Hazard tree removal STF20180039.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
"le. 189"',
October 2, 2018
Leo Rubstello, P.E.
Deputy Director
City of Lynnwood Public Works
PO Box 5008
Lynnwood, WA 98046
Subject: Hazard Tree Removal (STF20180039)
Dear Mr. Rubstello,
Steven Fisher contacted the City of Edmonds regarding the possible removal of several trees
from a vacant parcel owned by the City of Lynnwood adjacent to Lynnwood's treatment plant
(parcel # 27040700107100). Several of the trees are to be managed as part of a view
agreement; those trees will be addressed separately through land use permit PLN20180059.
Another tree, a big leaf maple, is in poor health and located near Mr. Fisher's house at 16900
761h Ave. W. That tree is located near the top of a steep slope which is a critical area according
to Chapters 23.40 and 23.80 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC).
Generally, the removal of trees or vegetation 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 big leaf maple is much larger than 4" DBH so tree hazard
evaluation is required.
According to a report prepared by certified arborist Katy Bigelow and supporting
documentation, the maple tree has extensive rot and fungal growth and so should be removed.
It is a candidate for creating a small wildlife snag and leaving the stump/snag in place will
preserve slope stability in the area. Replacement with two native trees is required and should
be done this fall after the maple is removed.
An exemption for tree cutting is granted with the following conditions:
1. Only the identified big leaf maple tree maybe removed.
2. The stump must be left as a small snag (5 —15 feet). All downed wood must be
removed from the slope.
3. Two replacement trees of a species native to the area must be installed within one year
of the tree cutting activity. Evergreen species must be a minimum of 6-feet in height
while deciduous species must be a minimum of one to two inches DBH consistent with
ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv.
As noted previously, the remainder of the tree work described by Ms. Bigelow will be reviewed
over the coming weeks through permit PLN20180059. That is a Type II permit requiring public
notice and a staff decision which is appealable by any parties of record to the Hearing
Examiner.
If you have any questions, please let me know at either michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov or
425-771-0220.
Sincerely,
Mike Clugston, AICP
Senior Planner
Cc: Steven Fisher
16900 76th Ave. W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Encl: Arborist report from Katy Bigelow (PN-6039B)
Cover letter
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department Planning Division
Attention: Brad Shipley (long -Range Planner)
91251201
My name is Steven Fisher and our family lives in Edmonds at 16900 76th Ave W. Edmonds WA 98026. The
property parcel is 27040700101000. We live in the residence located above the Lynnwood water treatment plant
on 76th. We are writing this letter with regards to a project we are working on in conjunction with the city of
Lynnwood and the application for a conditional use permit from the City of Edmonds.
We purchased the property at 16900 76th Ave W. Edmonds about 7 years ago. A number of years after ownership
we were notified by our Neighbor (a local realtor in her 80's) that the westerly view adjacent to our property was
supposed to be protected. Naturally I was intrigued to discover this because we have an amazing view but of
course with the trees on the adjacent property growing so quickly it would be a shame to lose our view. So, I
decided to do a little research. Sure, enough after several hours of looking through recordings for the Superior
Court of Washington I discovered a law suit between the previous owner Gerald D Foss's and Anne G Foss and the
city of Lynnwood. The document was approximately 60 pages and goes into detail about many things related to
our property and the agreements with us and the City of Lynnwood. I have attached just 5 pages of the settlement
agreement between the City and the Foss Family and the agreement about the protected view. The Document is
Titled: Superior Court of Washington for Snohomish County No. 88-2-05257-1 Settlement Agreement
After discovering the documents, we contacted the City of Lynnwood to see if they knew anything about it and
they verified that the documents are accurate and that they would be willing to help trim trees and remove trees
to maintain our westerly view. I was asked to go down to the property and review and mark the trees that we
would like to remove and the trees we would like to trim. I have been working with 2 individuals at the City
regarding the trimming and removal of the trees. The Gentleman listed below are my main contacts.
Lester O. Rubstello, P.E. I Deputy Director
Public Works / Operations and Maintenance
PO Box 5008, Lynnwood, WA 98046
Ph: 425-670-5231 1 Cell: 425-754-7194
www.LynnwoodWa.gov
John C. Ewell III, P.E. I Treatment Plant Supervisor
Public Works / Operations and Maintenance
PO Box 5008, Lynnwood, WA 98046
Ph: 425-670-5264 1 Cell: 425-670-5250
www.LynnwoodWa.gov
iif--CEI't,fE RL)t
SEP 27 2618
DEVELON,JE- I, SERVICES
COUNTER
After marking the trees, the Lynnwood Deputy Director contacted me and mentioned we may need to get a permit
as they realized the area we are interested in would require a permit from the city of Edmonds. This is when we
started the process of contacting the city of Edmonds. I contacted the city several months ago and was working
with Jennifer Machuga (Associate Planner) , Jennifer and I looked at the area in question and she mentioned it was
a critical area and would require a few things in order to move forward. She offered to take the information I had
to the Wed staff meeting to see what options we have in order to move forward with permitting. After the
Wednesday meeting Jennifer contacted me and left me a voice mail with instructions on how to move forward. It
was suggested that I do the following.
