Hazard tree removal PLN2022-0018CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5tn Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
"ne. I STJ
March 10, 2022
Heather Zimmermann
6917 Meadowdale Beach Rd.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Subject: Hazard Tree Exemption (PLN2022-0018)
Ms. Zimmermann,
The City of Edmonds has received documentation regarding a request for hazard tree removal.
Katy Bigelow a certified arborist has recommended removal of two (2) Douglas -fir trees located
at 6917 Meadowdale Beach Rd. The subject property contains slopes greater than 25%
according to the City's LiDAR information, which is considered a critical area pursuant to
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40, and 23.80.
Generally, the removal of trees or vegetation within a critical area or a 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 subject trees are larger than 4" DBH so tree hazard evaluation
is required.
An ISA Tree Risk Assessment form, prepared by Katy Bigelow (PN-6039B) was submitted with
the request to remove two (2) Douglas -fir trees with an overall risk rating of "high". The subject
trees are located on the north side of the home. According to the tree risk assessment form,
the subject trees have bowed upper canopies leaning towards the home which could snap mid -
trunk, due to the high risk for failure of the trees they are candidates for removal. Pursuant to
ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv each hazard tree removed must be replaced with new trees at a ratio
of two to one. Potential replacement tree locations have been shown on the attached site plan
and have been noted as conditions of approval.
An exemption for tree cutting is granted with the following conditions:
1. Any required replacement trees must be planted within one year of removal of the
hazard trees. Please notify the city once the replacement trees have been replanted for
an inspection.
2. Only the two (2) identified Douglas -fir trees may be cut as identified in the arborist
report and shown on the site plan.
Replacement trees that are deciduous species must be a minimum of one to two inches
in diameter at breast height (dbh), and evergreen species must be a minimum of 6-feet
in height consistent with ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv.
4. If a Habitat trunk (snag) of at least 12 feet is provided, replacement trees will not be
required, otherwise Four (4) replacement native tree species must be installed within
one year of the tree cutting activity.
5. Vehicles and equipment shall be located on private property. Should it be necessary to
utilize any portion of the City right-of-way, including the street or sidewalk, to perform
any of this work then the contractor shall apply for and obtain a right-of-way
construction permit in advance of starting work. A traffic control plan will be required
as part of the right-of-way permit application.
6. Contractor/owner is responsible for keeping all debris on site and preventing any silt
laden runoff from leaving the site and/or entering the city storm system.
7. Contractor/owner is responsible for locating all on -site utilities and any utilities on
neighboring properties that could be impacted by the tree removal.
Relocation/revision/repair to any utilities may require separate permit.
If you have any questions, please let me know via email at michele.szafran@edmondswa.gov or
you may call 425-771-0220 to speak with the Planner on duty.
Sincerely,
Michele Q. Szafran
Planner
Encl: Application Form
Arborist Report
Site plan
Pictures
Tree Risk Assessment Forms
CITY OF EDMONDS MyBuildingPermit.com
Land Use Application #1095739 - Hazardous Tree Removal
Applicant
First Name Last Name Company Name
Heather Zimmermann
Number Street Apartment or Suite Number E-mail Address
6917 Meadowdale Beach Rd heather.zimmermann@gmail.com
City State Zip Phone Number Extension
Edmonds WA 98026 2534869844
Contractor
Company Name
Number Street Apartment or Suite Number
City State Zip Phone Number Extension
State License Number License Expiration Date UBI # E-mail Address
Project Location
Number Street Floor Number Suite or Room Number
6917 MEADOWDALE BEACH RD
City Zip Code County Parcel Number
EDMONDS 98026 00751500000600
Associated Building Permit Number Tenant Name
Heather Zimmermann
Additional Information (i.e. equipment location or special instructions)_
Work Location
Property Owner
First Name Last Name or Company Name
Heather Lynn Zimmermann
Number Street Apartment or Suite Number
6917 MEADOWDALE BEACH RD
City State Zip
EDMONDS WA 98026
Certification Statement - The applicant states:
I certify that I am the owner of this property or the owner's authorized agent. If acting as an authorized agent, I further certify that I have full power and
authority to file this application and to perform, on behalf of the owner, all acts required to enable the jurisdiction to process and review such application. I
have furnished true and correct information. I will comply with all provisions of law and ordinance governing this type of application. If the scope of work
requires a licensed contractor to perform the work, the information will be provided prior to permit issuance.
Date Submitted: 2/19/2022 Submitted By: Heather Zimmermann
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF EDMONDS MyBuildingPermit.com
Land Use Application #1095739 - Hazardous Tree Removal
Project Contact
Company Name:
Name:
Address:
Project Type
New
Heather Zimmermann Email: heather.zimmermann@gmail.com
6917 Meadowdale Beach Phone #: 2534869844
Rd
Edmonds WA 98026
Activity Type
Critical Areas
Scope of Work
Critical Areas Review
Project Name: Hazardous Tree Removal
Description of Work: I would like to remove two trees located in a critical region on my property that pose
a hazard to my house.
