Haz tree removal STF2080036.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
Z/2c. 189v
September 17, 2018
Ed and Jan Chapman
701 12th Ave. N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Hazard Tree Removal (STF20180036)
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Chapman,
Your neighbor, Mr. Swank, contacted the City regarding the possible removal of one black alder
tree on your property at 701 12th Ave. N. The tree is located near the northwest corner of your
parcel but is leaning over the power lines going to Mr. Swank's property at 1140 Sierra Place.
The tree is located near the bottom of a steep slope which is a critical area according to
Chapters 23.40 and 23.80 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC).
Generally, the removal of trees or vegetation within a critical area or critical area buffer is not
an allowed activity unless it involves the removal of invasive species or hazard trees pursuant to
ECDC 23.40.220.C.8. Normal maintenance of vegetation is an allowed activity in critical areas.
"Normal maintenance of vegetation" is defined as "removal of shrubs/nonwoody vegetation
and trees (less than four -inch diameter at breast height) that occurs at least every other year.
Maintenance also may include tree topping that has been previously approved by the city in the
past five years." In this case, the black alder is larger than 4" DBH so tree hazard evaluation is
required.
According to a report and supporting documentation prepared by certified arborist Cody
Herron, the alder tree is leaning heavily and in poor health and so should be removed. It is not
a candidate for creating a wildlife snag so will be removed to the ground with the debris being
removed. Replacement with two native trees is required.
An exemption for tree cutting is granted with the following conditions:
1. Only the identified black alder tree may be removed.
Two replacement trees of a species native to the area must be installed within one year
of the tree cutting activity. Evergreen species must be a minimum of 6-feet in height
while deciduous species must be a minimum of one to two inches DBH consistent with
ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv.
If you have any questions, please let me know at either michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov or
425-771-0220.
Sincerely,
41�&gvc-
Mike Clugston, AICP
Senior Planner
Cc: J Swank
1140 Sierra Place
Edmonds, WA 98020
Encl: Arborist report from Cody Herron (PN-6967A)
I
ABC Herron Tree LLC
P.O. Box 64
Gold Bar, WA 98251
425-293-2443
mountainredd@comcast.net
Certified Tree Risk Assessor
Journeyman Tree Trimmer
ISA certified Arborist PN-6967A
Sept 11, 2018
J Swank
1140 Sierra PI
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Site Address: 1140 Sierra PI, Edmonds WA 98020
Parcel# 00530500000400
.41 Acre
Dear Mr. Swank,
ABC Herron Tree LLC is happy to submit this report compiling the Visual Tree Risk and
Evaluation Assessments performed on all significant and exceptional trees located on the parcel
listed above, as well as all offsite trees with driplines that over -hang the property lines.
Visual tree assessments is an outlined process in accordance with TRAQ (Tree Risk Assessment
Qualification) program and is a recognized standard of care by the ISA International Society of
Arboriculture to evaluate tree health and risk. All tree assessments were made with a level 2
inspection.
Our services were required as per our agreement dated and authorized to begin on 9/11/18.
The information gathered is used to compile a report required by the city of Edmonds to obtain
a permission for Tree Removal.
Yours,
Cody }f ewro v
Page 2 of 7
Jay Swank
Contents:
• Assignment
• Personal qualifications, scope of work and methodology
• Site Observations
• Site Map
• Represented tree species
• Specific tree observations
• Summary and Conclusion
• References
• Waiver of Liability
Assignment
On Sept 11, 2018 1 was asked to complete an arborist report for this Parcel# 00530500000400
for a City approval. My client J Swank called me with concerns of a tree that is showing signs of
decline.
Personal qualifications, scope of work and methodology:
The knowledge I used to evaluate the trees comes from 20 years of experience in the tree care
industry, including 2 years of schooling from South Seattle Community College. I am a
recognized Journeyman Tree trimmer through IBEW (International Brotherhood Electrical
Workers) with 12 years of experience. I also have 8 years' experience as an ISA certified
arborist, including 5 years working for Snohomish County PUD has an arborist. In addition, I
have worked for Seattle City Light and WA DOT in performing tree maintenance, mitigation and
noxious weed control. In addition to my experience and ISA certification maintained and in
good standing, I am also TRAQ certified (Tree Risk Assessment Qualified). I have relied on my
training in these areas to perform the duties outlined.
I followed the protocol delineated by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for Level 1
and 2 Visual Assessment Process. By doing so I am examining each tree independently as well
as collectively as groups or stands of trees provide stability and can lower risk of independent
tree failure. This scientific process examines tree health (e.g. size, vigor, and insect and disease
process) as well as site condition (soil, conditions nursery stumps, anaerobic conditions,
compaction etc.).
A key part of tree risk assessment is to categorize the likelihood of failure, of one or more
branches, the stem, or the roots. Visual assessment includes looking for and determining the
Page 3 of 7
Jay Swank
significance of the defects and structural conditions. Some structural defects or conditions are
more likely to lead to failure than others. individual defects or conditions may not by
themselves indicate a serious structural problem, but in combination with other conditions they
may contribute to failure.
All tree species have widely varying lifespans and tolerance capabilities to wound healing from
damage caused by biotic and abiotic forces. Knowledge of failure patterns (Disease, lifespan,
environmental conditions and species characteristics) associated with different species is
critical in making effective reports.
