The URL can be used to link to this page

21100 HILLCREST PL.PDFiiiiiiiiiiiiii 11682 21100 HILLCREST PL CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5 th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 - Fax: 425.771.0221 - Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION c. I C) March 14, 2014 F LE' Catherine Anderson 21100 Hillcrest Place Edmonds WA 98026 Subject: Hazard Tree Removal at 21100 Hillerest Place Dear Ms. Anderson, Last fall, several trees were removed from your property. I am in receipt of seven Tree Hazard Evaluation Forms by International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist Bryan Petitclerc of Elite Tree Care, #PN- 7580A, as well as a geotechnical letter by Kristina M. Weller, P.E. reviewing the work that was done on and near the steep slope. As you are aware, slopes on your property exceed 15% and several of these trees were removed on or near a slope of over 40%. The slopes on your property are considered critical areas pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.40 and ECDC 23.80. Generally the removal of trees, or any 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. Removal of hazardous trees in critical areas is regulated in the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) at Section 23.40.220.C.7.b. Such removal is an allowed activity as indicated by the code below: b. The removal of treesfirom critical areas and buffers that are hazardous, posing a threat to public safety, or posing an imminent risk ofdamage to private property provided, that: - i. The applicant submits a reportftom an ISA- or ASCA-certified arborist or registered landscape architect that documents the hazard andprovides a replanting schedulefor the replacement trees; ii. Tree cutting shall be limited to pruning and crown thinning, unless otherwisejustified by a qualified professional. nerepruni . ng or crown thinning is not sufficient to address the hazard, trees should be removed or converted to wildlife snags; iii. All vegetation cut (tree stems, branches, etc) shall be left within the critical area or buffer unless removal is warranted due to the potentialfor disease or pest transmittal to other healthy vegetation or unless removal is warranted to improve slope stability; iv. The land owner shall replace any trees that are removed with new* trees at a ratio of two replacement treesfor each tree removed (two to one) 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 orpotentially damage the critical area. Replacement trees shall be species that are native and indigenous to the site and a minimum of one inch in diameter at breast height (dbh) for deciduous trees and a minimum ofsixfeet in heightfor evergreen trees as measuredfrom the top of the root ball; v. If a tree to be removedprovides critical habitat, such as an eagle perch, a qualified wildlife biologist shall be consulted to determine timing and methods of removal that will minimize impacts; and vi. Hazard trees determined to pose an imminent threat or danger to public health or safety, to public or private property, or ofserious environmental degradation may be removed or pruned by the land owner prior to receiving written approvalfrom the ci�; provided, that within 14 days following such action, the land owner shall submit a restoration plan that demonstrates compliance with the provisions of this title; The -above referenced evaluation forms by your arborist identifies and describes the location and health of seven trees. Based on this information, it is clear that removal of these trees is warranted as long as the requirements of ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b are followed. ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b.iv requires that.hazard trees be replaced with new trees at a ratio of two -to -one. Thus, you will need to replace the seven trees that have already been, cut at a ratio of two -to -one, for a total of 14 replacement trees. It should be noted that the stumps must not be removed and must remain to maintain slope stability. All work must be done using hand labor and light (hand-held) equipment, and appropriate erosion control must be implemented to minimize impacts to the critical area. The replacement trees must be installed the general area that the trees were cut. An exemption for the tree cutting is granted with the following conditions: 1. Only the seven trees identified on the site plan and evaluated by Certified Arborist Bryan Petitclerc may be cut. No additional trees may be cut without further review and approval by the Planning Division. 2. Cut trees must be replace at a ratio of two -to -one consistent with ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b.iv within one year of tree the tree cutting activity. 3. Replacement trees should be planted in the general vicinity of the cut trees. 4. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b, replacement trees shall be a minimum of one inch diameter at breast height for deciduous trees and a minimum of six feet in height for evergreen trees as measured from the top of the root ball. 5. Contact the Planning Division at (425) 771-0220 for an inspection once the, replacement trees have been planted. If you have any questions, you are welcome to contact me at (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, Gina Janicek Associate Planner Cc: Mike Thies, Code Enforcement Street File for 21100 Hillcrest Place the Riley Gi-oqpjizc- November 21, 2013 Ms. Cathy Anderson 211 00 Hi I Icrest Place Edmonds, Washington 98026 EnIai I: a T�li.ii.iiania@msn.coni SOject: ereote..chnica.1 Reylov Tree R.e,nioval, S10I)e Stability and Planting Recommeadations 21100, ifillcrest. P face EdihondsiVashington RGI Pr6j �tt, No.. 2013-418 Dear Ms. Ajiders6jii, As. requested, The Riley Group, Ind. �(RGI) visited the. site to observe the removed trees. And. is. providing recornmendations for; planting in the area of4he retiloved trees. We undefstAnd thetrees were.rernoved because. they were not healthy.and posed a. danger to the: fesidences located. on. the,- site and;on Adjacent sites, The im.ders.igried engineer visited the site on November 20, 2013 to observe the existing conditions. A total of five frees were cut down recently.: The trees have been cut into rounds and remain on tile ground where theAtees: ,�vi�ro fe.tled...1fie, I imbs, and b0lughs. have- been removed frorry the site. The.stunips and root structure of the,:.trees I remainjit,p lace...No indications of slopeinstability were observed at theiime of -our siteivisit. Two Henilock trees were cut in the driveway, area. to the,north., o . f the residence and.,.ste.ep slope area. The. rerri6v6d trees are ifibre than 100 feet from the top of the.steeo slo6e.:Scve.ral other large evergreen� trees Ate located in this area. The"Yound . under the trees. is covered hi grass, gravel or asphalt, surfticing for the existing driveway.. T.16 gr6und surface in the area is rel ati vely. flat. Due to the distance froftirthe:slope,.the other exist . ing trees and the, existing: ground cover, t lid. potOtiAl :f6r. v nereased erosion froni the tree removal in the area%is low:and additional planting in this ar6ais not necessary", One, Douglas :fit was removed from near the western property. line. The rernov.ed tree� is: immedi ately Adjacent to:Another Douglas fir of similar size thatis. baween;the-,reffioved tree and the too of the steep slopq. No exposed soils were:observed in this:.area—Based oathe size. of the remaining tree and:the Iiiyiited disfurban.pe to the existing;veg-etation in this'area, replanting in this area is not necessary. Two bouglas firs werexemovo on the s I love area to the southwest of -the existing, residence. Several other large treesare located on the.