1. Develop plan for the tree trimming and removal with a certified Arborist. Included in the plan we
should describe the main trimming and then a long-term annual maintenance plan for upkeep.
(Arborist: Katy Bigelow document)
2. Then after this is done have the area and the plan reviewed by a Geotech. (Geotech: Aspect
Consulting documents)
3. Next complete and submit this information along with The Critical Areas Checklist and the City of
Edmonds Land Use Application.
So, what is included in this submittal are the documents listed above that go into greater details along with the
applications for permitting.
In conclusion we are submitting to do the following:
Annual View Corridor maintenance
Year 1:
Complete tree work as recommended by the arborist, including replanting as specified.
Year 2:
• Revisit the view corridor in summer after trees have leafed out fully to determine if more pruning is
needed.
• Determine if any other trees than those worked on in the first -year need pruning at this time. This
may include the larger mature Western red cedar on the south edge of the view or other trees on the
north edge of the view none of which would need major pruning even long term.
• Check the hillside for new alder sprouts and remove young ones as they emerge.
• Ensure new plants have established. Replace those that have died.
• Continue maintenance on the grove of Western red cedars if needed.
Ongoing annual tasks:
Check the hillside for new alder sprouts and remove young ones as they emerge.
Continue maintenance on the grove of Western red cedars when needed (no more than once
annually).
Urgent Note: We also have one tree on the proposed area, mentioned in the plans from Katy Bigelow that is an
immediate risk to our home. It turns out when we had the arborist reviewing the proposed area she discovered
we have a very large maple tree that is dead and leaning directly over our home. We have since shared this
information with the city of Lynnwood and they have committed to removing this at their expense. We have been
instructed to get this taken care of ASAP as there is a hole large enough to fit a person rotted into the backside of
the tree and the arborist is concerned it with fall in the next few months. A large section did fall off on the other
side last year.
We will be submitting for permits as the applicant on behalf of the City of Lynnwood who are the owners.
We thank you for your time and look forward to working together to get the necessary permitting in place.
Steve and Zoe Fisher
16900 76th Ave W
Edmonds WA 98026
425 985 2579 cell
425 678 0321 hm
<-
Katy Bigelow
206.351.1375
arboristkaty@gmail.com
July 16, 2018
RECEIVED
SEP 27 2018
Steve and Zoe Fisher DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
16900 76 Ave. W COUNTER
Edmonds, WA 98026
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Fisher:
Thank you for having me assess trees near your home in Edmonds, Washington. 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. and Mrs. Fisher to complete an evaluation of trees growing on a slope west
of their home and to conduct a tree risk assessment of one big -leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum)
leaning towards their home. I completed a Level 2 tree assessment of all the trees on July 5,
2018. All levels of tree assessment are detailed in an attachment to this memo.
All of the trees on the slope are owned by the City of Lynnwood within the City of Edmonds and
ownership of the single maple tree is to be determined. Approximate tree locations are shown on
Map 1.
The goal of my assessment was to identify which were visually obstructing a protected view
corridor from the Fisher's property to the west and to provide management directions for
regaining and maintaining the view. Details of the protected view are part of the Fisher's
property title.
Photos showing the view that existed when the Fisher's acquired the property were emailed to
me prior to my site visit. I used these photos to compare to the existing view from their deck and
from the living room inside their home. Trees I identified as growing into the original view are
noted in Photo 1.
The slope west of the house drops sharply from the chain link fence at the edge of the Fisher's
lawn area down approximately 25 feet then levels off to an almost flat grade. All of the trees that
obstruct the view are growing on this flat area. Vegetation around the trees is a mix of mainly
Tree assessment— Fisher
16900 76" Ave. W, Edmonds WA 98026
July 16, 2018
native shrubs and groundcovers and blackberry. It is dense and before my site visit provided a
dense nearly year round cover for slope soils.
Prior to my site visit W. Fisher used a machete to create a path to each of the trees and clump of
trees I assessed. Vegetation that was cut down will quickly become a thin mulch layer and will
grow back next spring, likely just as thick and healthy.
