19125 94TH AVE W.PDFiiiiiiiiiiii
9194
19125 94TH AVE W
NOTICE:
, . V "]; r an
- N.- F In- A f,
I
The -information . 'shown on the attached
lied for use by the City of
map(s) was coM - P*
Edmonds, its Employees and Consultants.
Th,.e City of �Edm.onds does not. warrant the
accuracy of anything set for,th on these
Map(s). Any person or entity.requesting a
copy should conduct an.independent
orm'atlon shown-c
inquiry regarding the inf
th-�� -map(s), including, but not hm'ted to,
the location of any sewer stub shown. Suc
sewer stubs may or may- not e.xist and may
or may not exist at the location shown.
Neitheir the City of Edmo-nals, nor its
h. a I- I b e 1--i a. b]--e f o r -41- h
emp]-o-yee*s o,r office*rs *s I
I n on this map(5), nor for
infor . mation give' 'ded based
any one representation provi
upon"said map(s).
APPLICATION
SJOREET FILF. for
The City of Edmonds SEDE SEWER PERMT
NEW CONSTRUCTION Ej REP.AIRS
OWNER ....... . ...........................
ADDRESS --- ...... ....... ..............
U.�
E
0
EASEMENT No . ..........................................
I- /b / �-/
........ CONTRACTOR --- CW�� ........................................................................ PERMIT No.
........ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT No . .............................................. BLOCK No . ............................................
NAME OF ADDITION .... ...........................................................
APPROVED
MAY 3 11968
--am - --
Approved:
DATE -3-6
.. ................... ......... By�-
a - ~-.0-45!77
Ty MR
z
V
iCVr ��F:�,rEDMONDS
675
EDMONDS.
L_I.**.D. NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT APR
N DS,
i4 g
'WASH,,,-
7
N,
R6F3ZRT. D. BYFFIG.
V4
ADWIF `V�0!4 W
7:. ,
�v` DATO, Dut Ve
N
UM8914 ci�'I'1`16TAL
LJ
INT
ERFST RAiE
L.Lb. NO.
1� kOPERTY,'j,� V
zoo-,
D 'D-3 LOT' 52' EOMOVIDS SEA
VIEV TR6.,-
D.
WLY1,
E Bko kOST NLY -COR ZD TR TH SWIll, Y ALG L14, S
"A.
S
55 tlw. S 70025"13-1 E 180o7l t, TH 'St-IZ30"..
53, C 23,459 TH S 21 W 127.271 'TAP 0 tl SI.V 139.56 ......
NL 0040 "'o,
'30 TR JO YL Y LN SCI TR T14 Y AL`Q SID
A
FOO-U.C.' TH;.SWLY 20 1 'YHOV (8:�
'01
:7t,
1, T
"14
"'A
c6llection.�
assessment roll is now in the City. Treasurer's office I or..
Ti - I . . I
1_"#�i'j!_F1;;',i T�igjs! to' `:advik`l� that'you may pay all or any, portion of your assessmenf until date shqx-A; abovet.�,After this date' the 'unpai asm
�diiiiided'into'the"number "of installments " noted,a`lio'v'e.rand interibst"onttlib �uiipaid �brtioh �oi the assessment will'be addedt,to th
4,�' instal lm6 t. Int6rest will be,computed on the -unr)aid balance for all,,subsequent installments.,
A'.yearlystatement�-vdll be mailed. to all iodners,paying on,the �installffi'ent -basis.
0
tiei i INSURE PROPER CREDIT. MAIL, R�BRINQ THIS, NOTICE' -WITH YOU. TO' CITY TREASURER.".�,,:�',:'
. !44�1
A
EDMONDS
Call PRospect, 6-1107 when work
CIVIC CENTER— WATER -SEWER DEPARTMENT'
is ready for Inspection. (No Inspec-
lions Saturday, Sunday or holidays.) NO 3013
SIDE SEWER PERMIT
ADDRESS ................... 19125 - 94th Avenue West ....... ..............
.............................................. .................... ...........................................................................................
OWNER ...................... Ro-be.r.t --- D..� ... Byers .................... ........... CONTRACTOR ........ own.er ............... ............................................
..... .... .. .. ....... .....
May 31 68
Permission'is. granted ....................................... ..... 119 ......... for ........................ days to REPAIR or CONNECT a side sewer
With City Sewers in accordance with application on file and governing. ordinances.
ATTENTION IS CALLED TO THE FOLLOWING:
NOTE No. 1�The.owners of the property may obtain apermit to construct sewer Inside property line. A licensed Side Sewer Contractor must
be employed to construct side sewer In street area. Do not cover any portion of sewer before It has been Inspected.
NOTE No. 2—Obtaln full information regarding Ordinance 11.16.030 and Regulations governing side sewers when you get permit.
-nE No. 3—Top of side sewer must have at least 30 Inches coverage at property line and 12 inches inside property line; minImum grade of 2%.
No -bends in grade sharper than % will be permitted.
NOTE No. 4—Trenches in street must be water settled and surface of street restored to original condition. Contractors shall be responsible for
failure due to improper work which may develop within one year of completion.
NOTE No. 5�—It Is unlawful to a1ter or do any other work than is provided for in the permit, or to do any work on the main sewer or Its appur-
tenances except to Insert the pipe into the wye.
B4.10ING DEPARIMEN Appli ant Fill
USE PE
N LJW ILE
PERMIT APPLICATION7 I nside Heavy Lines
.,OB
ADDRESS
NAMIK JOR NAM 9 OF BUSINESS)
1�.
" LOT
PLAT NAMJ:
SUBDIVISION NO.
r)0P_V �� t
DRESS
-1 NO
;'ES E
X
01:
Ll��_
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER ORDINANCE NO
CITY
NUMBER
AA.E
IIELHONE
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
U
W
t
DEFICIENCY OF RIGHT OF WAY
X
ADDRESS
STREET/UTILITY WORK REQUIRED OYES ONO
PERMIT FOR WORK IN PUBLIC R/W D YES NO
U
Ir
UNDERGROUND WIRING REQUIRED 1:1 YES ONO
U
ONE NUMBER
CONNECTION TO SANITARY SEWER IN YES El NO
SEPTIC TANK PERMIT REQUIRED DYES IFN 0
SEPTIC TANK PERMIT NO
(0
(L
.'NAME
0
U
<
M
ADDRESS
11,V 7---11ace- _!s, AE7.
SEE MEMO DATED
_9�dz
CITY
TELEPHONE NUMBER
REMARKS
zo
U
V
E ve r- e-
7
N
STATE LICENSE NUMBER
CITY LICENSE NUMBER
CHECKED BY,
-
M-19
-
VAA I P—I=
-XAt, MEN Cin
Legal Description of Pro0erty (Show Below Or Attach Four C; pies)
0 e 0 -D — 0 --:?
ETER SIZE
I
BUILDING SUPPLY SIZE
M
W
REMARKS
M L7 I(_1 19
z
0
U
In
III
13
HOUE_ 8/0-8 aXIC"144n AX4445P—S
SIGN AREA
ALLOWED PROPOSED
. ENV. REVIEW
COMPLETE EXEMPT
ADB NO.
G_
TH _s w
SHORELINE #
REMARKS
W
VARIANCE OR CU
PLANNING REVIEW BY
YARDS ILOT
;�S_FRONT SIDE 6,REAR
COVERAGE
GAS
NEW RESIDENTIAL LINE
FIRE ZONE
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
HEIGHT
SIGN
AD NON-RES'DENT'Ajr_� RETAINING
DEMOLISH WALL
F�ALTER EXCAVATE FENCE
F� . R FILL X—F-r)
I
ICODE
SPECIAL INSPECT 0 R
REQUIRED
CJ YES 1:1 r I
AREA
OCCUPANCY
GROUP
I
OCCU;ANT
LOAD
PLAN CHECKED BY THIS SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY
EJ REPAIR PRE -MOVE swim
INSP. POOL
OF EDMONDS. LOCAL SALES TAX
SHOULD BE CODED 31.04.
REMARKS
Z
0
U
I'_
z
ILI
CL
W
NUMBER OF STORIES7NUMBER
OF
DWELLING
UNITS
F T
NAT �;E ENE
0
PLAN CHECK FEE
VALUATION
FEE
PROPOSED USE
z
W
0
PLOT PLAN JINDICATE BUILDING SETBACKS,
ABUTTING STREETS)
BUILDING
PLUMBING
U
In
W
0
-W
P
W
MECHANICAL
FENCE
I
z
0
SIGN
2
"Applicant; on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and
successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless
the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, employees, and
RETAINING WALL
SWIMMING POOL
I
agents from any and all claims for damages of whatever nature,
arising directly or indirectI.v from the issuance of this permit. Issu-
U
0
Z
H
. Z
r4
14
E_
SO Date
% ZS_ R-Ot ddress
Street Right -of -Way Existing REQD
Access Easements Existing- REQD
Utility Easement Existing &A. REQD
Lot per Subdivision Plat Assessor Map
Site Plan Checked for:Accuracy.