�lslope::i . n. this -area. The ground surface Js landscaped with grass and planting beds in the.location 617the UpSlope tree and native ferns and other low growing plants in tlie.area of the down slope tree., It. is recommended to replant'. in this area, h.owevert I he other trees located on the slope ffrhit,iiie light new plaritinatwould receive. SERVINGTHE PACIncNoRTHWEST Tacionia, lVashingoton Corporate Office Kennewick, Washington Phone 253.565.0552 1,1522 Bothell 1114), A'orfheam Phone 509.5-.56.4840 Bothell, Washington 98017 Phone 425,415.0551 + Far 425,415.03 11 Inni-Xiley-group. Coll/. AndersonTree Rentoi4d 2 November 21, 2013 Edmonds, WashingIbn RGI Projecl No. 2013-418 Rather than replant with trees in this area, we. recommend planting lower growing species that would provide closer spaced,plantings And better grpund coverage. We recommend planting shrubs.consisting of Rhododendron, LeatherleAf Viburnurn Nootka rose, or Sal monberry. The. plants should be at least I gallbb. in size-andbe spaced appr6ximately five. feet oncehft�k. We:recom1nend a minimum of 6 plants from the above list Nvith at least 4 being evekgi�.6en- be. planted in the. area.of the tree removal. Smaller plants cofisistilig of nati�e perennials or gro6ndcovef likeWild Ginger, Siber.iah Bugloss, Piggyback plant o . r Hosta may be.interspersed-in the largerplants if desired. Limitations This letteris thd property of . RG, I, Ms. Catl I iy Ande�soh,.Iand her d6signated, Agbents.:Witbin the lit -hits: of the scope and budget, thisletter was prepa red. in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in the a:rea at tfie:titne.this letter Mas issued. This letter. is intended for specific application to the tree removal. at 21100..Hillcrest.Place� in Edmonds, Washington, and,for the:dxclusive use.of Cathy Anderson and her auth6riz64 representatives. No,other warranty, expressed+ or imolied,is' madle. -I'he conclusions and recon-unendatidns. presented in this. letter are based upon visual observations on site, No explorations or numerical slope stability analysis were:.completed as part of our services. Variations in site conditions can OCCU, the nature and extent of which. may.:.not 'become; evident until the planting. plan is implernented. If variations are encountered. during planting,- RGI should be requested to observe the conditions encountered. We trust this letter meets your: current need s. Please call us:if you, haye�any questions or need additional information. at.,(4.25.) 4.15-05.5 1. Sincerely, The, Rile G I . I . .1 y � roup, ne. 'WAS vb'lb Kristina M:.Wellet-J.E. Seniot-Project Engineer THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Ifiternational Society of Arboriculiure IIIIIIIL!I" �,M %0 Checkout ISAQ International Society of Arboriculture JOIN US ON MWIM90 About ISA - Find a Tree Care Service -, Newsroom - Job. Bank - LOGIN Membership - Professional Credentials - EducationandResearch - Events - Shop - Publie0ritreach OR My-M!"M MR.""p-TIM Oesky Home Ductsch Verify an ISA Certification / Find a Tree Care Service Donsk New Search Return to e,,,h rmft] Dutch Narne: Petitclere, Bryan, Company Nanie: ELITE TREE CARE Espahol Street Address: :joo Rose WaN City: EVERETT Fran�ais State: WA Country: UNITED STATES [taliano Postal Code: 98203 Phone: 425-:350-6909 Norsk Fax: Ernail: Click to send an email. Web Site: http://elitetreecare.net Portugu6s For Hire: For hire Clirrent ISA Mernber:Non-inctriber Svenska Cert Credentials: Certified Arborist Contact Us IA!arn niore: Cesky Deutsch Dansk Dutch Espafiol FranqaLs Italiano Norsk Portugu8s Svenska (Dinternational skwict%, ofArboriculture 2010-2014 I'0 B— 3129 - Cha,.paip�, H. 61826. USA - +1.217.355.9411 ......... . I'l I �-,tiow to ISA Wcd,,csday, Fb i I2_ 20145: 15:13 I'M (CST/ISA I Icidqttarter,'rinii) I'l—, dkk I—c to privio 12olic, http://www.isa-arbor.com/faca/arboristdetail.aspx?ID=l 79530 2/12/2014 Siste/Address: .21106 R Map/Location: WC1. Owner public private X unknown other Date: 11-2S--11 inspector 'gverl r Date of last inspection: TREE CHARACTERISTICS RMRB RATING: + -3 + + Size + Target Hazard of part Rating, Rating Failure Potential immediate action needed Needs,further inspection Dead Iree Tme #- Species: Hem lUch DBH.-�= �- #of trunks: Height 20— Spread. Form: 0 generally symmetric 0 minor asymmetry 94 major asymmetry 0 stump sprout 13 stagrheaded Crown class. El dominant 5(co-dominant 0 intermediate 0suppressed . Live crown ratio: % Age class: 19young 0 semi -mature 0 mature 11 over-maturelsenescent Pruning history: El crown cleaned 0 excessively thinned 14 topped D crown raised El pollarded EJ crown reduced El flush puts El cabled/braced C3 none 0 multiple piruning events Approx. dates: Spetia.lValue: Elspecimen Elheritage/historic Dwildlife Ounusual 1-71streettree E.1screen Oshade Flindiganous 11 protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage C01w. 0 normal [Xchlorotic F11 necrotic Epicormits? Y N Growlb obstructions: Foliage density: 0 normal [Asparse Leal size: 0 normal 0 small 0 stakes 0 wire/ties - 0 signs 0 cables Annual thoot growth: 0 excellent W average 0 poor Twig Dieback? Y N Wourb/pavement 11 guards Woundwood development: 0 excellent 9 average 0 poor 0 none 0 other Vigor class: 0 excellent 0 average 0 fair 0 poor Major pests/dIseaser SITE CMITIONS Site.Character 9 residence 0 commercial 0 industrial D park F1 open space 0 natural 0 woodlandVorest Landscapetype: C1 Parkway F11 raised bed D container D mound Klawn 0 shrub border. 1771 wind break Irrigation: 1] none 0 adequate lidinadequate E3 excessive 0 trunk wettled Recent site dishOance? Y N 0 construction C1 soil disturbance - 0 grade change 0 line clearing . 0 site clearing • dripline paved: 0% 25-50T. 50-751YD T5-100% Pavemeal lifted? (YD N • dripline w/ fill soil: 00% 25-50016 50�750/a 75-100% % dflpline grade lowered: 0% 10-25% 25-5019/6 50-75% 75-1001Y. Soil problems- 11 drainage El shallow OVIcompacted 0 droughty O'saline 0 alkaline 0 adidic 0 small volume 0 disease center 0 history of tail El clay D expansive L-1 slope aspect Obstructions: Dlights; Osignage Olin"i-sight Oview boverheadlines El underground utilities Xtraffic Eladjarentveg. 0— Exposurellowind: Osingletree 4belowcanopy Dabovecanopy Orecentlyexposed 0 windward, canopy edge, area prone to windthrow Prevailing'wind dirBctiow. Occurrence of snowlice storms 0 never Dgseldom C3 regularly TMUT Uset,WderTree: %building Dparldrig Eltraffic D pedestrian D recreation D landscape D hardscape 7 small features utility lines Can target, be moved? Y Can.usebe.restricted? Y Occupancy-, D occasional use 0 intermittent use D frequent use %constant use The Iffternational Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions.or recommendations derived from use of this form. TREE DEFECTS R00TWEP& - suspect root rato N Mushroam/conk/bracke . t present Y N to: Exposed roots: El severe 0 moderate low Undermined: 0 severe F-1 moderate glow Root pruned: distance from trunk Root area affected: _% Buttress wounded: Y N Who:, Re*icled mot area: 19severe. Omoderate 0 low Potential for, root failure: 0 severe E3 moderate 0 low LEAN. deg. from vertical El natural 0 unnatural 0 self -corrected Sail heaving: Y N Decay in plane of lban: Y N Roots broken Y N Sail cracldng-� Y N Compounding factors: Leam severity-. 0 severe 0 moderate.... low CR . OWN 0 . EFECTS. Indicate presence of individual defects and, rate their severity (s = severe, m moderate, I = lovj� .DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS Poor taper. Bow, sweep� Codominants/forks Multiple attachments Included bark Exc6ssivi.end weight. CracWsplits Hangers Girdling Wounds/team Decay Cavity Conksimushrooms/bracket Bleedlng/s�p flow Looseldracked bark Nesting.hoMee hive Deadwood/stubs. Borers/termites/ants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail: Failure potential: 1 - low; 2%- medium; 3 - high,.4 - severe siz*e of part: 1 - <6" (15 crn); 2 � 618' (15-45.cm)-. Inspolon period: annual biannual other 3 - 18-300 (45-75 cm); 4 - ;M" f75 cm) Failure Potential + Size,ot Part + Target Rafing Ha.zard Ratng brget rating: 1 - occasional.use; 2 intermittent.use:.. + + 3 - frequent use-, 4 - constantuse HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: 0 renidve defective part 0 reduce end weight 0 crown clean 0 thin 0 raise canopy 0 crown reduce 0 restructure 0 shape CaWe/arace: Inspect further: El root crown 0 decay, C1 aerial, 1:3 monitor Remove tree: G N Replaw? (2) N Move target. Y No Other. Effect on adjacent Dub= Da, none 11 evaluate Notlffcatlon� owner 0 manager D governing agency oate- -_2 S_-J COMMENTS A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation -of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas T 2nd Edition TREE HAZA RD EVAL UA TION ORM Site/Address: e2lffin Map/Location: &AM2& (A)!9 Owne� public — private unknown other Date:.//--/ - /3 Inspeclor 4 bate of fast inspection: TREECHARACTIMISTICS HAMRO RATING: .3 + -3 + 41 Failure + Size + Target Hazard Potential - of part Rating. Rating X immediate action needed Needs1urther inspection Dead tree Tree k 4?