Project Details
Critical Area Information
Unknown
Page 2 of 2
Katy Bigelow
206.351.1375
arboristkaty@gmail.com
February 26, 2022
Heather Stickney Zimmerman
6917 Meadowdale Beach Rd.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Dear Mrs. Stickney Zimmerman:
Thank you for asking me to provide information about two trees on your property to use to apply
for a tree removal permit from the City of Edmonds.
I was asked by Mrs. Stickney Zimmerman to assess several trees growing around her home in
Edmonds, WA. On February 11, 2022 I completed a Level 2 tree assessment of many trees on
her property and found two in need of work to reduce risk to her home. All levels of tree
assessment are explained in an attachment to this report.
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).
The tools I used to make this assessment were limited to binoculars, compass, diameter tape,
hand trowel, mallet and laser pointer. 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.
The two trees I identified to be removed or created into snags (tall trunks for wildlife purposes)
are both Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) species growing northwest of the home (Photos
1=2). Both are within range of the home by height.
Both trees have very bowed upper canopies towards the home (Photo 3). It is likely that either
could snap mid -trunk with the home being the main target with the likelihood increasing as the
Tree assessment — Stickney Zimmerman
6917 Meadowdale Beach Rd., Edmonds, WA
2/ 16/22
trees age and get heavier. The likelihood of this type of failure is high with the consequences of
failure being high.
The trees are unable to be worked on in any other way to reduce risk other than shortening them.
Snags approximately 10-20 feet high (out of range of the home) can be left or the trees can be
removed altogether. NO foliage shall be left in the area around the trees due to the density of
existing vegetation and to keep tinder low around the home. A few logs may be able to be
scattered throughout the parcel but none shall be stacked. All shall touch the ground and not be
left in a group. Logs may be able to be scattered through other areas of the parcel.
Both trees stand in a City designated Critical Area (Critical Areas Map). Regarding removing
trees in a Critical Area, Title 23 Natural Resources, Ch. 23.40.220.C.b states (my responses in
green):
"Environmentally critical areas general provisions:
b. The removal of trees from critical areas and buffers that are hazardous, posing a threat to
public safety, or posing an imminent risk of damage to private property; provided, that:
i. The applicant submits a report from an ISA- or ASCA-certified arborist or
registered landscape architect that documents the hazard and provides a
replanting schedule for the replacement trees; (This report completes this
requirement)
ii. Tree cutting shall be limited to pruning and crown thinning, unless otherwise
justified by a qualified professional. Where pruning or crown thinning is not
sufficient to address the hazard, trees should be removed or converted to wildlife
snags; (Explained above)
iii. All vegetation cut (tree stems, branches, etc.) shall be left within the critical
area or buffer unless removal is warranted due to the potential for disease or pest
transmittal to other healthy vegetation or unless removal is warranted to improve
slope stability; (Explained above)
iv. The land owner shall replace any trees that are removed with new trees at a
ratio of two replacement trees for each tree removed (2:1) 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
Prepared by Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 2
Tree assessment — Stickney Zimmerman
6917 Meadowdale Beach Rd., Edmonds, WA
2/ 16/22
minimum of one to two inches 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..." (Discussed below)
Based on this code, four trees are specified to be replanted if two are removed. The area in
which the two trees I recommend for removal are growing is already densely vegetated and new
trees may not be easily able to be installed here. If this area is not chosen, the area to the west of
the home bordering the forest is another site for putting in new trees. Both potential replanting
areas are shown on the Critical Areas Man.
Regarding replanting, "...species that are native and indigenous to the site...": The only smaller
growing native tree that could be a good candidate for this area is vine maple (Acer circinatum).
Medium to large tree species good for this site include Shore pine (Pious contorta) or Weeping
Alaska cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis).
Good non-native tree species that would be good candidates for this site include (Evergreen EG
or Deciduous DEC):
• Dwarf strawberry tree (Arbutus unedo 'Compacta') EG
• Dwarf mugo pine EG
• Cornelian cherry (Cornus mas) DEC
• Crabapple DEC
Planting in the fall months is the best time to assist in getting new shrubs/trees planted. Provide
water through the summer months for one year following installation. Provide mulch to
surround the base of individual or groupings of trees up to three inches thick - the preferred
mulch is the product of tree work (arborist chips).
In addition to the trees, many shrubs can also fit the bill for providing canopy coverage and slope
stability if desired. Preference for species will dictate how many are recommended to be planted
in this area. Species include but are not limited to:
• Creeping Oregon Grape, Mahonia repens
• Pacific Wax Myrtle, Morella californica
• Salal, Gaultheria shallon
• Evergreen Huckleberry, Vaccinium ovatum
• Rhododendron
Prepared by Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 3
Tree assessment — Stickney Zimmerman
6917 Meadowdale Beach Rd., Edmonds, WA
2/16/22
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
Identify Results ... -- x
5 Results Found
x
0
(1) Seismic Hazard
> ...