Underground Wiring Reqd. -
Check Accuracy of Legal Description -
Environmentally Sensitive A rea
AA
Environmental Checklist Reqd. IVA,
Flood Hazard Zone
Shoreline Management Area
Slope, Soil, Vegetation A 14
Stream, Creek, Drainage Basin
);#sting Zoning Per Code
Amenities Design Board Approval Reqd. ADB # Approval
Board of Adjustment Approval Reqd.
Review By: Date: 1171241-1
Existing Water Main Size 42VT
Water Main Reqd. K-50
Service Line Reqd. GLSE
Hydrant Size Existing C�C_
Hydrant Reqd. Per Fire Code Size
Detector Check Meter Reqd.
Cross Connection Inspection'
Fire Department Caments
Water Meter Charge Reqd.
W/S.
Review by: A;Z-
C.-�Ses A-iez
Date:
Septic Tar-d-,
Septic Tank Permit Reqd. Permit No.
Sanitary Sewer Availability Proi.
W., Drawing No. --------
File No.
Side SewerAvailability
W Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee Reqd. et-�' ;q-
Review By: Date: '2>Z91-77
JL AL JL JL
"'
0 e
0 m Ditch E%isting
pc E s t'-n,
W D
V cr R12
Culvert Reqd.
t q d
sizp,,-'
C4
ac"
C, -,in JZI
Catch Basin Reqd.
LC B L qd-
/<-�'/Ind:�cate on Site Plan
C)
0
OU ld -'r _I inaic n
Slioulder drainaj,c miinta hi
col lec i/c
�O/c
e ON n" runoff
u)
u�jo IL
;-�wdiolc rcqd.
cqd_
Indicate, on Sitc"Plwi
S Col -iyd
Soil Conditions. and Ground
t jons
I -later FieldZChecked
R h
Rc\,ic-.,7 hy V Oee��,
,-z
a-102 ,
Street Paving Rcqd.
Curb and Cutter Reqd.
Sidewalk Reqd.
Curb Cut' for Drivew-ay Reqd.
r4 Right -of -Way Construction Pern-Lit Reqd.
Bond Reqd. for Public I=rovmcnts
Street Narma Sign Reqd.
Other Signing Recid.
Pro Permit Site Inspection. made on
0
BY: MIER
WATER
V)
S=
T
ENIGINT- EPJNG
w 'Ir Tr w A& 3m 3K Ix N- Ir 'TrI
?� ?4 ?� F� ?� - -
w �Ar >Z mx
Special Rcquirei-.-)L-1-iLs listed in m=. to Cor-iimmicy Develo-pment Departmnt,
BLLilding Division
BY Date
o All items filled in on Building Pern-dt Application
-BY Date
Drawings Stanz)cd and Notations 1,1-ide-
PL4
BY &-fte
jApproved by Public v!orks Departinent
1v 10-1977
Date J91Y
MEMO TO: Building Division
Community Development Department
FROM: Engineering Division
Public Works Department
SUBJECT: D� — tP.M42'r 'k� CI V-;P :,5- q4 '=
After review of the subject building permit application, we have the
following comments:
/V�/Coordination of the location of any structure with respect to
utilities, streets, property lines and driveway grades is the
lv/Tesponsibility of the contractor.
he contractor is required'to keep the abutting streets 'cleaned
of dirt and debris caused by the construction.
/-7 The "Right -of -Way Construction Permit" is required, from the
Engineering Division of Public Works, for any work within the
Public Right -of -Way or public easement.
Driveway slope not to exceed 14%.
/V� Connection to sanit ary sewer required.
�-7 Septic Tank Permit required, submit design.
Fire hydrant required, submit design.
/-7 Site drainage per code # See approved plans
/7 Curb /-7 Sidewalk 17 Paving required.
/-7 Bond required for public improvements. Submit cost estimate..
/-7 Underground wiring required.
L-7 Approved Engineering Plans required when applicable.
Rev. 7/78
rory�Wea v. herzDerg,
Cit Engineer
Depar ment of Public Works
0 0
q�� " - k_,A- . Aux-`
Robert W. Williams and Associates
Consulting Arborists
16749 Chilberg Avenue, La Conner, WA 98257 (360) 399-1196 (206) 522-7262
William A. Linton
WLFB Investments LLC,
1912594 th Avenue West
Edmonds, WA 98020
6/6/12
Re: Case #COD2012-0062
Overview
APPROVEDAY PLANNING
--A,
V V
a
wmpui-c� (0118/p.
(rou,hn-e T SERVICES
ma,� n+w am ct, + A,�
FMC- E I VED
JUN 13 2012
A violation notice was issued on 4 / 6 / 12 to the owner, listed above, for
wrongful tree removal at the property located at 16612 74 1h Place West in the
City of Edmonds. The trees were located near a stream which is deemed a
geologically hazardous area per City of Edmonds Land Use Code. After an
attempt at remediation was made by the property owner, another letter was
issued on 5 / 21 / 12, by the City's Planning Department, which specified the
requirement that the subject trees be assessed by a Certified Arborist who would
provide reportage and the required forms to assist in permitting. A meeting on
site with the property owner occurred on 6 / 2 /12 and an assessment of the
condition of the trees was made at that time.
Observations on Tree Condition
The trees in question comprise eight Red Alder (Alnus rubra) that were
growing on the edge of the area that had been cleared on several occasions
previously. Review of photographs and observation of site conditions including
trees still in place indicate that the trees were subject to phototropism.
Phototropism in this case occurred when trees responded to alteration in
1
available light. The effect was to cause the trees to over -extend in growing
toward newly available light. The additional light resulted from adjacent clearing.
The photograph at left illustrates the
conditions immediately abutting the location of
the trees. The effect of the reaction of the
trees to the newly available light is to produce
rapid growth that tends to lean. The trees that
were removed were leaning severely; in the
process of failing.
Red Alder are a pioneer species
typically populating areas that have been
opened up by the removal of overstory trees.
Their role is to fix nitrogen in the soil and
provide a suitable environment for
successional trees with longer life cycles. As such Alder grows rapidly and is
relatively short lived, typically attaining a height between 40' and 80' before
becoming senescent, losing vitality and dying back.
As a species Alder is also prone to decay and does not compartmentalize
(wall off) decay well. When an Alder is
wounded the decay associated with the
wound can propagate easily through the
trunk of the tree with little resistance, causing
degradation of wood strength and ultimately
leading to tree failure.
A number of the trees showed old
wounds. The wounding occurred when the
trees were topped sometime in the past. The
photograph at right shows the re -growth
following topping. The trees developed
multiple leaders rather than a single trunk;
2
these multiple trunks are attached at an area of decay and form a very tight
angle; these factors increase the incidence of trunk failure.
In short; the trees that were cut were unstable due to the combination of
a symmetric growth, co -dominance, along with structural defects. The trees
exhibit poor live crown ratio with the branches growing from the upper 25% of the
trunk. This configuration pre -disposed the trees to collapse under ice and snow
load. Examination of the trees following felling confirmed the presence of decay.
Much of this decay could be seen from the ground prior to the removal of the
trees.
ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation Forms have been filled in and are attached to
this report as required by the City of Edmonds Planning Department. The
numbers on the form correlate with the photographs submitted by the property
owner and are also included in the packet.
Re -planting Plan
Hazardous trees that have been removed within an Environmentally
Critical Area require mitigation, re -planting of trees at a 2:1 ratio is required to
offset the loss of tree canopy.
In choosing replacement plantings, smaller growing native trees
considered as understory trees are recommended. This mix of smaller to medium
growing trees will replicate naturally occurring species sucession. The
recommended species are shown below and were chosen for their adaptability to
moist soil conditions, filtered light and shady closed canopy conditions.
Some suggested plantings are listed below and should be selected based
on species availability within local nurseries. The trees selected are native to the
Pacific Northwest, therefore suitable choices in their tolerance of weather
patterns and growing conditions.
• Serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) Filtered light
• Black Hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii) Moist, open areas
• Oregon Ash (Fraxinus latifolia) Filtered light, moist, streamside site
• Pacific Yew (Taxus brevifolia) Shade bearing, under canopy, moist site
3
• Vine Maple (Acercircinatum) Filtered light, shade bearing, moist site
• Pacific l3lack Willow (Safix lasiandra) Filtered light shade bearing moist
site
Plants should be of minimum 2 gallon size and can be located where
conditions are suitable based on characteristics described above, spaced on ten
foot centers. Further enhancement of the site could be made by interspersing the
area with native shrubs; drawn from the list below:
Oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor)
Salal (Gaultheria shallon)
Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium)
Red -flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum)
Indian Plum (Oemleria cerasiformis)
DouglasSpiraea (Spiraea douglasii)
Red -Osier Dogwood (Comus stolonifera or Comus sericea)
Red Elderberry (Sambucus callicarpa)
I hope the preceding information is clear. Please let me know if there are
further questions.
Yours sincerely,
Robert W. Williams, Consulting Arborist
Certified Arborist #01 76A
Certified Tree Risk Assessor #362
4
A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas
TREE H)VARD EVAL UA TION FORM2nd Edition
Site/Address: /667/2 �2LI)111 Pl.io- 'Edf"allds
Mapill-ocartion: AJ / 4
Owner: public ___ private unknown — other
Date: Inspector: be rT IV Hi &MS 800171aa
Date of last inspection.- 1, 12-
HAZARD RATING:
+ 01- +
Failure + size + Target
Potential of part Rating
Hazard
Rating
Immediate action needed
Needs further inspection
Dead free
I nCC bnAnnip I C1110 "W
Tree species: Red 4/der
OBH: 12' #of trunks: Height 6 0' Spread: -30'
minor asymmetry R<aJor asymmetry 17 stump sprout ;-7- stag -headed
Form: F1 generally symmetric 'L
Crown class: 0 dominant I;Kco-dominant El intermediate 01 suppressed
Live crown ratio: .2 5' % Age claw. �rl young [_ tsemi-mature El mature E.] over-mature/senescent
Pruning history: - crown cleaned EJ excessively thinned L4io'pped !_'J crown raised LJ pollarded 1'_' crown reduced E flush cuts 0 cabled/braced
none :D multiple pruning events Approx. dates:
Special Value: 0 specimen El heritage/histor ic 0wildlife Elunusual F-Istreettree Elscreen t1shade F.A.-4<ndigenous F316rotectedbygov.ag.ency
TREE HEALTH
Foliage color @11110'rmal El chlorotic E, necrotic Epicarmics? Y
Foliage density: U normal L-�<parse Leaf size: 21ormal L. small
Annual shoot growth: E excellent D. average L3 poor Twig Dieback? 0 N
Woundwood development: L, excellent . D average LJpoor III none
Vigor class: Ll excellent L' average Laf9i'r' 0 poor
Major pests/diseases: —
SITE CONDITIONS
Growth obstructions:
F I stakes , - I wire/ties LJ signs
0 curb/pavemertt El guards
F1 other
7
J cables
Site Character E, residence U commercial L industrial 'L� p a r k LJ open space L-<atu ral L' woodland\forest
Landscapetype: 0 parkway E raised bed LL3 container E mound 10 lawn El shrub border D wind break
Irrigation: 2 �hone E] adequate 0 inadequate 1--i excessive F trunk wettled
Recent site disturbance? Y (9 r_1 construction El soil disturbance C1 grade change 1-1 line clearing site clearing
• dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifled? Y N
• dripline wl fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
• dripline grade lowered: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50�75% 75-100%
Soil problems: Fl drainage n shallow F1 compacted r_1 droughty "I saline 71 alkaline r___j acidic E: small volume E disease center 0 history of fail
;:J clay 7__.I expansive 71 slope —I aspect:
Obstructions: :-ilights Usignage 7_11ine-of-sight Elview 7-overhead lines n underground utilities Dtraffic El adjacent, veg. 71
Exposurefowind: Dsingletree E-belowcanopy nabovecanopy F1 recently exposed IFI windward, canopy edge I_q'a_*r'ea prone to windthrow
Prevailing wind direction: 'S S LJ OGcurrencp of snow/ice storms Onever 2seldom 0 regularly
OC_(,Qi610A(X( ().&JiAcQ
TARGET
UseUnderTree: r1building Oparking Ltraffic L/pedestrian [/-recreation Olandscape �jhardscape Elsmallfeatures 'L-I utility lines
Can target he moved? Y .- DN Can use be restriicted? Y
Occupancy; L] occasional use 7/-Intermittent use 7 frequent use n constant use
The international Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form,
Wrip nFAPMR
ROOT DEFECTS.,
Suspect root rat: Y N Mushroom/conk/bracket present: Y N ID:
Exposed roots: 7 severe 1_',moderate F_ 1! low Undermined: L severe 'L-J m o d e rate _J low
Root pruned: — distance from trunk Root area affected- Buttress wounded: Y N When:
Restricted root area: 71 severe I.— moderate -] low Potential for root failure: '-J severe E moderate low
LEAN. _7�_ deg. from vertical [:. natural & Zinnatural El self -corrected Soil heaving: Y N
Decay in plane of lean: Y N Roots broken Y N Soil cracidng: Y N
Compounding factors: snow an d ; cc , dcv&A a q c Lean severity- F severe 0 moderate L low
CROWN DEFECTS. Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severee. m = moderate, I = low)
DEFECT ROOT CROWN
TRUNK
SCAFFOLDS
BRANCHES
Poor taper
Bow, sweep
Codominantsitorks
Multiple aftachments
Included bark
Excessive and weight
Cracksf'splits
'/ol
Hangers
Girdling
Wounds/seam
Decay
loll
Cavity
Conks/mushrooms,l)racket
BleedinWsap flow
Loosatcracked bark
Nesting holelbee hive
Deadwoodistubs
Borerstlermites/ants
Cankersigalls/burls
Previous failure
HAZARD RATING
Tree part most likely to fail: Trct
Failure potential: 1 - low: 2 - medium; 3 - high-, .1 - severe
Inspection period.- —_ annual — biannual —
other
Size of part: 1 - <6" i,15 cm): 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm):
3 - 18-30" (45-75 cm)� 4 - >30" (75 cm)
Failure Potential � Size of Part + Target Rating Hazard Rating
Target rating.- 1 - occasional use,- 2 intermittent use;
+ +
3 - frequent use: 4 - constant use
HAZARD ABATEMENT
Prune: 1.'renlGvedefectiveparl L reduce end weight Ucrownclean
E]thin
Eraisecanopy 71crownreduce T`_1 restructure [1 shape
Cable/Brace:
Inspect further: L root crown LJ decay L aerial �J monitor
Remove tree: ( )y N Replace? 0 N Move target:
Y (9 Other
Eff eel on adjacent trees: Q < n e F, evaluate
Notification: Zo vner manager L,_ �9011erning agency
Dalle:(di,//a
COMMENTS
/
4
mP
4YeC :�414,01,r—
A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas
TREE H)VARD EVAL UA TION FORM2nd Edition
Site/Mdress: 166ala Place ti, 4dmon4
Map/Location.-
Owner: public _—, private unknown —_ other
Date: & 1 16 1 112— inspector: Rd 6 e (-T LU i tAd�,( PA/61-764
Date of last inspection: _& / A I I a -
TREE CHARACTERISTICS
HMARD RATING:
-3 + .2- + =_7
Failure + Size + Target Hazard
Potential of pad Rating Rating
Immediate action needed
Needs further inspection
Dead tree
—_ __a - -
Tree #: Species: Ped fildee-
0814: 4v^ # of trunks: — / Height :3 0' Spread: 16,
Form: n generally symmetric .71 minor asymmetry E--m'_a_jor asymmetry 1-7; stump sprout stag -headed
Crown class: I-] dominant 1-1 co -dominant ED intermediate D suppressed
Live crown ratio: 21-5 % Age class: F-I young F44mi-mature F) mature _1 over-mature/senescent
Pruning history: ___' crown cleaned LJ excessively thinned L-4fopped Ll crown raised LJ pollarded i—i crown reduced L flush cuts 0 cabled/braced
�D none D multiple pruning events Approx. dates:
Special Value: El specimen El heritagethistoric F-1 wildlife F7 unusual _1171 street tree -D screen —L.1 shade F-Ti"ndigenous rP3�rotected by gov. agency
Wli I III W,
Foliage color linormal
[I chlorotic
7_! necrotic Epicarmics? Y N
Growth obstructions:
Foliage density: U normal
L.V$I*P' a r s e
Leaf size: 1316ormal L small
I I stakes i-D wi retli es L1 signs Li cables
Annual shoot growth: E. excellent D.
average __� poor Twig Dieback? CY) N
0 curb/pavement FI guards
Woundwood development:
excellent
average F I poor 0 none
LJ other
Vigor class: Ll excellent
U average
L;4 r EJ poor
Major pests/diseases:
SITE CONDITIONS
Site Character C residence 1 -1 commercial L industrial E-1 park �J open space &4tural L woodlandVorest
Landscapetype: L'J parkway L1, raised bed 11 container 0 mound EI lawn 0 shrub border F, wind break
Irrigation: L,-/none F7 adequate 0 inadequate F], excessive E] trunk wettled
Recent site disturbance? Y No 1-1 construction 0 soil disturbance !7 grade change E.I line clearing --J site clearing
• dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N
• dripline w/ fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
• dripline grade lowered: 00;
io 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Soilproblems: '-Jdrainage n shallow F1 compacted Fj droughty 71 saline 7_7 alkaline 7— acidic E small volume E] disease center El history of fail
J clay xpansive _-Islope-1 aspect:
Obstructions: '_J1 lights Usignage -]line-ol-sight 171view '�.overhead lines FJ' underground utilities Otraffic '71-ladjapentveg.