— Species. J'. DBH: .37 trunks- Height spread: 30 FGfm: 0 generally symmetric 11 minor asymmetry gmajorasymmetry Elstumpsprout 0 stag -headed Crown class: 13 dominant . TO co-dominanf F-1 intermediate 0 suppressed Live crown ratio:. '70 % Age,class: Myoung Osemimmature Dmature Clover-maturelsenescent . Pruning history: E3 crown cleafted 0 excessiv . ely thinned 15(topped El crown raised 0 pollarded 0 crown reduced 11 flush cuts 11 cabled/braced 0 none 0 multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: 9 specimen El herbge/historic D wildlife 0 unusual O.street tree El screen El shade El indigenous 0 protected by gov. age . ncy TREE HIMUN Foliage co ' lor t9normal Ochlorotic C3 necrotic Epicarmics? Y N Grow1b obstructions - Foliage density:. X normal 0 sparse Ldaf size: 0 normal 0 small 0 stakes F1 wirelfies 0 signs 13 cables. Annual shoot growth: EJ excellent 0 average 0 poor Twig Dieback? Y N 0 curb/pavement 0 guards Woundwood development: 0 excellent 0 average 0 poor 0 none 0 other Vigor class: 0 excellent 0 average 0 fair 0 poor ftlor pests/dIseaser SITIE CONDITIONS Site Character A residence El commercial [I industrial D park C3 open space 01natural El woodlandVorest Landscape type: 0 parkway, 13 raised bed 0contatfner [3 mound 0 lawn 171 shrub border 0 wind break Irrigation: 9 none 0 adequate 0 inadequate 0 excessive El trunk wettled Recent site disturbance? Y (D 0 construction C1 soil disturbance 0.grade change n line clearing n site clearing • dripline paved: 0 YD 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement tilled? Y N • driplind w/fill soil: 00 10-2511/6 25-50% 50-750% 75-100% • dripline grade lowemd: 10-25%, 25-50%. 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: 0 drainage 0 shallow Ocompacted Odroughty 0saline Clalkatine Macidic 0smallvolume 0 disease center El history of fail El clay. El expansive D slope aspect Obstructions: D lights El signage 0 line -of -sight . 0 view 0 overhead lines - El underground.utilibes 11 traffic- 11 adjapent,veg, El Exposure to wind: 0 single tree El below canopy El above canopy 0 receritliy exposed C3 windward. canopy edge . Elarea prone to windthrow Prevailing wind dimclion: ALe, Occurrence of snowlice storms 0 never 0 seldom 0 re gularly Us6U.ndler Tree; 9building Diparking. Otraffic Opedestrian Drecriation Olandscape Ohardscape 0sma lifeatures, Outilitylines Cap tanxit.bernioved? Y Can.use be restricted? 6 . ... I . . I.. Y6 Occupancy: Ozecasionaluse. Elintermitterd-use Dfrequent-use� 0constanfuse The Iffternational -Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS. Suspect root rat Y (P Mushroem/conklincket present Y Ex powd roots: 0 severe 0 moderate 0 low Undermined: 0 severe 0 moderate .0 low Root pruned: distance from trunk Root area affected: % Buttress wounded: Y N I'l6stricibil roof area: 0 severe El moderate ID low Potential for root fallure: 0 severe n. moderate LEM. deg, from verfical 0 natural Ej_ unnatural 0 self -corrected Soil heaving: Y N Dewy in plane of lean: Y N Roots broken Y N Sol[ cracklnqo� Y N CompoundIng faddrr Lean severity - CROWN DEFECTS. Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, rn = moderate, I = low) Whem F7 I ow 0 severe 0 moderate rl low DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFO LDS BRANCHES Poor tap 6r, Bow, sweep� Codominants/forks Multiple attachments Included bark IEXC�ssk:ehd weight Cracks/splits Hangers Girdlinq Wounds/seam Cavity Conks/mushrooms/bracket Bleedinalsap flow L6oselcracked bark Nestint; hole/bee hive Deadwoodistubs. Borers/termitWants Cankety �alls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail:, Failure. potential: 1 - low: 2. - medium: 3 - high , A - severe Size of part: 1 - <6� (15 c �; 2 - 6-18" (1&4� cm) Inspection period: - annual biannual other M., Failure P . Antial + Size of Part + T�rget Rating = Hazard Rating 3 - 18-30.' (45-75 cm);. 4 - �� (75 bm) Target rating: 1 - occasional use-, 2JO.Ormittent uise:.:_. 3 + .3 + 43.el = 3 - frequent -use; 4 - consta . Muse HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: Q remove defective part 0, reduce end weight Ocrownclean Othin Oraisecanopy 13crownre'duce 1771restructure El shape, Cable/Brace* Insped further: C3 root crown decay, Claerial. Omonitor Remve tree: N Replace?'(0y F4 move'tareet, Y (3N Other, Effect on adjacieni tre�= none 0 evaluate Nottfl0tion: %owner 0 manager 0 governing agency Date, COMMENTS A Photograohic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Tr�es in Urban Areas TREE HMARD EVALUATION FORM2nd Edition Site/Address: e.211a) 1411/ C_VrS� MaPA.ocadon: —04//POt7dS 01 * Owner public — private unknown — other Date: - - - Inspector Pe hhc/etc P*--2S;WOA- D ate of last inspection: TREE'CHARACTERISTICS HAZARD RATING: -9 + a + Failure + Size + trget Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating immediate action needed Needs further inspection Dead tree J�ee k Specift WCS�AK 71-41 e&Q&W' DBW # of trunks: Height Spread, Funn: 0 generally symmetric E9 minor asymmetry Omajorasymmetry Ostump+sprout 0 stag -headed Crown class: E) dominant Mco-dominant El intermediate. 0 suppressed Live crown ratio: M % Age class: Myoung 0 serni-mature 0 mature 0 over-maturelsenescent Pruning history: 0 crown cleaned El excessi , vety thinned 0 topped Dd crown raised 0 pollarded 0 crown reduced C1 flush cuts 11 cabted/braced 0 none 0 multiple pruning events Approx. dates:. Specla.1 Value: 0 specimen El heritagethisto6c D wildlife G unusual 0 street tree 11 screen El shade 0 indigenous 0 protected by gov.+ agency TREE -HEALTH Foliage coloc. 16 normal El chlorotic 0 necrotic Epicormics? Y N Growlb obstructions: Foliage density:, In normal 0 sparse Loaf slize:: 0 normal 0 small O.stakes Owirelties Osigns Ocables Annual shed growth: D.excellent 0 average El poor IWIV Dleback? Y N 0 curb/pavement 0 guards Woundwood development: Dexceftnt 19 average 0 poor 0 none 0 other Vigor. clasr. E! excellent El average t fair 0 poor Major pests/diseaser SITE: COMITIONS sitevitaracter residence C3 commercial 0 industrial Opark Oopens,pace., 0�natural 0 woodlandVorest Landscape type: 0 parkway El ralsed*bed 11 contal - ner Dmound 19lawn 0 shrub border C1 wind break Iffigallow 0 none adequate 0 inadequate r-1 excessive El trunk wettled R 6centsite.disturbance? Y N 0construction C1 soil disturbance .0gradethange 0 line clearing CD site clearing • dripline paved: 0%. 25-50% 50-750/9 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N • dripline wilill soil: 00% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% • dripline grade lowered: 0% 10.25%. 25-500/61 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: C1 drainage C1 shallow"�C compacted 0 droughty 0 saline D alkaline 13 acidic 0 small volume 0 disease center 0 history of fail 0 clay D e)"nsive 0 slope aspect Obstructions:. 0 lights 0 signage 0 linemof-sight 0 view 0 overhead lines D underground.utilifies . 0traffic El adjacent.veg. 0 Exposure to wind:. 19singletree Elbelowcanopy Elabovecanopy 0 recently exposed E) windward, canopy edge. 13are'a prone to windth row Prevailing wind direction: 41,17 Occurrence of snowfice storms� 0 never V seldom 0 regu' TARGET UseUnderTree-, tbuilding Dparkirig 0traffic Opedestrian-Elrecroation 111ands6ape Chardscape Elsmallf6atures Elutilitylines Can target bemoved? Y Can. use. be. restric.ted? Y(3 I . .(3 . . . . I ftupancy-.. D:occasionaluse. Dintermiftentuse 13 frequent use %constant use Thelaternational Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or. recommendations derived from uselof this form. TREE DEFECTS - ROOT OFFEV& Suspect root rot Y N Mushroom/conk/b racket present Y N ID: Exposed reft 0 severe 0 moderate 0 low Undermined: 0 severe 0 moderate D low Root pruned: — distance from trunk Root area affected: Buttress wounded' Y N Whem Restricted mot area: 0 severe L1 moderate L-J low Potential for root failure: Osevere 0moderate 01aw LEW 10 deg, from vertical 0 natural A unnatural Elself-corricted Soil heahring: Y Dem in plane of [pan: (DN Roots broken Y N Soil cracking� Y Compounding factors: Leanseverlty:. Flsevefe Omoderate. Olow 611OWN DEFECTS, Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s --severe, m "_ moderate, I = low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS Poor taper Xyl sweep� —Bow, Codominants/forks Multiple attAchments Included bark Excessive end weight. Cracks/splits Girdlinq Wounds/seam Cavity Conks/mushrooms/bracket Bleeditig/sap flow LooWcracked bark Nestinghble/bee' hive Deadwood/stubs Borersftermites/ants Canketygallsiburls Previous Wure. HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fall: Failurt potential: 1 - low; 2 - medium; 3 - Vtgh,� 4 -.severe Inspection periard: annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 dm.);2 - 618" (1&-45. cm); Failure Potential + Size,of Part + Target Rating Hazard Rating 3 - 18�30- (45-715 cm);. 