Areas
(1) Parcels
> ...
0
(1) Landslide
>
Hazard Area 40%
0
(1) Severe Erosion
> ...
Hazard 15%-40%
0
(1) Erosion Hazard
III
>
Areas 15%-40%
<
N�
Critical Areas Map
7 C
AHome v Lay... Q. Ide... Landslid... x — due
. / 1
Approximate locations of the trees are shown in blue.
Replanting areas shown in green.
vc�rti �O
Rp
Prepared by Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 4
0.4
a
Tree assessment — Stickney Zimmerman
6917 Meadowdale Beach Rd., Edmonds, WA
2/ 16/22
.r'Ao 7a .
si'�rY lL. ��r<
�y�•
L
Photo 2: Second firs proximity to the home.
Prepared by Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 6
Tree assessment — Stickney Zimmerman
6917 Meadowdale Beach Rd., Edmonds, WA
2/ 16/22
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, Arborist LLC
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
53�2 Client Date 111122 Time '01
Address/Tree location 1 Tree no. Sheet 1 of J
Tree species dbh ) Height 'n Crown spread dia.
Assessor(s) Tools used /W ]f� Time frame
Target Assessment
site Factors
History of failures Topography Flat❑ Slop;F %Aspet_
Site changes NontQ'Gade change❑Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts❑ Describe /
Soil conditions Limited volume
L�tumted❑ Shallow❑ Compacted❑ Pavementovermots❑ % Describe
Prevailing wind directionJCommon weather Strong winds r@'Ice❑ Snow Heavy rain❑ Describe_
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low te Normal High Foliage None(seasonal)❑ None(dead)❑ Normal_% Chlarodc % Necrotic %
Pests/afotic Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches is TrunlSB Roots Describe
Load Factors
Windexposure Protected❑ PartialWFU1193 Wind funneling❑ Relativecrownshe 5ma110 Medium❑ Large❑
Crowndensity Sparse[�PNormal❑ Dense❑ Intedorbranches FmWNonnal❑ Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑
Recent or expected change in load factors
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
.pr r'�� Crown and Branches —
Unbalancedimm y' LCR_% Cads ❑ Lightning damage ElDead twigs/branches❑ _%oveall Max. dia._ Codominant❑ Included bark❑
Bmken/Hangers Number Max. dia._ Weakattazhnr-13 est hole %circ.
Over -extended branches❑ previous branch failure s❑ Similarbanchespresent❑
Crown deaned Dead/Missing bark El Cankers/Gal�rb❑ Sapwooddemage/decay❑
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Conks ❑ Heaood decay ❑ Reduced ❑ h u lion-tailetl ❑
Flush cuss ❑ / Other Resporeegrow[h
Condition(s) of concern
Part Size 'ra Distance Part Size Fall Distance
Load an defeR N/A❑ Mirror ❑ Moderate�'gnifim❑ load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Signfiam❑
DkeAhood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ ProbableL lmmrrem❑ Likelihooddhilure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Prebable0 Imminent❑
yp,Q Trunk— —Roots and RootCollar—
ad/Missingbark ❑'—r Abnormal bark texture/color❑ Collar buried/Not visible❑ Depth_ Stem' ng❑
Codominamstems❑ Included bark❑ Cracks❑ Dead ❑ Decay❑ Con ushrooms❑
Sapwood damage/demy❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls❑ Sap ooze❑ Doze ❑ avity❑_%circ.
Lightning damage El Hearnvooddeay❑ Conks/Mushrooms❑ Cracks Cut/Damaged roots isance from trunk_
Cavity/Nest hole _%circ Depth_ Poor taper❑ Root plate lifting Soil weakness❑
Lean_' Corrected?
Responsegrowth Response growth
Condition(s) of concern Condidon(s) of cyneem
Part Size Fall Distance Part Sim-" Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ SignifiaM❑ Load on dekQ N/A❑ Minor ❑ Modem@❑ 5ignil-0
likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable ❑ Imminent❑ DkeliMod of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable ❑ Imminent❑
Matrix 1. Likelihood —ix.
EmLikelihood
of Impact
MoPix 2. Ri_ak rarino m—w
Notes, explanations, descriptions
Mitigation options
Residual risk h V-r ,
Residual risk
Residualrisk
Residual risk
Overeli [fee risk rating �p Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High � Extreme ❑
Overall residual risk None l➢ Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data T�inal O Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ONO OYes-Type/Reason
taspeed"m mmiatiens Freee OVisibllity OAeeess OVines OReot collar buried Describe
W,