Exposurelowind: Elsingletree F]belowcanopy P-abovecanopy n recently exposed F-1 windward, canopy edge 1566rea prone to windth row
Prevailing wind direction: — SSW Occurrence of snow/ice storms E,never E4eldom El regularly
TARGET
UseUnderTree: I-Abuilding 1__�'parking L_Jtraffic L/pedestrian I,//-- I utili In s
Irecreation L11andscape Dhardscape Usmallfeatures ty i e
Can target be moved? Y (0 Can use be restricted? Y
Occupancy: 11 occasional use 17/intermittent use 17 frequent use F-1, constant use
The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form.
TRPP nFFFrT.R
ROOTDEFECTS:
Suspect root rat: Y N Mushroom/conk/bracket present: Y N ID:
Exposed roots: 7 severe L_ moderate 'I'-- 1� I o w Undermined: L severe �—_J moderate �J low
Root pruned: __ distance from trunk Root area affected: _% Buttress wounded: Y N When:
- I low Potential for root failure: —1 severe E moderate - low
Restricted root area: 71 severe I— moderate Li
LEAN., ____ deg. from vertical E natural I— unnatural 7- se.If-corrected Sail heaving: Y N
Decay in plane of lean: Y N Roots broken Y N Soil cracking: Y N
Compounding factors: -5 DQ Lu cod ; C-e clam C' S, e Lean severitT. F*11 severe Fl moderate L, low
CROWNDEFECTS. Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe. rn = moderate, I = low)
DEFECT
ROOT CROWN
TRUNK.,
SCAFFOLDS
BRANCHES
Poortaper
Bow, sweep
Codominants/forks
Multiple attachments
Included bark
Excessive end weight
Crackst'splits
Hangers
Girdling
WoundsAearn
Decay
Cavity
Conks/mushrooms/bracket
Bleeding/sap flow
Loose/cracked bark
Nesting hole!bee hive
Deadwood/stubs
Borersitermites/ants
Canker8,alls/burls
Previous failure
HAZARD RATING
Tree part most likely to tail: .- 4��hl If T-rce Failure potential.- 1 - low: 2 - medium; 3 - high: 4 - severe
Inspection period: annual —_ biannual — olher Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 crn): 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm):
Failure Potential + Size of Part f Target Rating Hazard Rating 3 - 18-3T (45-75 cm)� 4 - >30" (75 cm.)
Target rating: 1 - ocusioflal use, 2 intermittent use;
+ + 7 3 - frequent use: 4 - constant use
HAZARD ABATEMENT
Prune: I,--- remove defective part L reduce end weight Ocrownclean Ethin Er-aisecanopy _IGrownreduce 7-. restructure El shape
Cable/Brace: Inspectfurther: Llrootcrown LJdecay [—,aerial *_]monitor
Removetree: N Replace? YON Movetarget: Y (N) Other
Effect on adjacent trees: FQ,(one 7 evaluate
Notification: <jner _! manager L?iroverning agency Date: L 1 14, f //
COMMENTS -
IV.
A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas
TREE HMARD EVAL UA TION FORM2nd Edition
Site/Address: 1&6 1.1, W. &dmaads
Map/Location: �J .1 A
Owner: public — private -" — unknown --- other
Date: 6 //,a 1/ 2- inspector: Abberr lu. Ly. - 114,4xr PA1JJ)1,A
Date of last inspection.- & J -L I 12-
HAZARD RATING:
+ +
+ Size + Target Hazard
Potential of part Rating Rating
Immediate action needed
Needs further inspection
Dead free
I REE CHARAto I ERIS "M
Tree #: 2 Species: aide
DOW 13" #oftrunks: Height (oO' Spread:
Form: n generally symmetric .171 minor asymmetry Film"'ajor asymmetry E-J stump sprout 71 stag -headed
Crown class: 11 dominant /co -dominant E-1 intermediate f0j'suppressed
Live crown ratio: -25 % Age class. F-1 young P4'serni-mature Fl mature 71 over-mature/senescent
Pruning history: L*___.Jcrown cleaned LJ excessively thinned (1�, ropped LJ crown raised Ll pollarded _11_1 crown reduced L flush cuts EJ cabled/braced
7-1 none :�) multiple pruning events Approx. dates:
Special Value: 0 specimen El heritage/historic El wildlife E] unusual D street tree .7.- screen L7 shade ERI'n'd'igenous E<protected by gov. agency
TREE HEALTH
Foliage color [?�Inormal
El chlorotic
E necrotic Epicormics? Y ON
Growth obstructions:
Foliage density: LJ normal
LJ<Parse
Leaf size: F_:� 'normal Ei small
0 stakes L wire/ties 0 signs LD cables
Annual shoot growth: L- excellent D!
average ___1 poor Twig Oieback? 6 N
0 curb/pavement D guards
Woundwood development:
0excellent
. flaverage Li poor 0 none
LJ other
Vigor class: D excellent 0 average L&, 1aii r L1 poor
Major pests/diseases:
SITE CONDITIONS
Site Character ID residence
1.--J'commercial L industiriall L park D open space L-j"naturai
Landscapetype: '_� parkway Liraised bed 0 container 0mound IL-1 lawn El shrub border
Irr . igation: Vilnone E] adequate EJ inadequate EJ excessive F, trunk wettled
L, woodlancRforest
Li wind break
Recent site disturbance? Y N r-I construction f-I soil disturbance grade change [] line clearing site clearing
% dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N
% dripline wl fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
% dripline grade lowered: 00;
/0 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Soil problems: drainage F-1 shallow 171 compacted F-) droughty 73 saline '�__J alkaline E, acidic E; small volume El disease center E3 history of fail
clay -] expansive -] slope —I aspect
Obstructions: lights 1-1 signage �] line-ol-sight El View - .,overheadlines 1-i underground utilities Otraffic -,7adjacentveg. .7
Expasurelowind: F-Isingletree Ebelowcanopy nabovecanopy 171 recently exposed F-1 windward, canopy edge 1--Trrea prone to windthrow
Prevailing wind direction:' 5S W Occurrence of snow/ice storms 0 never B'seldom 0 regularly
TARGET Oc-cous-.0,0104 fl. tA):-LJ
Use Under Tree: 1_1 building [1) parking 0 traffic LY"p`edestrian LI/relcreation [I landscape -:1 hardscape '___J small features �:] utility lines
Can target be movedi Y No Can use be restricted? Y CN)
Occupancy: L] occasional use :.`Intermittent use 7,, frequent use F, constant use
The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form.
TREE DEFECTS
ROOT DEFECTS:
Suspect root rot: Y N Mushroomlconk/bracket present: Y N ID:
Exposed roots: .7 severe E moderate F! low Undermined: F severe 1.�] moderate I low
Root pruned: —_ distance from trunk Root area affected: _% Buttress wounded: Y N When:
Restricted root area: 7D severe I_ moderate __JIo Potential for root failure: '_J severe E moderate _—, low
''o
LEAN. --75— deg. from vertical E, natural /unnatural 71 self -corrected Soil heaving: Y N
Decay in plane of lean: Y N Roots broken Y N Soil cracking: Y N
Compounding factors: Snow culd ;cc c vy, c, � e— Lean severity: F-Aevere 0moderate L, low
CROWN DEFECTS. Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe. m = moderate, I = lovi)
DEFECT
ROOT CROWN
TRUNK
SCAFFOLDS
BRANCHES
Poor taper
Bow, sweep
Godominants/forks
Multiple artachments
Included bark
Excessive end weight
Crackst'splits
Hangers
Girdling
Wounds/seam
Decay
Cavity
Con ks/mushrooms/bracket
Bleeding/sap flow
Loosetcracked bark
Nesting holetbee hive
Deadwood/stubs
Borerstiermites/ants
Cankersigalls/burls
Previous failure
HAZARD RATING
Tree part most likely to fail: - Obale T'rCC
Failure potential: 1 - low: 2 - medium; 3 - high; 4 - severe
Inspection period.- —.— annual --- biannual —
other
Size of part: 1 - <6' (15 cm): 2 - 6-18" (15-445 cm):
3 - 18-30,' (45-75 cm.): 4 - >30" (75 cm.)
Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating Hazard Rating
Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use:
+ "Z +
3 - frequent use: 4 - constant use
HAZARD ABATEMENT
Prune: I remove defective part L reduce end weight U crown clean 0-thin
E raise canopy crown reduce 7 restructure F-1. shape
Cable/Brace:
Inspectfurther: Lrootcrown LJdecay i laerial L�Jmonitor
Remove tree: (D N Replace? 6Y N Move target:
Y ON Other
Effect on adjacent trees: F1'n' o n e F__!, evaluate
Notification: _��o liner manager 1_1� �011erning agency
Date: 6
2-
COMMENTS
I
2y
I
Q0,
74 -v Aw rAj
"PI -.rir
T71, PC
WI
A7
14 v
It
411f ---4. 1 v�Vi
10,
41
F_- N
L necrotic Epicormics? YD
Leaf size: [--;J 'no r mal L! smal I
Annual shoot growth: L excellent D, average _J poor Twig Dieback? N
Woundwood development: L, excellent . L-1-average 111-1 poor I.-! none
Vigor class: �.J' excellent C average L-��i r 0 poor
Major pests/diseases: -
SITE CONDITIONS
Site Character 2_ residence
A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas
TREE HMA RD EVA L UA TION FORM2nd Edition
Site/Add ress: - 16 6 / 1. 2 Y Y" P
Lace W. Edwnds
MapfLocation:
Owner: public private unknown —_ other
Date: &1/,, 11.2- Inspector:
Date of last inspection: 4? 112-
HAZARD RATING:
L
/ + +
Failure + Size + Target Hazard
Potential of part Rating Rating
Immediate action needed
Needs further inspection
Dead tree
I Mr. GHAKAIP I MIS "M
Tr e e #.- 'I species: RtJ Aide,—
DOW 10" # of trunks: I Height ""15 Spread:
Form: 11 generally symmetric E-1 minor asymmetry N<or asymmetry Estump sprout 7 stag -headed
Crown class: 0 dominant 54�o-dominant 11 intermediate [� suppressed
Live crown ratio: d-.S % Age class. young F�q4mi-mature F-] mature -'] over-mature/senescent
Pruning history: - - I crown cleaned LJ excessively thinned Lq1i6pped �i crown raised Li pouarded _L_, crown reduced L flush cuts L1 cabled/braced
none :J multiple pruning events Approx. dates:
Special Value: El specimen F1 heritage/historic E-1 wildlife F] unusual D street tree '7- screen , J shade F-Tindigenous D protected by gov. agency
MEE HEALTH
Foliage color E�I`normal El chlorotic
Foliage density: U normal L_�S�Parse
Growth obstructions:
0 stakes El wirelfies L1 signs !�] cables
0 curb/pavement D guards
L1 other
I _ I commercial L industrial L1_ _'; park �J open space L!�4turall L woodland\forest
Landscapetype: EJ parkway E, raised bed 0 container L, mound 1-1 lawn El shrub border 11 wind break
Irrigation: Lqto"n e E, adequate El inadequate E" excessive F.-I trunk wettled
Recent she disturbance? Y & 1-1 construction i-i'soil disturbance 0 grade change 1._�] fine clearing site clearing
% dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N
• dripline wl fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
• dripline grade lowered: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Soil problems: drainage 171 shallow F1 compacted F droughty :1 saline alkaline ED acidic E small volume [I disease center 0 history of fail
J Clay __1 expansive --I slope —I aspect
OWructions: '-) lights E] signage 7_1 line-ol-sight 17-1 view overheadlines 171 underground utilities FItraffic -j7adjacentvag. .71
Exposurefowind: Elsingletree Ebelowcanopy Flabovecanopy 171 recently exposed !,71windward, canopy edge F-rarea prone to windthrow
Prevailing wind direction: S5 W — Occurrence of snow/iGe storms F--! never 0 seldom El regularly
tu; wd
TARGET
Use Under Tree: 11 building L[� parking 'Ll'traffic L,,`pedestrian L-l-fircreation IA landscape L-i hardscape 0 small features --] utility lines
Can target be moved? Y N Can use be restricted? Y
Occupancy: L'I occasional use 74''t'ermittent use 7 frequent use F. constant use
The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations dedved from use of this form.
TRrr: ur-Fffl.q
ROOT DEFECTS:
Suspect root rot: Y N Mushroom/conk/bracket present: Y N ID:
Exposed roots: 'I severe 17 moderate --*!' low Undermined: E! severe moderate J low
Root pruned: —_ distance from trunk Root area affected: _% Buttress wounded: Y N When:
Restricted root area: __1 sevure I-- moderate _1 low Potential for root failure: I severe F_ moderate low
LEa. -7-5-' deg. from vertical E, natural F_-_16'nnaIural 7 self -corrected Soil heaving: Y N
Decay in plane of lean: Y N Roots broken Y N Soil cracking: Y N
Compounding factors: SilIDLU aAd iCC f"CL9 e, Lean severitV: 1_111 severe 1-1 moderate 11 low
CROWN DEFECTS. Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severibl (s = severe. m moderate, I = low)
DEFE&
i ROOT CROWN
TRUNK
SCAFFOLDS
i BRANCHES
Poor taper
Bow, sweep
Codominants/forks
Multiple attachments
Included bark
V,
Excessive end weight
Crackst'splits
Hangers
Girdling
Wounds/searn
Decay
Cavity
Conksimushrooms/bracket
Bleeding1sap flow
Loose/cracked bark
Nesting hole/bee hive
Deadwood/stubs
Borersitermites/ants
Cankersigalls/burls
Previous failure
HAZARD RATING
Tree part most likely to fail: . tUA0 te F'^Ce
Failure potential: 1 - low: 2 - medium-, 3 - high: 4 - severe
Inspection period: ____ annual —_ biannual — other
Size of part: 1 - <6" !115 cm): 2 - 6-18" (.115-45 crn):
3 - 18-30" (45-75 cm): 4 - >30" (75 cm)
Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating Hazard Rating
Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use;
3 - frequent use: 4 - constant use
HAZARD ABATEMENT
Prune: I remove defective parT L'_ reduce end weight Llcrownclean Othin
crown reduce 1r__ restruc re E-1 shape
Eraisecanopy tu
Cable/Brace:
Inspectfurther: Lrootcrown LJdecay monitor
Remove tree: (9 N Replace? CY) N Move target: Y (D Other
Effect on adjacent trees: PI/none F_ evaluate
Notification: -_ /Kv n e r -,manager L��9011erning agency Date:
COMMENTS
J6-
fit A*
-4
4t-
I.; CAW
rh
Alf
LOP
, eK
Al"
)OV
A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas
TREE AVA RD EVA L UA TION FORM2nd Edition
Site/Address: W61, 2'Y", Place W, Edmonds
Map/Locadon: tj / ff
Owner: public — private unknown — other
Date: & 110 1 /-Z Inspector: PNdJ*7&A
Date of last inspection.- (0 .1.1
HAZARD RATING:
4/ + 0�1 +
Failure + Size + Target Hazard
Potential of part Rating Rating
Immediate action needed
Needs further inspection
Dead tree
I MCC brifflinAb I CHID 111111490
Tree Species: Peck Alder
DBH: # of trunks: Height Spread: 3 0'
Form: 171 generally symmetric LF3 minor asymmetry F-?'-m*ajor asym m etry E stump sprout 7 stag -headed
Crown class: 0 dominant a5o"-dominant El intermediate 7J, suppressed
Uve crown ratio: -2,5 % Age class: young f_4mi-mature n mature __1 over-mature/senescent
Pruning history: crown cleaned LJ excessively thinned L--KGPped LJ crown raised LJ pollarded L, crown reduced L flush cuts 0 cabled/braced
none iD multiple pruning events Approx. dates:
Special Value: El specimen El heritagelbistoric L__1 wildlife D unusual '71 street tree t7l screen Ll shade Plin'd"igenous F_,1 protected by gov. agency
TREE HEALTH
Foliage color B/normal 0 chlorotic E! necrotic Epicormics? Y N Growth obstructions:
Foliage density: LJ normal &1parse Leal size: Ezinormal L! small LJ stakes LJ wire/fies 0 signs E cables
Annual shoot growth: L, excellent D, average �__l poor Twig Dieback? (D N Ocurb/pavement Diguards
Woundwood development: 0 excellent . 0 average ILl poor U none L1 other
Vigor class: __J excellent L average LX r El poor
Major pests/diseases:
SITE CON011TIONS