4 - :M- (75 cm) Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use,, + + *uent -use; 4+ - constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: 0 remove defective part: E! reduce end weight 0 crown clew C3 thin 0 raise canopy - 0 crown reduce 0 restructure 0shape. GaWa/Brace: Inspect further 0 root crown El decay 17 aerial � 0monitor Remove tree-0 N ReplaceIG IV Move.target. YCN) Other Effect on adjacent trb ir. TAnone 0 evaluate Notificatlow ?�owner CD manager 0 governing agency. Date, COMMENTS A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas TREE HMA RD E VA L UA TION FORM 9nd Edition Site/Address: C2)106 Map/Location: g4�& erilwas W6 Owner: public —, private Y unknown other D ate:J1-2S7-/3- - Inspector: 84.M4 31941A�kl�� /W— Date of last inspection: HAZARD RATING: + Failure + Size + Target Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating Immediate action needed Needs further inspection rl A TREE CHARACTERISTICS Ttee.k- .3 species: t7kYV10CA DBH: A of trunks: Height 70 spread: 20 Fonn: generally symmetric 13 minor asymmetry 0 major asymmetry 0 stump sprout 0 stag -headed Crown clags: dominant 0 co -dominant 0 intermediate 17 suppressed Live crown ratio: 46 % Ageclass: Myoung Oserhi�mature 0 mature 0 over-maturelsenescent Pruning histdiV: 13 crown clearied 0 excessiV . elythinned Elto ped El crownraised Opollarded Ocrownreduced 13 flush cuts El cabled/braced p . 0 none 0 multiple pruning events Approx. dates:. sp, . eclial Value: 0 specimen C1 heritage/historic 0 wildlife 0 unusual 0 street tree 0 sc.reen 0shade 0 indigenous 11 protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color 0 normal 0 chlorotic 0 necrotic Epicormics? 0 N Growth obstructions: Foliage density:. 0 normal 9 sparse Leal size: 0 normal 0 small 0stakes Dwire/ties Osigns Ocables Annual shoot grow#r 0excellent Claverage Wpoor TwigDleback? N 0 curbipavement L-3 guards Woundwood development: El excellent 0 average In poor M none 0 other Vigor class: 0 excellent 0 average 0 fair 0 poor Major. pgsts/diseases. SITE. CMITIONS Site Character 90 residence 0 commercial 0 industrial D park 0 open space El natural 0 woodiancNorest Landscape type: 0 parkway 0 raised bed 0 container 13 mound KI lawn 0'shrub border C1 wind break Irrigation: 0 none C3 adequate 0 inadequate 5dexcessive 0 trunk wettled Recent site,disbftance? Y N El construction C1 soil disturbance 0 grade change 0 line clearing C] site clearing • dripline Paved: 0% 10-25% 25-5M6 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lified? Y N • dripline Wifill soil: 0% 10�2 25-50% 50-750/a 75-100.1% • drip!ine grade lowered: 0% 1045%. 25-50 0/6, 50-75% 75-100% Soilprofileffm Cldrainage 0shallovy Zcompacted Odro*ughty Osaline 0alkaline Ciaddic 0smallvolume Ediseasecenter Ohistory.offail 11 clay. El expansive 0 slope aspect bbstruxtio.ns:. C1 lights El signage El line -of -sight 0 view b overhead lines 0 underground utilities 11 traffic El adjacent veg. 0 Exposure to wind:: 0 single tree 1A below canopy El above canopy 0 recently exposed El windward, canopy edge. 0 area prone to windth . row Prevailing.wind direction: Occurrence of snowfice, storms E-) never T�rsOldbm 0 regularly TARGET Use, Under Tree: t9building 13 parking, 0 traffic 0 pedestrian 0 recreation 0 landscape 01 hardscape M small features El utility lines Can taroet.bemmd? Y No Can use he restricted? Y CN) occupancy; 0�occasionaluse, Clintermifterituse El frequent use: Vconstant-use The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for concla6rts oir recommendations -derived from use.of this+forfTL HOOT DEFEVS. suspect . root ratc)� N Mushroorn/conk/bracket present CY) N 10: Exposed. roft Osevere Elmoderate 54low Undermined: Osevere Dmoderate 01ow Root pruned: - distance from trunk Root area alfected: % Buttress wounded' Y N When: RWri cled root area: 0 severe TJ moderate D low Potential for mot failure: 0 severe Z, moderate F-i I ow LEW- - deg. from vertical 0 natural 0- unnatural 0 self -corrected Sail heaving: Y N Dewy in plane of lean:CY) N Roots broken Y (N Soil cracking: Y N Compounding factors: Lean severity. CROWN DEFECTS. Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s �severe, m moderate, I = low) 0 severe 11 moderate F-I low .DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK . SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor tapier Bow,sweep Codominantsfiorks Multiple attachments Included bA Ucessiwehd weight Gracks/splits I-Ingers Wounds/seam S, Cavity Conks/mushrooms/bracket .Bleeding/sap flow Loose/cracked bark NestinQ holelbee hive Deadwood/stubs Borers/termites/ants Canke�alls/burls Previous failure, HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to.fail; Failure potential: 1 - low- 2 - medium; 3 - high,. 4 - severe Inspection period: annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm): 2 618' (15-45.cm); Failure Potential + Size.ot Part + brget Rating Hazard Rating 3 - 18-300 (45-75 cm); 4 : >3d" (75 bm): Target rating: I - occasional use; 2 intermittent use,_,. + + 3 - fiequentuse-,.4 - constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: 0 rernay.e defective part 0 reduce end weight. [I crown clean 0 thin D raise canopy 13 crown reduce El restructure D shApe. cawe/Brace* inspect further: 0 root crown 0 decay 0 aerial, - 0. m6riftor Remove4ree: Y N Replace? Y N Move target Y N Other Effect on adjacent treer. Onone- Devaluate Notificatlow. 00 owner 0 manager 0 governing agency Date, COMMENTS A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Tr6es in Urban Areas TREE HMARD EVALUATION FORM 2ndEdition SiteiAddress: MapA.ocardon: Owner public private X unknown other Date: Y-,A�- 41 - Inspector 1-9e- h1der< R/l/-)w-8-6 A bate of last inspection: TREE.CHARACTERISTICS HAZARD RATING: + + Failure + Size + Target Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating Immedilate action needed Needs further inspection Dead tree 1,jA Tireek Species. D61i: Z5 -S of trunks: Height hf Spread: Form: M generally symmetric El minor asymmetry El major asymmetry 0 stump sprout n stag -headed Crown class. dominant 11 co-domirtant El intermediate 0 suppressed Uve crown ratlM ST) % Age class: 06young Osemi�mature Ornature Clover-mature/senescent Pruning,historir [Kcrowncleafted E3 excessively thinned Eltopped Mcrownraised 13pollarded llcrownredu6ed El flush'cuts; 0 cabled/braced, E3 none F-1 multiple pruning events Approx. dates:. Speciiall Value: specimen 0 heritagahstoric E1 wildlife 0 unusual 0 street tree 11 screen 0 shade El indigenous 0 protected by gov. age ncy TREE HEALTH Foliage color 9 normal Eldlorotic Elnecrotic E01cormics? Y N Growlb obstructions: Foliage density:, X normal D sparse Leaf size: 0 normal El small 0 stakes F-1 wirelties 0 signs El cables. Annual Shoot growth: 0 excellent gaverage 0 poor Twig Dieback? Y N 0 curb/pavement .0 guards Woundwood development: 171 excellent %average 0 poor 0 none 0 other rrY25-e:5 Vigor class: El excellent gaverage 0 fair 0 poor Major pests/Aiseases: WE COMITIONS Site.Chataider CS residence 0 commercial 0 industrial D park 0 open space 0 natural 0 woodland4orest Landscape type: C3 parkway 11 raised bed D container 0 mound 19lawn El shrub border 0 wind break Iffigation: 11 none 25adequate 0 inadequate 0 excessive El trunk wettiled Recent stile,disturbance? Y 0,constructio'n 0soildisturbance Ogmdechange Olineclearing El Site clearing • dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 757100% Pavemeol lifled? Y N • dripline wifill &oil: 00/6 10-25% 25-50% 50-75 . % 75-1000/6 • dripfine grade lowered: 0% 10-25% 25-500/6 50-75% 75-100% Soil problen= 11drairWe 0 shallow M compacted, 0 droughty 0 saline 0 akaline M acidic E3 small volume C1 disease center 0 history of fail El clay El expansive Elslope-11 aspe&4 Obstructions: Dlights Osignage 0line-of-sight Mview: Eloverhead lines 0 underground utilities Eltraffic Dadjacent.veg. 0_ Exposurellowind: 13singletree Obelowcanopy Dabovecanopy Elrecently exposed 0 windward, canopy edge, 1-1 area prone to windthrow ftevailifig wind direclion: D=rrence of snowlice storms 0 never El seldom 0 regularly TMQET Use Under Tree, Kbuilding 13 parking El traffic 0 pedestrian C recreation 0 landscape 0 hardscape ED small features 11 utility lines Can tal I —be moved? Y Can= be restricted?' Y Ompancy: noccasionaluse, Mintermitterituse 13frequentuse %constanfuse The. Interriational Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use.of this form. ir J TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFEVS. Suspe . d root rat Y NO Mushroom/conk/bracket present Y ID: Exposed roft 0 severe 0 moderate 54 low Undermined: O.severe 0 moderate 0 low Root pruned: AD_ distance from trunk Root area aftcled: % Buttress wounded, Y (2 Ractript . ndmnfnrPa: El vere StImoderate 01ow Potential for root failure: Osevere Orno-derate LEAN.