Loading...
Hazard tree decision STF20180012.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION "C. 199V April 26, 2018 Kent Dietz 742 Daley St. Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Hazard Tree Removal (STF20180012) Dear Mr. Dietz, You contacted the City of Edmonds regarding the removal of three bitter cherry trees on your property at 742 Daley Street. Critical areas are known to be present on that site including steep slopes and Shell Creek (CRA20170050). The trees are located on the steep slope and within the buffer of Shell Creek. Generally, the removal of trees or vegetation from within a critical area or critical area buffer is not an allowed activity unless it involves the removal of invasive species or hazard trees pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.8. Normal maintenance of vegetation is an allowed activity in critical areas. "Normal maintenance of vegetation" is defined as "removal of shrubs/nonwoody vegetation and trees (less than four -inch diameter at breast height) that occurs at least every other year. Maintenance also may include tree topping that has been previously approved by the city in the past five years." In this case, the cherries are larger than 4" DBH so tree hazard evaluation is required. According to the report you submitted from certified arborist Katy Bigelow, one of the bitter cherries is dead (Tree 14) but the two others (Trees 15 & 16) are in fair health and are low risk. The dead cherry is a candidate for removal but the other two are not through the hazard tree process. A tree cutting permit pursuant to ECDC 18.45 must be applied for if there is a desire to remove Trees 15 & 16 at this time. The dead cherry (Tree 14) will be cut near grade but the stump left in place. An exemption for hazard tree cutting is granted for the bitter cherry identified as Tree 14 with the following condition: Two replacement trees must be installed. Two vine maples are shown to be installed in the vicinity of the removed cherry. Evergreen species must be a minimum of 6-feet in height while deciduous species must be a minimum of one to two inches diameter at breast height consistent with ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv. Multi -stemmed trees should be a minimum of 8 feet in height. If you have any questions, please let me know at either michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov or 425-771-0220. Sincerely, aqFt�—"� Mike Clugston Associate Planner Encl: Updated arborist report and planting plan received April 26, 2018 < Katy Bigelow 206.351.1375 arboristkaty@gmail.com April 18, 2018 Keith Dietz 742 Daley Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Dietz: Thank you for having me evaluate trees on your developing property in Edmonds, WA. To evaluate the trees addressed in this letter I combined my field experience and education with current accepted practices as defined by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). In this case, the tools I use to make an assessment are limited to binoculars, a rubber mallet and hand trowel. A visual tree assessment and other methods are only conclusive for the day of inspection and do not guarantee that conditions will remain the same in the future. I was asked by Mr. Dietz to assess three bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata) trees growing near a single family home he is building for risk to the new structure and to the aging stream "deck" structure covering part of Shell Creek (Photo 1). I completed a Level 2 assessment of these trees on April 16, 2018. All levels of tree assessment are detailed in an attachment to this memo. Tree 14: 9.5" DBH (Diameter at Breast Height). This tree is dead (Photo 2). It has failed into the canopy of tree 15. The risk to the home site is low but the tree should be removed to reduce risk to workers removing invasive species and replanting in the areas west of the home. • Cut the tree down close to grade level. • Leave the stump in place undisturbed. Tree 15: 9.5" DBH. This tree is in fair condition and is approximately 25' tall. Tree 13 has failed into its canopy. The base of its trunk is significantly bowed towards the east away from the home. Its canopy is of average form and density with average growth increments. It poses low risk to the home site or to workers within the range of the height of the tree. Although the tree is in fair condition and poses low risk, it could be removed and replaced with a younger tree with better structure that could potentially better enhance the site over the long term. • If removal is chosen, cut the tree down close to grade level and leave the stump in place undisturbed. Tree 16: 8" DBH. This tree is in fair condition and approximately 20' tall. Its trunk is also bowed to the east towards the creek (Photo 3). It poses a low risk to the home site. Although it is Tree assessment — Dietz 742 Daley St. Edmonds, WA 98020 4/18/18 in fair condition removal and replacement can potentially introduce a younger tree with better form and structure that would be a preferable long term tree in this location. • If removal is chosen, cut the tree down close to grade level and leave the stump in place undisturbed. Due to the small size and heights of the trees to be removed site and vegetation disturbance during tree removal will likely be minimal. No truck access is needed to access the site for work and the drag zone (path where debris can be removed to the trunks) is fairly narrow and short in length and is mainly already cleared from vegetation. Although I recommend removing all the living and dead foliage and small trees, there is ample potential to leave long lengths of logs on this site. Over time logs on the ground can become nurse logs for other animals