Clump of red alder (Alnus rubra) trees: This small clump of very young trees is the main
group of trees currently obstructing the westerly view. Their diameters at breast height (DBH)
measure 2", 3", 1", 2", 3" and 3.5" (Photo 2). Although they provide canopy coverage of the
ground for half of a year while they are in leaf they are not a suitable species to retain if views
are to be protected. Shorter and smaller growing tree species and groundcovers can easily
provide equal if not year round ground coverage without needing long term management.
• Remove the alder trees to the ground and remove their stumps if possible.
• Replant the area with two vine maple trees and up to ten one gallon salal shrubs.
Tree 1: This young Scot's pine (Pinus sylvestris) tree measures eight inches DBH. Its canopy is
normal in density and is healthy (Photos 3 & 4). Overall the tree is in good condition. The pine
does not appear in any of the original view photos provided to me by the Fisher's.
The pine stands just east of one mature good condition Western red cedar. Although both
canopies together create a nearly solid block of any westerly views, pruning or removal can aid
in providing peek-a-boo views again to the west. However, since the mature height and spread
of this pine can be up to thirty by twenty feet high and wide, and since this tree is young,
removal is preferred instead of accessing the slope to maintain its canopy annually.
• Remove this tree to the ground. Leave the stump intact and close to grade.
• Replant the area directly around the stump with up to five one gallon sword fern or
mahonia.
Tree 2: One mature six inch DBH red alder significantly grows into the view (Photo 5). This
size of an alder is still considered very young tree for the species. Although it is providing
canopy coverage for the slope, due to its rapid growth rate it has the potential to block nearly the
entire view corridor very quickly. This tree can be removed and replaced with a species that will
not require topping or long term maintenance.
• Remove this tree to the ground. Leave the stump intact and close to grade.
• Replant the area close to the stump with two vine maple trees and up to five one gallon
salal shrubs.
Tree 3: Although this six inch DBH Scot's pine does not obstruct the view, it is leaning and
failing at its base (Photo 6). It is in poor condition. Rather than leaving it to fail into nearby
good condition trees it can easily be removed and replaced by another tree to provide better
canopy coverage.
• Remove this tree to the ground. Leave the stump intact and close to grade.
• Replant the area with one vine maple tree.
<*' Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 2 of 21
Tree assessment — Fisher
16900 76" Ave. W, Edmonds WA 98026
July 16, 2018
Tree 4: This seven inch DBH Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) has over fifty percent dead
foliage. It has been shaded out from groundcover vegetation and is most likely also suffering
from long term drought stress. This tree will not recover and should be removed to the ground.
• Remove this tree to the ground. Leave the stump intact and close to grade.
• Replant the area with up to five one gallon salal shrubs.
Tree 5: This eight inch DBH Western red cedar is in good condition (base of tree shown in
Photo 7). This however, is one of the major trees new to the slope and with the potential to block
much of the very in a short time frame. Instead of repeated topping of the tree over many years,
the tree should be removed to the ground and other smaller trees installed nearby.
• Remove this tree to the ground. Leave the stump intact and close to grade.
• Replant the area with two vine maple trees.
Finally, one young English laurel hedge is growing at the top of the slope, close to the west edge
of the Fisher's property Photo 8). It currently consists of very loose growing young shrubs
planted in order to create a barrier between the Fisher's flat property and the sharply sloped
portion of the City property. This species is well known for having a fast growth rate and one
shrub can easily and quickly reach thirty feet tall by thirty feet wide.
Managing this species as a low hedge is strongly recommended and is an appropriate method of
long term management.
• Hedge the shrubs to establish their height at approximately six feet from the ground and
approximately six feet wide.
• After pruning, remove all debris from the site.
• Hedging to maintain height and width can occur annually without concern of affecting
the plants vigor. Always remove debris from the site after work is completed.
In addition to the trees noted above, a small grove of Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) trees
provide a dense and averagely healthy grove that partially provides canopy coverage to the
lowest portion of the slope to the road. Their location is generally noted on the Map.
These cedar trees are still young and short. Western red cedar trees can be trained into a hedge
or topped and be expected to remain vigorous if training commences at a younger age. These
trees are good candidates for topping as the trunk cuts will be relatively small in diameter and the
trees will stay vigorous. Topping while they are young will also minimize canopy coverage loss
and establish a good location on the trunk at which future maintenance pruning can occur. This
kind of maintenance can be completed annually without expecting any reduction in vigor.
Annual View Corridor maintenance
Year 1:
• Complete tree work as recommended above, including replanting as specified below.