- degAromv�rtical Dnatural Ounnatural Oself�,corrected Soilheaving: Y N Decay in plane of I ean: Y N Rootsbroken Y N sollcrackjrkg� Y N Compounding factorsi ?.-Cri,044 z4� 15.hj,0_- Lean seveft. CROWDEFECTS. Indicate presence of individual defectsand. rate their severity (s =severe, rn moderate, 1. =low). Wh6n: D low 0 severe 0 moderate, Q low �DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BWCHES Poor taper Bow,sweep Codominants/forks Multiple attachments Included bark [Excessive.6d Weight Cracks/splits Hangers -- Girdling Wounds/seam Decay Cavity IYZ GonWrnushroom/bracket Bleedingfsap flow Looseteracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs. borersAermites/ants CankeL,-Jja1Is1burls Previous f�ilure. HAZARD RATING Tree partmost likely tpJail.* Failure oblental: 1 - low'. 2%- medium; 3 - high,.4 -severe Ins n pe Size of part: 1 - <T (15 cm)-. 2 - 6!.18" (15m45. cm);: pectio riord annual.- biannual other 3-18-30'(45-7.5crn);4 );301!(75cm) Failure Potential + Size of Part + T�rget Rating Hazard Rating+ Target rating: 1 - occasional use- Zifttermi I nt use, 3 + .3 3 frequent%use; 4 - conga nt -use HAZARD ABATEMENT Pruhe: re m ov . e defective part 01 redu . ce end weight, 0 crown clean Dthin El raise canopy 0 crown reduce El restructure 0 shape. Cable/Brace* Insped furthera 0 root crown 0 decay aerial 13 monitor Renzove+tree: Q N Replace? (fY) N + Move target. Y Other Effecten adjacard tre 6W. 10mone 0 evaluate Notlitization: $owner 13manager �gdvemingagency Date' COMMENTS A Photooraphic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas TREE MaRD EVALUATIO N FORM gndEdifion Site/Address: e2/100 H � I IC te—�& P1 MaPA-Dcation: gFdMW6&�� W6L - Owner public — private unknown other Date: Inspector: Zj:��j4 ReAC11;C Date of last inspection: HAZARD RATING: + 'A Failure + Size Potential bf,part + + trget Hazard Rating Mng Immediate action needed Needs further inspection Dead free TREE CHARACTEMSTICS I t � e. # SwIes- 1A/C_,Sf7ffl Fe-Cl eeClal DBH: "16 .# of trunks: Height Spread:. Form: % generally symmetric 0 minor asymmetry 0 major asymmetry 0 stump sprout 0 stag -headed Crown cla�s: 51 dominant 0 co-dominant� 11 intermediate [3, suppressed Live crown rallo'. ff6 % Age class: '9 young 0 sem�mature 0 mature 0 over-maturelsenescent ftning history-. n crown cleafted 0 excessively thinned 0 topped 0 crown raised El polMed n Crown reduced 0 flush cuts 0 cabled/braced Mnone 0 multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: 1% specimen El heritage/historic 0 wildlife 0 unusual 1-1 street tree 0 screen 11 shade 11 indigenous El protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Follagecolor Nn6rmal Elchlorotic Onecrotic Epicermics? Y N G.mwlb obstructions: Foliage density:, 19normai 0 sparse Leal size: 0 normal 0 small 0 stakes El wirelfies D*signs E3 cables AnRual shoot growdr 0 excellent 93 average 0 poor Twig Dleback? Y N 0 curbipavement El guards Woundwood development: 0 excellent gaverage 0 poor 0 none 0 other Vigor class: 0 excellent 0 average I�Zfair 0 poor Malor pests/dlseases� SM COMITIONS Site Character 0 residence 0 commercial 0 industrial 0 park C1 open space 0 natural 0 woodlandVorest Landscape type: 'IR parkway 01 raised bed D container 0 mound 0 lawn 0 shrub border 0 wind break Irription: [I none 0 adequate Kinadequate El excessive El trunk wettled: Recent site distiftance? Y El construction 0 soil dist rbance 0 grade Change 0 line clearing D site clearing • dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 5-50% 50-75% 75-1000/c Pavement litled? Y N • dripline w/ rill soil: 0016 10�250/6 25-5(r/. 56�760/. 15-100% • dripline grade lowered: 0% 10-25% 25-5010/a, 50-75% 75-110100/6 Soil pr6blents: 0 drainage 0 "low 54 compacted 0 droughty 0 saline C3 alkaline- C3 acidic 0 small volume 0 disease center 0 history of fail D clay D expansive D slope _- aspect (lbstructionr Dlights 13signage Dline-of-sight Elview 0i overhead lines Dunderground-Wilities 11traffic Eladjapentveg. D_ Exposure to wind:: Clsingletree 171belowcanopy Dabovecanopy Crecentlyexposed V windward, carfopy edge El area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind diredion: /V F. — Occi irtence of snow/ice storms 13 never C%eldom 0 regulady TMGET Usetinder.7ree; �buildmg Elparkirig. Eltraffic 01pedestrian 11rebreation Elland�*e Ohardscape f7smalifeatures Outilitylines Cantarget.be.mo.ved? Y Can use be. restricted? Y Occupancy: Uaccasional use Mintermitterit use 11 frequent use: Dkonstant use The. Irdernational;Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or, recommendations derived from use of this form. e. TREEPEFECTS. ROOTUEFEC7S. Suspectrootrat Y N Mushroom/cank/bracket present Y N 10: Exposed toots: 0 severe 0 moderate . 0 low Undermined: 0 severe C, moderate 0 low Root pruned: distance from trunk Root area affected: _% Buttress wounded.- Y N Whem Restrict Od toot area: 0 severe. 0moderate [31ow.. Potential for mot failure: r1severe El moderate D low LEAk - deg. from Ortical El natural ED unnatural 0 self -corrected Soil heaving: Y N Dewy in plane ofle& Y N Rools broken Y N Soil crackiilgo, Y N 41k 1 04 za/. Lean severitT. 01 severe 0 moderate E! low Compounding factork CROWN AFFECTS. Indicate presence of individual defects (nd rate their severityls - Ivere, m - moderate, I = low) .'DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRMICHES Poor Wer Bow,sweep Wominants/forks MultiOle attathments Included bark fxcessivii.ehd weight Gracks/splits, Hangem Girdlinq Wounds/searn Decay Cavity Conksimushrooms/bracket Bleeding/sap flow Loose/cracked bark Nesfing.hol0ee hive Deadw'ood/stubs. Borershermit es/ants Canikers/galls/burls .Previous t Aiuire. HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail:, Failure potential: 1 - low: 2 - medium; 3 - fiigh� 4 - severe Inspection period.,: annual biannual other Size of PAO: 1 - <6" (.15 cm)::2 - 618" (15-4�. cm); 3 � 18-30.' (45-75 cm),, 4 -:M (75 cm) Failure Potential + Sizi,of Part + Target Rating Hazard Rating Target rating.' 1 - occasional use; 2 inteffnittAnt, use,,,.. + 3 - frequent -use; 4 - consta nt use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: 0 remove-defecti vepart Dreduce end weight Ecroftcldan Dthin 13taisecathopy Ocrownreduce Elrestructure Q.shape Cable/Brade: frisped further 0 root crown 0 decay. 0 aerial - O.ftnftor Remove tree: ON Replace? Y(�D Mm target. Y Other Effect on adjacent treit _0�.none 0 evaluate Notffltatlor� owner F71 manager 0 g6veming agency Date - COMMENTS A Z,6 "i bet A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in. U rban Areas TREE HMARD EVALUATION FORMM'Edifion Sit,e/Address: dZI i C30 dw—c'm6t F/ Map&ocation: edfWr4 L'6)& Owner public private unknown other Date: Inspector- rk'k-d JrAucls PAI - 75M A Date of last inspection: HAZARD RATING: .5 +3 + q Failure + Size + Target Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating Immediate action needed Needslurther inspe ction Dead tree TREE -CHARACTERISTICS Tree Specles, IbuA /as f"I'v, DBH: # of trunks: Height spread: Fom- 0 generally symmetric Ominorasymmetry )Z major asymmetry l7stumpsprout 0 stag -headed Crown class: 13 dominant R co -dominant El intermediate 0. suppressed LWe crown rafla- % Age'class: %young 0 serni-mature 0 mature 0 over-maturelseriescent Pruning history, 0 crown cleaned E3 6cessiV . elythinned 9t0l)Ded 0 crown raised 0 pollarded 0 brown reduced 0(flush 6As 11 cabled/braced r-1 none 0 multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Sp . ecial Value: CWspecimen El heritage/histofic 11 wildlife 0 unusual 0 street tree 11 screen 0 shade 0 indigenous 0 protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color f% normal Dchldrotic Onecrotic E01cormits? Y N Growlb obstructlobs: Foliage density: 19 normal D sparse Leaf size: 0 normal. 