780SPA
Dear Councilmembers:
I write today on behalf of Jim Walsh because the current application materials for the Ambleside proposal do not meet minimum code requirements to document tree canopy and retain that canopy as required by code.
On July 6, 2023, I wrote Mike Mccrary, Snohomish County's Director of PDS and
SnoCo Fire Marshall, about application of the requirements of sec 30.25.016 to the Ambleside residential development. Mr. McCrary's response contradicts Snohomish County code, as well as the code enforcement position espoused by the permitting Supervisor, Tom Barnett. (Footnote 1) In addition, the applicant has already violated the code by damaging significant trees on the site, as shown by the photograph at the end of this
letter. (Footnote 2)
The Purpose section of Chapter 30.25, at 30.25.010 includes at Subsection 1, the
following:
(c) Promote the preservation of open space, existing tree canopy and vegetation, and natural diversity and wildlife habitat, using supplemental plantings when necessary;
It is not possible to read SCC 30.25.016 can be read to allow 100% of the existing tree canopy to be removed, as was proposed for Ambleside.
The Table in sec 30.25.016(3) requires that 30 percent of tree canopy be preserved for single family subdivisions. Ambleside proposes a 52-lot subdivision for single family homes, there are no duplexes or multifamily units and each lot will be sold individually. Thus, the tree canopy is to be measured for existing trees.
However, the landscape plan shows a full clear-cut of the site without preservation of any trees. The landscaping plan says: "TOTAL EXISTING CANOPY APPLIED TO TREE CANOPY= 0 SF." The entire proposed tree canopy would be newly planted trees that may or may not survive; the deciduous trees proposed for planting are at most 2" in diameter and there is no provision assuring their viability after planting. PDS is again ignoring clear code requirements and allowing this clear-cutting in their permitting makes a mockery of the Council's intentions.
In addition, the code's allowance for such "supplemental planting" only applies when the existing tree canopy cannot meet the minimum percentage required by the code. In other words, trees planted post-development only count if the existing pre-development tree canopy is less than 30%. That is not the case here.
The clear-cutting of residential properties also destroys wildlife habitat, especially for birds; this has apparently not been considered in PDS's review.
The PDS interpretation of the code as currently applied to Ambleside is entirely contrary to the purpose of the code. PDS should change its interpretation of the code or the Council should adopt an immediate moratorium and assure that the code is consistent with its purpose, as well as promises made to residents of the County.
Sincerely,
J. Richard Aramburu
(Footnote 1) Mr. Barnett's response to email inquiry dated June 12, 2023 states that "Yes, PDS enforces SCC 30.25.01 6[.]"
(Footnote 2) Mr. Walsh's response to Mr. Barnett requested that the code be enforced for the damage to this 100 foot tall, large diameter cedar tree. Note the diameter of the cedar's trunk compared to the neighboring telephone pole.