Site Character 0 residence . LJ commercial 0 industrial L park LJ open space L--naturai L; woodiandvorest
Landscape type: [Li parkway 0 raised bed L1 container 0 mound 0 lawn 11 shrub border El wind break
Irrigation: Eli' —
none 0 adequate El inadequate E, excessive F trunk wettled
Recent site disturbance? Y 6) 171 construcfion 73 soil disturbance CD grade change F-1 line clearing E-1 site clearing
% dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N
% dripline w/ fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
% dripline grade lowered: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Soil problems: E3 drainage F-1 shallow 171 compacted F-I droughty 7_1 saline alkaline E-1 acidic E small volume [I disease center 0 history of fail
,_ -1 clay __J expansive A slope aspect:
Obstructions: Jlights 0signage 7_11ine-of-sight Elview overhead lines F-lunderground utilities 0traffic 1.71 adjacent veg. 7,,--
Exposurelowind: Elsingletree E-ibelowcanopy F-1abovecanopy n recently exposed 171 windward, canopy edge Lzra"rea prone to windth row
Prevailing wind direction: :55W — Occurrence of snow/ice storms 0 never ffseldom 0 regularly
TARGET
UseUnderTree: 1--lbuilding Ciparking D-traffic Ulp'edestrian L�Ir�ecreation E-11andscape L—ilhardscape E-1 small features J utility lines
Can target he moved? Y Can use be restricted? Y
Occupancy: 1_1 occasional use Fr_4iniermittent use 7, frequent use F-1constant use
The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form,
TREE DEFECTS
ROOT DEFECTS. -
Suspect root rol: Y N Mushroom/cank/bracket present: Y N ID:
Exposed roots: 71 severe C' moderate I` low Undermined: D severe L7 moderate J low
Root pruned: --- distance from tru n k Root area affected: _% Buttress wounded: Y N When:
Restricted root area: 71 severe L moderate -_ i low Potential for root failure: _J1 severe E moderate �__, low
LEAN. deg. from vertical E natural C__ �unnalural -11 self -corrected Sail heaving: Y N
Decay in plane of lean. Y N Roots broken Y N Soil cracking: Y N
Compounding factors: sn6Lj a-,d itc afojvlc,� e- _ Lean severity- 171 severe 1-1 moderate 0 low
CROWN DEFECTS. Indicatp presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, I = low)
-DEFECT ROOT CROWN
TRUNK
SCAFFOLDS
BRANCHES
Poortape
Bow, sweep
Codominantsitorks
Multiple attachments
Included bark
Excessive end weight
Cracks/splits
Hangers
Girdling
Wounds/seam
Decay
Cavity
Conks/mushrooms/bracket
Bleeding/sap flow
Loose/cracked bark
Nesting hole/bee hive
Deadwood/stubs
Borerstlermites/ants
__ganker Ils/burls
Previous failure
HAZARD RATING
Tree part most likely to fail: o le Tre c-
Failure potential: 1 - low 2 - medium; 3 - high: 4 - severe
Inspection period: annual —_ biannual — other
Size of part: 1 - <6" (115 rm): 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm):
Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating Hazard Rating
3 - 18-30" (45-75 cm): 4 - >30" (75 cm
Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use;
3 - frequent use: 4 - constant use
HAZARD ABATEMENT
Prune: 1-- remove defective part L reduce enclikiveight U crown clean Othin
E]raisacanopy 71crown reduce L, .' restructure E.1 shape
Cable/Brace:
Inspectfurther: Lrootcrown LIdecay L-laerial .�Jmonitor
Removetree: CY) N Replace CY ) N Move target: Y 0 Other
Effect on adjacent tre8s: FQn*'o'n e 177 evaluate
Notification: _44oiner manager L-f1gloverning agency Date: 4,1611
COMMENTS
il-4 7
46,
Ir
4N7
All
JIw� isAf
0,4
41
- �W 7
41
441
Xx
ilN 1P
S7
41
�- iK
A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas
TREE AVA RD EVA L UA TION FORM2nd Edition
Site/Address: [Iola I X '7y"" Mace W, 6;dnnond_� HAZARD RATING:
Map/Locartion: + -S7 +
Failure + ze + Target Hazard
Owner: public private,--Z— unknown — other Potential of part Rating Rating
Date: inspector: A
nkCtjic:tu, Wdh'am_� PIV6171PA Immediate action needed
Needs further inspection
Date of last inspection: 6 1 JX / 112- Dead tree
TREE CHARACTERISTICS
Tree #., tO Species: —P—ed a mer
DBH: I i" # of trunks: If Height LN' Spread: _30
Form: 171 generally symmetric "71 minor asymmetry 5?'ma or asymmetry E'stump sprout 'L7 stag -headed
Crown class: [I dominant E4 -dominant [I intermediate El suppressed
Live crown ratio: % Age class: _1 young t'-41emi-mature 1-1 mature __1 over-mature/senescent
Pruning history: crown cleaned LJ excessively thinned LJt6pped L�J crown raised LJ pollarded crown reduced L] flush cuts 0 cabled/braced
[:1 none D multiple pruning events Approx. dates-,
Special Value: El specimen 0 heritagelbistoric 0 wildlife 171 unusual _Ll street tree 71 screen 7 shade Ni6lgenous LE�protected by gov. agency
TREE HEALTH
Foliage color E3_6�rmal
El chlorotic
E necrotic Epicarmics? Y
Growth obstructions:
Foliage density: LJ normal
Li, �sparse
Leaf size: r_�--Y'normai Li small
0 stakes 7--i wire/ti as LJ signs 0 cables
Annual shoot growth: Lexcellent D
average -I poor Twig Dieback? DY N
1:3 curb/pavement ii guards
Woundwood development:
2 excellent
. C] average 1_1 poor L none
L1 other
Vigor class: -.---'Jl excellent
E average
Lv5rir� Opoor
Major pests/diseases: -
SITE CONDITIONS
Site Character 'C' residence L commercial L industrial park LJ open space L-;' ratural L woodland\forest
Landscape type: ' LJ parkway E. raised bed 0 container F-1 mound Ll lawn 0 shrub border El wind break
Irrigation: 21nnone LI adequate El inadequate 1-7 excessive 17.1 trunk wettled
Recent site disturbance? Y (�) F1 construction soil disturbance -3grade change U line clearing 1 site clearing
• dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N
• dripline w/ fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
• dripline grade lowered: 00;
/0 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Soil problems: _'J drainage F1 shallow n compacted F-i droughty --]saline alkaline 1_7 acidic 1: small volume E disease center 0 history of fail
._J clay expansive slope —I aspect:
Obstructions: Jlights I-Isignage Fl line -of -sight Elview Ll overhead lines F1 underground utilities F-1traffic Fladjacentveg. �7_
Expasuretowind: D-singletree E-belowcanopy 1--labovecanopy n recently exposed Flwindward, canopy edge `191/rea prone to tvindth row
Prevailing wind direction: 550 — Occurrence of snow/ice storms 0 never &_s_�eldom El regularly
occcl;S1,01111 ti. W'_dQ
TARGET
UseUnderTree: F-lbuilding E-iparking E-1traffic L--pedestrian L�I_r�ecreation 1:11andscape _—.1'hardscape Lismallfeatures 1-Jutilitylines
Can target he moved? Y 0 Can use be restricted? Y 0
Occupancy: IJ occasional use f7__1_n't'e'rmft1ent use .7 frequent use E-J, constant use
The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form.
TREE DEFECTS
ROOT DEFECTS:
Suspect root rot: Y N Mushroom/conk/bracket present: Y N ID:
Exposed roots: 7 severe 7 moderate low Undermined: Esevere 1_1 moderate �J low
Root pruned: — distance from trunk Root area affected: Buttress wounded: Y N When:
Restricted root area: severe 1_ moderate -.I low Potential for root failure: '_J1 severe E:, moderate low
LEAN. —7S-- deg. from vertical E natural Ev:uen natural ] self -corrected Soil heaving: Y N
Decay in plane of lean: Y N Roots broken Y N Soil cracking: Y N
Compounding factors: SAOW c4nd Le Q(QLAAc,$ C Lean severity- F severe U moderate 0 low
CROWN DEFECTS. Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity Is = severe. m = moderate, I = low.)