0 small Annual shoot grovith: 0 excellent 0 average 0 poor Twig Dleback? Y N, Woundwood developrnent: 0 excellent 0 average 10 poor 0 none Vigor class: 0 excellent El average 19tair 0 poor Major, pests/diseaset 0 stakes 0 wirelties; 0 signs 0 cables. 0 curbipavement 0 guards 0 other S17E CONDITIONS Site.Character 9 residence C3 commercial 0 industrial Dpark Clopenspace O;natural 0 woodiancNorest Landscape type: 0 parkway- El raised bed D container 171 mound 0 lawn 'El shrub border El wind break Irrigation: 56 none C3 adequate 0 inadequate 0 excessive 0 trunk wettled Recent site disturbance? Y Oeonstruction El soil disturbance 0gradechange Olineclearing El site clearing • dillpflue paved: 0"/ -10-25% 25-5"o 50-75% 7571.00% Pavemeal fifted.? Y N • dripline w/ fill soil: 0.1, *.-25% 25-50016 50-75% 75-100% 01 • dtipline grade lowered: gy 10-25%, 25-509/6 50-75% 75-100%. Soil problem 11 drainage C3 shallow 0 compacted 0 droughty 0 saline 0 alkaline [3 acidic 0 small volume 0 disease center 0 history of fail 11 clay 0 expansilve El slopa.3Q� aspedt Obstructions:. Olights Osignage Olinvof-sight Oview boverheadlines El underground utilities 11traffic Cladjacent.vag. 0 Exposureldwind: Osingletree Elbelowcanopy Elabovecanopy Orecently exposed 09 windward, canopy edge - 0 area�prone to windthrow Prevailing wind diredflow IV-L; - 0cmirkenceofsnow/icestorms Dnever. Ds6ldom Elregularly TARGET UseLlnderTree: D9building Elparking 0traffic Opedes El reation Ellandsmpe Dhardscape� _0 small features Elublitylitnes Ian rec .Cantarot.be.fooved? Y Can use. be, restricted? Occupancy: 0�occasionaluse Elintermitt6rd-use Elfrequent.use 0constantuse The, Intergationa[Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or. recommendations -derived from use of this form. TREE DEFECTS ROOTOEFECTS.' Suspect . root rat Y NO Mushroom/conk/bracket present Y DN III Exposed roft 0 severe E3 moderate 0 low Undermined: 0 severe 1:1 moderate F1 low Root pruned: __ distance from trvnk Root area affected: _% Buttress wounded: Y N when:. Re*icled mot area: 0 severe El, moderate. L-I low Potential for root failure- 0 severe El moderate E] low LEAN., deg. from vertical . 0 natural 0 unnatural 11 self -corrected Soil heaving: Y N Dewy in plane of loan: Y N Roots broken Y N Soil cracking, Y N Compounding factom Lean severitT. 0 severe 0 moderate Clow CROWN DEFECTS. Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s severe, m moderate, i = low). DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BMCHES Poor taper. Bow, sweep Codominants/forks, 5 Multiple attachments Included bark In 1xcessive end weight CracWspfits Hang6s Girdlinq Wounds/seam. cavity Conks/mushrooms/bracket BleMingfs3l) flow Lo racked bark WON hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs. Borers/termites/ants canke[g9alls/4urls Previous faillure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail: Failure potential: 1 - low; 2 - medium; 3 - high,, 4 - severe Inspection, period: annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6� (15 cm.); 2 - 618' (1&-45,cm);, 3 - 18�30ff (45-75 cm); 4 w :M" (75 crn): Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating Hazard Rating brget rating: 1 � occasional use; 2 interTnittent use:,. 3 3 + 1 /0 3 - frequentvse; 4 - constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune, 0 remove defective part D. reduce and weight 0 crown clean El thin El raise canopy. C crown reduce. F� restructure Elshap Cable/Brace: Inspectfurther: 0rootcrown Odecay. 0:aerial� 0 monitor Remove tree: OY N Replace? ey) N Move target Y Other Effect an adjacent tree�! P4 none 11 evaluate Notification* 0 owner M manager 0 governing agency Date.- I 2-A COMMENTS z 6 Z: 6 z Y\: 0 z E-4 V�i 0 P4 1;4� z 1.4 0 N ow r-,) 2 -M Z 0 .a 0 0. IL D 0 z 8 z V C 0 E ,10 0 rA C 0 01 0 i W 0 C16- -:r-_ 4 NOTICE NO WARRANTY OF ACCURACY 7he Informat -'- aftached map was compiled for use by the City of Edmonl?r� on the ds L em-!-yer�s an-consu!'ants, The City at Edmonds does not warrani thL OT &" '' L" S;L - fortp or; the map, Any person or entity requEl.-., st, . G. !,- t', ln1'L,', c' iiolerit Inquiry regarding the Infoi,jiLtI,,,,-; ell'-, i L -, ti, r-.. if,! ij bi;, not limited to, the location of any s-,: rfia',i or may not e)dst and may or rnz� na c;--�� tf! IL Ncli'aiz thi City of Edmondb nci its L I tO thL iriiwmaton giver, on this map, nui f'C.'( r�,; or prL.,j u" b4�uo upw , saia map 9 t 1� , ft� RECEIVED -1995 "JUN 2" 1 .9 9 C, COMMUNITY SERVICES City of Ednionds' Critica-11--�,!A��-reas-,--Ghecklist.,,,� The Critical. Areas Checklist.contaified on','-� -and submit it-t6the City. -Me'City.will this form isp.b il outj�yMy ,.,e .ckli make avrecu!spry site _tpe review the I*e_ . st, preparing a Development. Permit and make:a determination of the A 1i cati n 0� pp �_� '0 subsequent, steps necessary to complete a,�.: hi h rn to er u .�F , 'I. th :,,.,��49pment permit application. e pe _C1 Ith _Wd 'of this� f6jin, th6, i ;a sign �Opy,� The purpose of 'the Checklist is to enabl6'- "isiubmit a vicinity map City staff to,`�6teimine.'whether any or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel Potential Critical Areas are or may be with enough detail that City staff can find present on the subject property. The and identify the subject parcel(s). in information needed to complete the addition, the applicant shall include Checklist should be easily available from other pertinent infonrnation (e.g. site observations of the site or data available. at... plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in City Hall (Critical Areas;inventoiries,,maps, conjunction with this Checklist to assist or soil surveys).-., staff in completing their prelinfinary., site represen tiv An 4pliiiian�-othisffiii. tai e" must fill oufthO. theckliist,. sign a� date it,"' "'W �!;;ZNVC I have completed,the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that, the answers provided are - factual, to.thebesLof,my-knowledge (fill out the appropriate column -below)�,_.... Applicant- Appricant.Representitive: �'i, x. Ram-". Nam 1A100 th <,Stieet -Addt�� 7� 54 VIE; �44_ Addriisi 41�44 s� S Ci S Ci .,Z-lp I AIM �Nn ate', .401 0 1 -1 CATILE NO.- C ..-Ar Checklist "Criti '" f a eas 4. Site Information (soils/topographylhydrology/vegetation) - SR6--Addriisi"cation: ei 100 2. mber: .Prqp4� Tax Account Nu .ty A -I) whl." rh XUKWEV.3 k41W%;;b V& D%IUQLVI LV01"Jo UN 4. Is this site currently developed? yes; no. If yes; how is site developedT`;;%�9 i'VA+-4W- 75. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. 'jjessjthanj5-Yeet-,-el6vation change ov eptire Ait q :w -�Vft V4*0RbIli a v4fidl &e IN � . �j :L#; P41- ( 0% 13 'k� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 41e\ 30%'preserit.odn site (avertical rise of 10-feet over' 4 St a 1-.:+,:5` 24 j 1ess thin 33 ormori h lital �i o 4! .7 t 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: Approx. Depth: 7. Site 'contains areas of s'easorW'standing water: go Approx. Depth�: Al 011-1-� V. What season(s),o the ypa0-.: 4 IL of a water course. 8. Site -Win'thello6d i4i> rkw-flod4liln ao 9. Si ntains� a &* k 6ran arei Where i��-flows across the grounds surface? Flows, are year- round?."'. F[6%os (Wlkat time of year? 1 i.8 shrubs b4in 10. Site is primarily:, forested' 2dow urban landscaped Qawn,shrubs etc), -)e .11. Obvious wedand ispresent on sit�,i:,,a,' 7z. T U sebi*5 mVpod �o!- fall . . ..... ifid inikmitory,�F,,g�-. fiA pii6ieit on- site M-ap.. !qa4q.within Area YL144- i4..;-r 6:4--Aken'inventory or C&,*ampod�cat.es-Crifical- -an site? 0 S7NEET RLE June 22, 1979 I 14EMO TO: Harve H. Harrison Mayor FROM: John A. LaTourelle, Director Community Development Department SUBJECT: DESIG14 REVIEW OF PRD-1-79; PROPOSED NINE UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN SHELL VALLEY ON THE SOUTHERN 350 FEET OF LOT 6, BLOCK 5, ALDERWOOD MANOR #9, ADDRESSED AS 21100 HILLCREST PLACE This item was heard and approved by the Planning Commission on May 23, 1979. Those minutes are attached, together with a site plan and a vicinity map. The Architectural Design Board approved the design on June 6, 1979. Those minutes are attached. The Community Development Department recommends upholding the Planning Commission and Architectural Design Board approvals of this application. MILB/ le attachments W 10UrH f (r e.,Zr I ti TP y 15 -,V., 4` 11: 7' > fZ-A t) . I v /r. , )- Me Ao� -.0 c .