4.. Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 3 of 21
Tree assessment— Fisher
16900 76ffi Ave. W, Edmonds WA 98026
July 16, 2018
Year 2:
• Revisit the view corridor in summer after trees have leafed out fully to determine if more
pruning is needed.
• Determine if any other trees than those worked on in the first year need pruning at this
time. This may include the larger mature Western red cedar on the south edge of the
view or other trees on the north edge of the view none of which would need major
pruning even long term.
• Check the hillside for new alder sprouts and remove young ones as they emerge.
• Ensure new plants have established. Replace those that have died.
• Continue maintenance on the grove of Western red cedars if needed.
Ongoing annual tasks:
• Check the hillside for new alder sprouts and remove young ones as they emerge.
• Continue maintenance on the grove of Western red cedars when needed (no more than
once annually).
Replanting specifications
The goal of replanting is to minimize access to the slope by removing trees that would require
long term maintenance or topping to keep them out of the view and replacing them with lower
growing trees and evergreen shrubs. A mixture of small trees and evergreen shrubs can help
capture ground and rain water and provide slope coverage without needing to be maintained.
Choose new trees that are at least one inch caliper (largest stem). Choose new shrubs that are at
least one gallon in size. New trees should be planted at least seven feet away from each other
and from other nearby trees but shrubs can be planted within one foot of any trunk bases.
New trees and plants should be installed in fall months when rain is more abundant.
Surrounding the bases of the trees and shrubs with mulch can aid in keeping roots cool and
competing weeds from overcoming them. Newly installed trees and shrubs should not need to be
watered after one year.
One very large and mature bigleaf maple grows northwest of the Fisher's home (Photos 9, 10 &
11). It measures approximately 45" DBH. Its ownership is unknown at this time.
One large scaffold branch fell off the main trunk onto the top of the slope within the last few
years. The area where the trunk failed has now rotted into the main trunk underneath where the
remaining two scaffold trunks are growing.
The north side of the trunk has large and mature fungal fruiting bodies correlated with an
extensive column of internal trunk rot (Photos 12, 13 & 14). The rot column is on the opposite
side of the majority of the weight and mass of the tree which leans towards and over the Fisher's
home.
C'WPrepared by Katy Bigelow Page 4 of 21
Tree assessment— Fisher
16900 76`s Ave. W, Edmonds WA 98026
July 16, 2018
I believe it is a high probability that a large scaffold branch will fail from the main trunk and
equally probable that the base of the tree will fail in the area of trunk rot. Both failures would
fall in a northeast direction over and towards the Fisher's home. The likelihood of either type of
failure causing significant damage is very high. I strongly recommend that this tree is removed
to the ground OR to a short snag between five and fifteen feet within six months.
All foliage and branch debris should be removed from the site. Long lengths of logs can remain
on site or on the slope if desired.
Thank you very much for calling me for your arboricultural concerns.
Katy Bigelow
Board Master Certified Arborist
PNWISA member #PN-6039B
Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Registered Consulting Arborist® #490
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 5 of 21
Tree assessment — F i sher
16900 76" Ave. W, Edmonds WA 98026
July 16, 2018
Map
Red circles show approximate locations of single and groups of trees I assessed on City of
Lynnwood property. Purple area shows approximate area in which the young Western red trees
to be topped are growing.
`k Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 6 of 21
Tree assessment — Fisher
16900 76" Ave. W, Edmonds WA 98026
July 16, 2018
Photos
ij
Photo 1: Clump of alder (red circle) and trees 1, 2, 3 (not seen, approximate location), 4 and 5.
`* Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 7 of 21
Tree assessment — Fisher
16900 76 h Ave. W, Edmonds WA 98026
July 16, 2018
Photo 7: Base of the trunk of Tree 5, Western red cedar.
<9 Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 13 of 21
Tree assessment— Fisher
16900 76" Ave. W, Edmonds WA 98026
July 16, 2018
Photo 8: Laurel hedge.
<* Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 14 of 21
Tree assessment — Fisher
16900 76" Ave. W, Edmonds WA 98026
July 16, 2018
Photo 12: Base of the maple tree. Red arrow shows the location of the mature conks.
<*' Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 18 of 21
Tree assessment — Fisher
16900 76"' Ave. W, Edmonds WA 98026
July 16, 2018
Photo 13: Mature conks at the base of the trunk on the north side of the tree.
Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 19 of 21
Tree assessment — Fisher
16900 76" Ave. W, Edmonds WA 98026
July 16, 2018
Photo 14: Mature conks on the north side of the lower tree trunk.
l- Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 20 of 21
Tree assessment — Fisher
16900 76" Ave. W, Edmonds WA 98026
July 16, 2018
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 21 of 21