DEFECT
ROOT CROWN
TRUNK
SCAFFOLDS
BRANCHES
Poor taper
Bow, sweep
Z
Codominantsiforks
Multiple attachments
Included bark
Excessive end weight
Z
Cracks/splits
Hangers
Girdling
Wounds/seam
Decay
Cavity
Con ksimushroo ms/bracket
BleedinWsap flow
Loose/cracked bark
Nesting hole/bee hive
Deadwood/stubs
Borerstlermites/ants
Cankersigalls/burls
Previous failure
HAZARD RATING
Tree part most likely to fail: _&ihalc Tra Failure potential: 1 - low: 2 - medium; 3 - high: 4 - severe
Inspection period'. --- annual —_ biannual — other Size of parti 1 - <6" i , 15 cm): 2 - 6-18" (15-415 crn):
Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating 3 - 18-30" (45-75 cm): 4 - >30" (75 cm)
Target rating.- 1 - occasional use; 2 intern, ittent use;
+ + .2- = 3 - frequent use: 4 - constant use
HAZARD ABATEMENT
Prune: _' remove defective pa.-t L reduce endweight U crown clean thin raise canopy -1 crown reduce restructure 0 shape
Cable/Brace: Inspectfurther: Lrootcrown UdeCay L-iaerial ._�Jmonitor
Remove tree: 9 N Replace? (9 N Move target: Y D, Other
Effect on adjacent tress: Fq/none F_J evaluate
'I'verning agency Date:
Notification: Iner manager LG-90
COMMENTS
- pf,
-sZ
-.A*-,
,ry f, ®r-,�t�
oor
��, y2c-
OF �ro�Ff.
c 77:
P�l
A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas
TREE HMARD EVAL UA TION FORM2nd Edition
Site/Address:A613. IV)"" Place W, Urnoeld-s — HAZARD RATING:
Map/Location: ol !Y + �, +
Failure + Size + Target Hazard
Owner: public private unknown other — Potential of part Rating Rating
Date: �oj & I Inspector: PAIQO�A Immediate action needed
I I Needs further inspection
Date of last inspection: Dead tree
TREE CHARACTERISTICS
Tree 77 Species: PC 4 1 d
OBH: 4 " # of trunks: Height -50 Spread: 304
Form: F.1 generally symmetric El minor asymmetry F-R-m-ajor asymmetry r-'stump sprout 'L7- stag -headed
Crown class: El dominant E4`co-dominant 1-1 intermediate D'suppressed
Live crown ratio: % Age class: young
[�Semi-mature F1 mature � .1 over-mature/senescent
Pruning history: crown cleaned LJ excessively thinned L4�ppped LJ crown raised L I pollarded -L crown reduced L flush cuts 0 cabled/braced
-,-] multiple pruning events Approx. dates:
none
Special Value: 11 specimen 0 heritage/historic 0 wildlife F unusual '--I street tree _71 screen 7 shade 191-n-digenous d by gov. agency
MEE HMTH
Foliage color G-15ormal 0 chlorotic L'_ necrotic Epicormics? Y (N) Growth obstruclions:
Foliage density: LJ normal L'Asparse Leaf size: ETnormal L, smal I L-1 stakes __1 wirefties LJ signs cables
Annual shoot growth: E excellent D average 71 poor Twig Dieback? 6 N 0 curb/pavement El guards
Woundwood development: 0 excellent -�] average L, poor U none LJ other
Vigor class: �__J, excellent 0 average Lvf'a i r 0 poor
Major pests/diseases:
SITE CONDITIONS
Site Character 17 residence U commercial L industrial L! park �J open space L-16a"tural L, woodland\forest
Landscapetype: parkway U raised bed 0 container 0 mound E, lawn 0 shrub border Ll wind break
Irrigation: L---n'o n e EJ adequate EJ inadequate 1], excessive F.] trunk welded
Recent site disturbance? Y ()N f -I construction F-] soil disturbance i:j grade change 0 line clearing L-1 Site clearing
• dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N
• dripline w/ fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
• dripline grade lowered: 00;
/0 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Soil problems: _'J drainage f-1 shallow Fl compacted r-) droughty _;_J saline alkaline E! acidic E small volume E disease center El history of fail
-1 clay -.1 expansive -.1 slope aspect:
Obstructions: Jlights Usignage F-1 line -of -sight Oview L overhead lines El underground utilities [Itraffic Fladjacentveg. El
Exposurelowind: Elsingletree 17], below canopy Dabovecanopy n recently exposed r-71 windward, canopy edge i-416'ea prone to windth row
Prevailing wind direction: :5 5 LJ — Occurrence of snow/ice storms El never D-sl5dom 0 regularly
TARGET Or_Ca1*C;on4 A, JAJI'A�
UseUnderTree: [--]building L-4arking Otraffic B�fedestriian [-�Kecreation Ellandscape 'L-1hardscape FJ small features Jutilitylines
Can target be moved? Y Can use be restricted? Y
Occupancy: LJ occasional use 7Leitermittent use 17 frequent use F1 constant use
The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form.
TRpr nFFFrT'.q
ROOT DEFECTS. -
Suspect root rat: Y N Mushroom/conk/bracket present: Y N ID:
Exposed roots: 1 severe E, moderate 7-7! low Undermined: L severe L' moderate I low
Root pruned: — distance from tru n k Root area affected: Buttress wounded: Y N When:
Restricted root area: �:] severe L_ moderate I low Potential for root failure: LJ severe E moderate I ow
LEAN: _15- deg. from vertical E: natural F-7/unnatural `1 seif-corrected Soil heaving: Y N
Decay in plane of lean: Y N Roots broken Y N Soil cracking: Y N
Compounding factors: S ii 0 W CL'A C1 i, CC (&4'L a Lean severity. 1-1 severe U moderate Dow
CROWN DEFECTS. Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe. m = moderate, I = low)
DEFECT
ROOT CROWN
TRUNK
SCAFFOLDS
BRANCHES
Poor taper
Bow, sweep
Codominants/forks
Multiple attachments
tZ
Included bark
V
�Z
Excessive end weight
Cracks/splits
Hangers
Girdling
Wounds/seam
Decay
Cavity
Conksimushrooms/bracket
Bleedingisap flow
Looseicracked bark
Nestingholelbee hive
Deadwood/stubs
Borersitermitesiants
Cankersigalls/burls
Previous failure
HAZARD RATING
Tree part most likely to fail: ..—Whole T-1-ec
Failure potential: 1 - low: 2 - medium; 3 - high-, A - severe
Inspection period: —_ annual —_ biannual —
other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm): 2 - 6-18" (15-45 crn):
3 - 18-30" (45-75 cm): 4 - >30" (75 cm)
Failure Potential + Size of Part 4. Target Rating Hazard Rating
Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use;
1, + +
3 - frequent 0se- 4 - constant use
HAZARD ABATEMENT
Prune: I remove defective part L reduce endweight U crown clean El thin E raise canopy '! -1 crown reduce 7 restructure Cl shape
Cable/Brace:
. . — Inspectfurther: Lirooterown Udecay L--laerial .�J monitor
Remove tree: 0 N Replace? 0Y N Move target:
Y ON Other
Effect on adjacent tress: FvTno n e F1 evaluate
Notification: .6iner manager egoverning agency
Date:
COMMENTS
A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas
TREE HMARD EVAL UA TION FORM2nd Edition
Site/Address: / &W.I 7YO, Placc W. t—:cfrAand
Mapi'Location: ( LA_
Owner: public private unknown — other
Date: b / (P /12— inspector: aher�71,)-W;11;rAA4_f Plido I
Date of last inspection: / d. J) -�_
HAZARD RKING:
+ -Z +
Failure + Size + Target Hazard
Potential of part Rating Rating
Immediate action needed
Needs further inspection
Dead tree
I ncc 110INAllmlif I C11111110 HUD
V Species: P
Tree k C1 A Id C r-
DBH: J.I" #of trunks: Height '151 Spread: 30'
Form: F1 generally symmetric El minor asymmetry 114(ajor asymmetry E stump sprout 7,_ stag -headed
Crown class: EJ dominant El co -dominant E-] intermediate 111D s u p p ress ed
Live crown ratio: Z5 % Age class. F -1 young 3 �semi-mature I.-] mature _.1 over- matu ralsenescent
Pruning history: crown cleaned LJ excessively thinned EJfopped LJ crown raised LJ pollarded crown reduced Ll flush cuts 0 cabled/braced
multiple pruning events Approx.dates:
SpecialValue: Elspecimen 0heritage/historic Owildlife Ounusual F-Istreettree Dscreen 7shade F-9-in-id-igenous F'protectedbygovagpricy
TREE HEALTH
Foliage color 2/normal
0 Ghlorotic
LE, necrotic Epicarmics? Y OD
Growth obstructions:
Foliage density: U normal
L4-sparse
Leaf size: (_;Knormal L� small
L1 stakes F-JI wire/fies 0 signs L17. cables
Annual shoot growth: Lexcellent _10
average �-_J poor Twig Dieback? OY N
[.1 curb/pavement D, guards
Woundwood development:
0 excellent
. L-J average Li poor P none
0 other
6ir
Vigor class: _1 excellent
0 average
fff a LJ poor
Major pests/diseases:
SITE CONDITIONS
Site Character [�, residence 1 -1 commercial L industrial L park �J open space LE-4hatural 0 woodland\forest
Landscape type: LJ parkway 0 raised bed LJ container L, mound E lawn 0 shrub border 0 wind break
Irrigation: E� �ho n e 'Li adequate El inadequate U, excessive P. trunk wettled
Recent site disturbance? Y (N) r-I construction F] soil disturbance F--J' grade change 171 line clearing E..] site clearing
• dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N
• dripline w/ fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
• dripline grade lowered: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Soil problems: _71 drainage 0 shallow n compacted f-I droughty 7A saline �''alkaline E-1 acidic E, small volume 11, disease center 0 history of fail
__J clay J expansive J slope aspect. -
Obstructions: J lights Osignage '---Iline-of-sight Oview 7- overhead lines F-1 underground utilities 1-itraffic L-71adjacentvag. 7J_
Exposurelowind: Elsingletree [--,.below canopy Elabovecanopy nrecentlyexposed F1 windward, canopy edge 1-4-a-rea prone to windth row
Prevailing wind direction: Occurrence of snow/ice storms 0 never 2's'e'ldom 0 regularly
TMGET
UseUnderTree: I-Ibuilding F.Dparking Utraffic Lpedestrian [.]recreation [Jlandscape 0small features [Jutilitylines
Can target be moved . ? Y (S) Can use be restricted? Y ON
Occupancy: I.] occasional use F�_-`intermittentuse 7 frequent use F.11constant use
The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form.