-, I /Ilk _1- CIA SHELL VALLEI P.R.D. �T A Planned :wuldential Developown J, Real, v by ty Edmonds. WashiNgton 7 -rnO Wash. -Burns A Peters Archlt&c%s -Plamors Bellevue. Washington 641-7258 Re7id. kiddletan A Associates'. Inc ,lip Lngineers, - Surveyors Planners Umands, Washington 'lip It Sli HIS. :f!.!o ithout-201 pedestrian strip 74.25ftf Access area and firstruck'Turv-siroumd .4 9505f JK .1 qx=z=TF-23-%* area 69:300st LDE OoD oll Ck I , 11, 80008f allows 69:30./m 8.6 gives 9-4wAta Lan AyVfjjqn pent 14op-T4 . . . . . . . 'Y 30375 44% Passive common arms 100DO 14% Side greenoolt are" try 72 00 10% Grownbel"t an 9000 13% M Idinge "0 2% Faving at-drivem-amd wal1ts P112 ?o�.hous* frong. jalds re0j;yards a ALDER 434 ?o%&U d) 4P Pro Bed Dqvelola�mlt a. -MANOR m-,Na Y- T.- �_%01C4t 121. �-oncsrng were addressed solution to %he &J R.D. site deal z AL '1Pi,.5CR1P.F10 I Shell V ley P. 4WRIA1 land coverage me zniaized,-by uni % a and uoir)4 2-story to-nhousos. el�.( 134' Covauz-, q.YUw 2. Paved areas wer. ajoinized by keeping "a ...... units oluste-w arw class to the frawt of abreet =A" U4, MHOWNS BAY z c '13 is I vf� o —J'IJ v N N w o "".TS LLE� S —"V 98 TO L"NWOoo 2o Cc. off ED�—D$ po ... 7 C— —111 Ij T,, :7, TaIrl r i9ij M 0 0 h T L A K E W 0 0 0 W A Y . ...... 211 1 31 so ..... ... . D LAKE CIN �l BALLING smo�omls couNTY !2.1 wy, -T 26N I I.. T1. Wlik . .. ....... I -T 61 i'ADB-52-79 REALTY HOUSE - Review of planned residential development at 21100 flillcrest PT. .(RS-8) Nine units were proposed in a townhouse type of configuration. A color board was submitted. A large portion of the site will be retained in open space and natural vegetation. Large existing trees were indicated. Some Mountain Ash and other evergreens will be added. The Planning Commission recently had approved an extension of Hillcrest Pl. to Shell Valley which should relieve the traffic on Pioneer Way in the future. A 5' wide walkway will be installed along the public right-of-way in conjunction with other developments which have dedicated for a walkway. The type of driveways designed will give each townhouse the effect of privacy and entries on opposite sides of the structures will increase privacy. Approximately five trees will be removed, one being over 8" in diameter. The Fire Department approved the access. Engineering requirements have been met, with stom water retention on the property being addressed. Lighting was indicated on the plan. The Staff saw no problems with the proposed landscaping, and Ms. Luster noted that there will be enough area to the rear of each unit so future owners can make additions if desired. Decks will be provided.' The Staff felt the site design was good. Assistant Engineering Coordinator Bill Nims said the plan exceeded the minimum standards for cul-de-sacs or turnarounds. In answer to a question, Muryl Medina, the developer, said the stain color would be Olympic butternut, with the small amount of trim being a darker brown. Ms. Luster was asked when Hillcrest would be extended and she responded it may be within 3-5 years. Gary Nash, architect for the project, said he would like to put the electric meters on the sides of the garages rather than on the front, and Mr. LaFon agreed that would be preferable. There was some discussion as to the PUD's requirements for placement of the meters. MR. LaFON THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. SELVIDGE, THAT ADB-52-79 BE APPROVED WITH THE PROVISION THAT THE ELECTRIC PANELS BE kEPT CLEAR OF THE STREET ELEVATION AND THAT THE COLOR BOARD AS PRESENTED BE THE CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE SIDING AND ROOF. Mr. Spanfelner commented that the applicant had done a very good job with effective use of a very difficult site. THE MOTION CARRIED. ADB-53-79 S - & Z S INVESTMENTS - Review of plans for warehouse and retail building at 34-OT—Highway 99 (CG) Ms. Luster indicated the parking was adequate for the uses. A landscape plan was Submitted and a colored rendering was displayed� Ms. Luster noted that Norway Maples were indicated for a planted buffer strip to the east of the property and she felt they may cause sight obstruction for vehicles stopped at 234th and Highway 99. Chai man Wight said, however, that those were 10'- 12' high trees with high arches so they should be no problem. It was noted that the plan showed only "English" where it should have stated "English Ivy , 3' on center, 1 gallon size." A 6' fence was shown. Ms. Luster noted that the overall design was functional and that colored bands would break up the mass of the elevations. Assistant Engineering Coordinator Bill Nims said the right-of-way on 234th is now 40' and the Official Street Map shows it as 60', so a 10' dedication would be required. The applicant had not sited the building to that. and Ms. Luster said the applicant intended applying for a variance. MR. SPANFELNER MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. KINDERFATHER, TO APPROVE ADB-53-79. MOTION CARRIED. ADB-54-79- CLAY ENTERPRISES - Site and elevation review of duplex at 7620 199th 5t. S.W. rRDT— This property fronts on 199th St. S.W. and is one lot off Highway 99. An on -site turnaround is not required because this is not an arterial. Height and setback requirements are met. There are two parking spaces provided in the garage and tandem parking in the driveway. Colors and lighting were indicated on the plans (Olympic 917 stain and Parker ARCHITECTURAL'DESIGN BOARD Page 5 - June 6, 1979 Street Map would protect the future residents of that area. She noted that Pioneer Way may not be developed for some time. She realized the people on Hillcrest felt this would disrupt their way of life, but for the community as a whole, she felt she could not vote against the addition to the Official Street Map. COMIliISSIONER WALKER THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSS, TOIAPPROVE ST-10-79. MOT10N CARRIED. A short recess was announced. PRD-1-79 REALTY HOUSE - Planned Residential Developmeint at 211'00 Hillcrest Pl. Ms. Block said the applicant wished to develop this site as a PRO in order to preserve vegetation at the rear of.the site, maintain open space, and save steep and wooded slopes. The front two-thirds of the property slope at a 10'k' grade from north to south. Nine units are proposed, using a short private road 25' in width. Slides of the site were shown and Ms. Block noted that vertation was extensive and Shell Creek (which is intermittent at tAis point runs along the north side of Shell Valley Rd. Zoning in the area is RS-8. There will be nine units (four two-unit,structures and one single structure) which will be clustered in order 'to minimize impervious surfaces, retain the wooded character of the site, minimize grading and filling, buffer property from the street and adjoining properties to the east and west, and,to maintain the steep wooded eastern one-third of the site in an undisturbed condition. At least 68% of the site will consist of an undisturbed common area and green belt areas. Development into standard RS-8 lots would result in more damage to the site, and the Staff felt PRO development was preferable for this site. Concerns had been expressied about the traffic in Shell Park and that was why the Staff had initiated the street amendment which preceded this item. Each unit has four parking spaces. Two trees over 8" in diameter will have to be removed. A finding of no significant adverse environmental impact had been made. Ms. Block recommended approval of the proposal because 68% of the site would be preserved in undeveloped woodland and greenbelt areas; the amounts of cutting and filling, tree removal, and impervious surfaces would be minimized; the design layout was in harmony with the PRO clustering concept previously used in Shell Vall-ey; this use was in harmon with the Comprehensive Plan; and a finding had been made of no significan y t adverse environmental impact. Mr. Adams enumerated the Engineering requirements. He noted that a 4' pathway had been proposed along Shell Valley Rd. which he felt was adequate, but if the Commission felt it should be 5' then that would be required. He explained the requirements of the Drainage Ordinance. The public portion of the hearing was then opened. Richard J. Thorpe, attorney representing the applicant, said access to the proposed PRD'will be from Pioneer Way, although it has a Hillcrest Pl. address. He said two previous developments had been proposed for this site, but the applicant's project will have a lesser impact on the environment than either of those previously proposed or than a standard single-family development. He said the Zoning Code allowed PRDs because they offer a better way of using.land and this application met the Zoning Code requirements. Steve Callender of 820 Hindley Lane said the applicant is very knowledgeable in developing and in land use. He supported her proposal and was impressed with her desire to maintain the aesthetics of Shell Park and improve on them. He said she is a person of integrity and he urged approval of the application. John Pace of 21104 Shell Valley Rd., President of the Shell Park Homeowners' Association, said the PRDs currently under construction together with this one will double the traffic in Shell Park and they already have a'traffic and safety problem. 