and plants. According to the list of trees Mr. Dietz has already submitted as a replanting plan I find the species and number of replacement trees to be ample to adequately replace the functions of the trees that were already removed and these three trees if all are chosen to be removed. It is my opinion that the function of the trees to be replanted over time will equal or outweigh the function of the trees that were removed including the tree trees discussed above. Thank you very much for calling me for your arboricultural concerns. Katy Bigelow Board Master Certified Arborist PNW ISA member # PN-6039B Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Registered Consulting Arborist® #490 Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 2 of 8 Tree assessment — Dietz 742 Daley St. Edmonds, WA 98020 4/18/18 Levels of Tree Assessment LEVEL 1: The Level 1 assessment is a visual assessment from a specified perspective of an individual tree or a population of trees near specified targets to identify obvious defects or specified conditions. A limited visual assessment typically focuses on identifying trees with an imminent and/or probable likelihood of failure. Limited visual assessments are the fastest but least thorough means of assessment and are intended primarily for large populations of trees. LEVEL 2: This is a basic assessment completing a detailed visual inspection of a tree and surrounding site, and a synthesis of the information collected. This assessment requires that a tree risk assessor walk completely around the tree —looking at the site, buttress roots, trunk, and branches. A basic assessment may include the use of simple tools to gain additional information about the tree or defects. Basic is the standard assessment that is performed by arborists in response to a client's request for tree risk assessment. Simple tools may be used for measuring the tree and acquiring more information about the tree or defects. However, the use of these tools is not mandatory unless specified in the Scope of Work. LEVEL 3: Advanced assessments are performed to provide detailed information about specific tree parts, defects, targets, or site conditions. They are usually conducted in conjunction with or after a basic assessment if the tree risk assessor needs additional information and the client approves the additional service. Specialized equipment, data collection and analysis, and/or expertise are usually required for advanced assessments. These assessments are therefore generally more time intensive and more expensive. Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 3 of 8 Tree assessment — Dietz 742 Daley St. Edmonds, WA 98020 4/18/18 Map Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 4 of 8 ram+ +� 1 _� •r/ • L. 11.. •• '~fir s n ����+tom ,. � • �, r `1 _ � - �'-� wJ'��. • �, � L-` �cl- / Tree assessment — Dietz 742 Daley St. Edmonds, WA 98020 4/18/18 Photo 2: Tree 14. Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 6 of 8 Tree assessment — Dietz 742 Daley St. Edmonds, WA 98020 4/18/18 Photo 3: Tree 16. Prepared by Katy Bigelow Pm c 7 of 8 Tree assessment — Dietz 742 Daley St. Edmonds, WA 98020 4/18/18 Assumptions, Limiting Conditions and General Waiver I, Katy Bigelow, certify that: I have personally inspected the tree(s) and or the property referred to in this report; I have no current or prospective financial or other interest in the vegetation or the property which is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias in favor of or against any of the involved parties or their respective position(s), if any; The analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are the product of my independent professional judgment and based on current scientific procedures and facts, and the foregoing report was prepared according to commercially reasonable and generally accepted arboricultural standards and practices for the Pacific Northwest and Puget Sound areas; The information included in this report covers only those trees that were examined and reflects the condition of the trees as of the time and date of inspection; This report and the opinions expressed herein are not intended, nor should they be construed, as any type of warranty or guarantee regarding the condition of the subject trees in the future; Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions ("CC&Rs") may restrict the number, type and height of vegetation on the subject property, and I have made no investigation regarding whether the property is subject to such CC&Rs; and To the best of my knowledge and belief, all statements and information in this report are true and correct and information provided by others is assumed to be true and correct. I am not an attorney or engineer. This report does not cover these areas of expertise and represents advice only of arboricultural nature. Without limiting the generality of the preceding sentence, it is specifically understood that nothing contained in this report is intended as legal advice, or advice or opinions regarding soil stability or zoning laws, and this report should not be relied upon to take the place of such advice. Katy Bigelow Board Master Certified Arborist PNW ISA member # PN-6039B Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Registered Consulting Arborist® #490 Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 8 of 8 Tree Well Tree Prollaclion fencing and Erosion control rn asums Tree to be removed DALE Y STREET arm SOWN _RIM- 90.30 VfM LEVEL - SIPAS jr PVC W w-USAS — — — — — — ss 31-0 OF C4,t,"n . W Or cw*. —r is r. Alt At 14 LA: 3 30 5 Tree to be removed \ 80% AVERAGE GRAD i". Oil 62 C 11014•j AVE 0 EXI TING GRADE!im 33 32-* Location of IIDE 11 FENCE TA N T REMAIN Vine Maple `VE 34 Replacement Trees