Tnrr nr-[:r-rT'Q
ROOT DEFECTS:
Suspect root rot: Y N Mushroom/conk/bracket present: Y N ID:
Exposed roots: 71 severe [7, moderate 7__!� 1 o w Undermined: Esevere L--i'moderate _J low
Root pruned: - distance from trunk Root area affected, _% Buttress wounded: Y N When:
Restricted root area: �_] severe I- moderate -i low Potential for root failure: _1 severe E: moderate low
LEAN: deg. from vertical I- natural EY: -u-n*nalural E] self -corrected Sail heaving: Y N
Decay in plane of lean: Y N Roots broken Y N Soil cracking: Y N
Compounding factors: S A o L,� ck,,d ' c c do, c, en Lean severity: I-11severe 0moderate Lilow
CROWN DEFECTS. Indicate presence of individual detects and rate their severity Is = severe. m = moderate, I = low)
DEFECT
ROOT CROWN
TRUNK
SCAFFOLDS
BRANCHES
Poor taper
Bow, sweep
Codominants/forks
Multiple attachments
Included bark
Excessive end weight
Cracks/splits
Hangers
Girdling
Wounds/seam
Decay
Cavity
Con ksimush rooms/bracket.
Bleeding!sap flow
Looseicracked bark
Nesting hole/bee hive
Deadwood/stilbs
Borerstlermites/ants
Ganker§�qalls/burls
Previous failure
HAZARD RATING
I
Tree part most likely to fail: h0J( Tf-te
Faflure potential: 1 - low-. 2 - medium; 3 - high: 4 - severe
Inspection period: annual __ biannual - other
Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm): 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm):
3 - 18-30" (45-75 cm): 4 - >30" (75 cm)
Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating Hazard Rating
Target rating-. 1 - ocusional use, 2 intermittent use;
+ +
3 - frequent use: 4 - constant use
HAZARD ABATEMENT
Prune: �_. remove defective part L reduce end weight LJcrownclean '1_7�thin
E:raisecanopy -1crown reduce 77 restructure 0 shape
Cable/Brace:
Inspect further: LJ root crown I -1 decay aerial '�J monftor
Remove tree: OY N Replace? @ N Movetarget: Y 0 Other
Effect on adjacent tree&. Rnone rj evaluate
Notification: L- Y5 � 1 n e r .1 manager L-19-overning agency Date: / 16 f
/
COMMENTS
1Y
Ij
AFt
, 4e,-
tz
f.X A
1.- 7
I Fla
jt
g
21
-t W9,15
CITY OF EDMONDS
1215 th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 - Fax: 425.771.0221 - Web: www.Edmopd�sWA. �ov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION
'nc. I S%)�
RECEIVED
JUN 13 202
May 21, 2012
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
William Linton
16612 74th Place West
Edmonds WA 98026
Dear. Mr. Linton,
Thank you for submitting a letter and photos of trees on your property. Please submit a report from a
certified arborist, who will need to fill out ISA t . ree hazard evaluation forms for each tree that was
removed or that is proposed to be removed. Those trees deemed "hazardous" on the forin must be
replaced at a 2:1 ratio. Those trees that are not deemed hazardous will need a tree cutting pennit as well
asrestcyration—
The tree cutting permit is a "Type 11" conditional use permit that is reviewed by staff. Notice is provided
to owners within 300' of the property and after a comment period is announced, staff makes a decision
on the application. The fee for this type of administrative conditional use permit is $585 ($570 + $15
surcharge).
I am looking forward to helping you through ou r permitting processes. Please submit the above
information next month, by June 22, 2012. 1 will be out of the office until June 21", so please feel free to
contact the "planner on duty" or Mike Thies at 425.771.0220 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
tVVV-A/
Gina Coccia
Associate Planner
425.771.0220 x1778
coccia@ci.edmonds.wa.us
cc: Jen Machuga, Associate Planner
Mike Thies, Code Enforcement
enc: Handout — conditional use permits
Handout — tree cutting
Handout — adjacent property owner's list
Development Services Department — Planning Division 1121 5" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1425.771.0220
All code citations can befound on the City of Edmonds ivebsite: iviviv. Edmonds WA.Sgv
19125 94th Avenue West
Edmonds, WA 98020
April 8, 2012
LLC
Mike Thies
City of Edmonds
Case: # COD2012-0062
Subject Property: 16612 741h Place W, Edmonds
Dear Mr. Thies,
441t All%
40 09,a!lto
C
As a result of your letter dated April 6, 2012, 1 am providing you with my evidence of
compliance.
*June 2003 Land Clearing/Tree Cutting Permit approved. Stephen Bullock, City
Planner, personally visited and authorized alder tree and blackberry removal.
-Rernoval of alders and black berries, leaving wood chips on site.
-Replacement trees and vegetation planted.
-Grass "PUD mix" planted.
-No trees cut within 25 feet of stream.
*July 2003 Critical Areas Checklist filled out and submitted to city for an unrelated
project replacing an unsafe deck. It was determined that the site was not in a critical
area (see attached).
*April 2012 eight alders were removed at the subject property.
-As a result from trees leaning from searching for light and further damaged
from snow/ice-rain.
-Allowing sun to dry out bank, as was the purpose for tree removal in 2003.
-Fallen trees left on site for proper ecosys.tern preferred alternative.
-Healthy trees left untouched.
-No trees cut within 25 feet of stream.
Thank you and I apologize for any inconveniences that I have created. Please contact
me directly at (425)418-5819 should you require additional information.
gaKds,
�Ao n
William . Li
Photo enclosed.
EL
04
X7
`4A I
Nr
A�T
I la
"i -
Z�l 1�
f- wo
17
UOR 41
fAl'i
VV
j I
I w, -t Nl�
wA4
3
W—Z
,S,e
A4
4M
- JA
IMT �'A
Yl
A:
1"A
� It
, 4ti.,
14
4 r
IV v
`4
I., inz 7
L
i Vli
wl�
4P
W I
V�4
St�
QIT
Af
" wl'
5it
Tl
IT
r 4R5
% 0
21.
Ja — 4;l
ge
M-A
k
PAZ
Lin
"oo'17"
VIA
.®r
ly
AI
Z'4
N4
9
AS
- di
wl -
A �4
zv2kN,,.- T
I rf
V7�
All.
7:W
FIR
t4,
- YAOCI,
76
1 714
hN
,p"rty W111
1A
. . . . . . . . . . . "ix I