'He urged that no development be approved until further access is provided. Further. he said the drainage is inadequate presently and several dry wells seal up within one or two months after they are cleaned. He felt a series of duplexes would be the same as apartments and not in character with Shell Park. He had addressed a letter to the Planning Department stating other concerns and urging that the application be'denied. Andy Jaeger called attention to other developments in the area and Ms. I Block enumerated several.but said they were subdivisions EDMONDS PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 - May 23, 1979 and not PRDs. Muryl Medina, the applicant, said this is a single-family development and not duplexes, but the single-family dwellings are attached. Each owner will own 1/9 interest in the common area in addition to his home * She said they will abide by City engineering requirements for drainage As for.existing drainage problems in the valley, she said she understood that the major contribution to blocking of drains was the use of bark which runs off in heavy rains, and also the lack of landscaping on the lots there. She said her units were designed to take full advantage of the topography with minimum cutting and filling of slopes, and they intended replanting to bring back existing natural plantings that will attract the e7 migration of birds. She said it was her intent to make this a nice dev lop- ment and she had done others in Edmonds of which she was proud. She added that she had never had a complaint on her developments from the City Staff, including Planning, Engineering, and Building departments. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Chai man McGibbon noted that there was going to be some kind of development there and the question was whether the PRO was preferable to conventional development. He noted that the PRD allows flexibility in*siting the buildings and attached units permit more open space and retention of trees. He was hopeful that the traffic problem in the Shell Valley area'would be mitigated in the near future by additional access to the valley. Commissioner LaBelle observed that, considering the zoning, this probably was one of the best proposed uses the Commission had seen for this property. COMMISSIONER LaBELLE THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSS, TO APPROVE PRD-1-79 FOR THE REASONS STATED BY THE STAFF; E.G., THIS DESIGN LAYOUT WILL PRESERVE 68% OF -THE SITE IN COMMON AREA AND GREENBELTS; CUTTING AND FILLING WILL BE MINIMIZED, AS WILL IMPERVIOUS SURFACES AND TREE REMOVAL; THE DESIGN LAYOUT 15 IS HARMONY WITH THE PRD CLUSTERING CONCEPT PREVIOUSLY USED IN SHELL VALLEY; THIS USE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND THERE WAS A FINDING MADE OF NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. MOTION CARRIED. The width of the walkway will be left to the ADB. Commissioner LaBelle -said he would like to have some comments from the Staff regarding some options that might be considered for that valley as he felt additional access was a good number of years down the road. Andy Jaeger said, with respect to this particular PRD, that the developer had contacted him and indicated her willingness to keep them completely advised regarding the PRD. He said she had been conscientious in that regard and his only further comment would be to urge follow-up of Commissioner LaBelle's proposals and to consider the collective impact of future PRDs on the valley. Mrs. Medina thanked Mr. Jaeger for his comments and noted that they would be on the "same side of the fence" from then.on and possibly together could help solve the problem. Ms. Block said she, too, felt it was a very good idea to have an overall review of the valley. She suggested a discussion in about a month with everybody involved to be contacted, and she suggested that the Planning Commision develop some specific questions to'be addressed so the Staff could do some preliminary research. Chairman McGibbon asked if the -topography would justify a change in the zoning from RS-8 to something higher. Ms. Block responded that if he was thinking about the drainage, Shell Park was developed prior to the existence of the present Drainage Ordinance. COMMISSIONER SMITH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LaBELLE, TO CONSIDER SHELL VALLEY ON JULY 25, 1979. MOTION CARRIED. REVISIONS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PARK AND RECREATION PLAN Ms. Block introduced Recreation Administrator Steve Simpson who presented a capital improvements priority list which had been established by the Edmonds Parks and Recreation Advis6ry Committee. He explained that any changes to the 1974-1980 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan must be reviewed/approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and the Staff had revised this document to prepare for an IAC grant app�lication to be submitted in July. The only major change to the document was in the Capital Improvements Plan. Commissioner Smith questioned the first item on the list:. "Acquisition of waterfront, ravine, greenbelts, and new park properties" in the amount Of $1,800,000, for which no funds had yet been appropriated. Mr. Simpson said most would come from grants and the rest would have to be voted by the EDMONDS PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 - May 23, 1979- 496-A 496-B P-ETIT1014 TO L; EGI 'EG11E ;EkITS TC: CITY TREZ.-L'XaER, C"IT'l- OF Z!JviCPD5' D,�L.r Sir: I here-b7 re(:UC,'�t L of i:'i'�C on c.. cubdivir;icn of 1!�;nd belov., o-..' i.,,: :3; i(I tl,,'.'Ct iz�,- loce.ted in 'Loct. .1 Impi-ovement Dj..,�Lzict 1"o. 161 Assessment 496. ()7nCr: J. H. Pierce Full leg�-1 Cle,3crijAicri of t-i-.--.ct ',dch cep,-Lg-tion is docired is .,.r, f ollows: Lt. 6 Blk Ar Alderwood Manor No. 9 less N 574.09' Origin; --..I $ 5,347.86 Ov7ncr: M.C. Pierce. 21100 Hillcrest Pl. (B) Legr�l description of the subdivit�ion S 80' of N. 654.09 of Lt. 6 Blk 9 Alderwood Manor No. 9 W. H. James 515 Main St. (C) 1,2g�-1 dec;crf-ptioi-i OF reic.,.�J.ning tr;�ct: Lt. 6, Blk. ff Alderwood Manor No. 9 les�; N. 654.09' CITY OF EDMONDS CIVIC'*�CENTER — WATER -SEWER DEPARTMENT SIDE SEWER PERMIT Call P . Rospi%t 6-Ii07 when work is ready for inspection. (No inspec- tions Saturday, Sunday or holidays.) N2 3698 APDRESS........ ?1:�Qq ... Hillqre.s.t .... Dd.v.e ......................................................................................................................................... OWNER... .......................................................... CONTRACTOR ...... Qa-5.C4.d9 ... 5.PXQX!5 ..................................... ........ �I§Ly .... �, 19 .... 70 Pe�rn-iission is granted ............... .... I fo . ........................ 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 a permit to construct sewer inside property line. A licensed Side Sewer Contraztor 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 ieg6,ding Ordinance 11.16.030 and Regulations governing side sewers wh en you get permit. NOTE No. 3--�Top,of side sewer must have at le"t 30 inches coverage at property line and,1.2,inches inside property line; minimum grade of 2%. No bends in grade sharper than 1/8 will be permitted. NOTE No. 4—Trenches In street must be water settled and surface of street restored to origirial condition. Contractors shall be responsible for failure due to Improper work which may develop within one year of completion. NO—w No. 6--It is unlawful to alter or do any other work than is provided for In the permit, or to do any work on the main sewer or its appur- tenancei except to insert the pipe Into the wye. 9 1--r IS UOIT T.R.D. -VI Atjela M610 I k4 At- Pe(L IV*- t4k K E 0 F-. I a o4r> T�utvji&)� As-vt ape ('Oew 4 14, 154 I LZ