Site Observations:
This area is on a slight slope just above a drainage ditch. The trees in this particular area are
made up of native vegetation and some non-native species. The tree in question may be a
border tree shared with Parcel 00548900002302 to the east, address 701 12th Ave N, Edmonds
WA 98020
Site _Map: ( map is for visual aid o
Page 5 of 7
Jay Swank
Specific tree observations:
This is 1 Black Alder (Alnus glutinosa) of approximately 25-30 years of age. It has a double stem with
one DBH (diameter at breast height) of 18" and another of 16". Height is about 40'. This tree has a heavy
lean to the northwest with evidence of ground separation. There is also evidence of exposed roots with
heavy decay. The tree suffers from some root fungus and can be observed by black spot. There is heavy
ground cover on the east side of the tree. To the west side there is a driveway with an overhead power
line service drop. These conditions alone will make for an unbalanced, unhealthy specimen.
Summary and Conclusion:
It is my recommendation that this tree and only this tree be removed for a multitude of
different reasons as stated above. This tree has been suffering from a gradual upheaval and is
an imminent threat to the service wire. This tree is also a threat to neighboring properties and a
pedestrian roadway. Snohomish County PUD will not remove this tree because it is the home
owner's responsibility to remove trees for service lines. It is my belief that this should be
removed before the next heavy rain saturations and windy conditions take hold. Before the
tree is removed it should be agreed upon by neighboring property of Parcel 00548900002302
address 701 12th Ave N, Edmonds WA 98020 directly to the east.
j Basic Tree Risk Assessmerit Form
Client Date _ Time I Z: oo PA
Address/Tree location 1%Ge O rep no. I Sheet —I of
Tree species L V d b h " / r Height O' Crown spread dia. LO i
Assessor(s) &A Tools used_ Time frame I141T-
Tareet Assessment
y
Target zone
a
E
Occupancy
°
°
m
Target description
Target protection
_
'
rate
rare
to
5 �
° r
a
x
.4
x
oc
2—occasional
3—frequent
L
- U
f
rho
4—constant
a E
¢ n
v
Y
2
C
LF
y
N
3
r
4
aae ractors
History of failures Topography Flat❑ Sloped __LQ_% Aspect
Site changes None * Grade change ❑ Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts ❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited volumeoSaturated❑ Shallow❑ Compacted❑ Pavementover roots❑ % Describe
Prevailing wind direction_ Common weather Strong windsX Ice❑ Snow® Heavy rain ❑ Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low ❑ Normal I� High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑
Pests/Biotic
Species failure profile
ranchesp Trunk1P Roots❑ Describe
None (dead Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic %
Abiotic A/aN>-
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Full$ Wind funneling
Crown density Sparse❑ Normal Dense It Interior branches Few❑ Normal❑ Dense
Recent or expected change in load factors 6914, lOE96 7 rd A) 00-"
Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium llif Large ❑
Vines/Mistietoe/Moss 9
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Unbalanced crown Ir
LCR _(P%
Dead twigs/branches F1
1L2_% overall
Broken/Hangers Number_
Over -extended branches IF
Pruning history
Crown cleaned I&
Thinned ❑
Reduced ❑
Topped PP
Flush cuts ❑
Other .
— Crown and Branches —
Cracks ❑ . P A_ Lightning damage ❑
Max. dia. VI Codominant Rb 1Io" jBj} Included bark da
Max. dia. Zf ' weak attachments A 1' A&EASACOiT-Cavity/Nesf hole 0 %circ.
Previous branch failures ,9 Similar branches present ❑
Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay 121
Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay A
Response growth iE-A X,9�5i'� i�f►'j
Condition (s) of concern 7'D10112C I—Ar .
Part Size Fall Distance Qb r
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate 11F Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent fif
—Trunk —
Dead/Missing bark ❑
Abnormal bark texture/color It
Codominant stems ❑
Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑
Sapwood damage/decay Ip
Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑
Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Cavity/Nest hole %circ.
Depth Poor taper 5?
Lean3.olr--" Correc ed? h)Q
Response growth
bG VVVIEZ W
Condition (s) of concern
PartSize
Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑
Minor ❑ Moderate l:0 Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑
Possible❑ Probable ❑ Imminent RP
Part Size V/4j��h • Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ signincantim
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent .10
— Roots and Root Collar —
Collar buried/Not visible qP Depth Stem girdling ❑
Dead ❑ Decay J9 Conks/Mushrooms ❑
ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ.
Cracks UP Cut/Damaged rootslY Distance from trunk
Root plate lifting 10 Soil weakness aV
Response growth J /A
Condition (s) of concern OP F> �4JA-
d
Part Size !V d Fall Distance 70 i
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant Ili
Likel"hoodoffailure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable ❑ ImminentQ
Page I of 2
Risk Cate¢nriiatinn
Target
(Target number
-description)
Tree part
Condidon(s)
of concern
Likelihood
Consequences
Risk
Ong
Matn'x2)
Failure
Impact
Failure & Impm
(fromMab*.Ij
m
m
i
W
d
t
?
2
i§
v�
7>
d
z
=
�n
V.-Oro%.
OCAKA-Y
x
x
x
x
a AV
L)P90A77XWC9
�C
f
Matrix I. Likelihood matrix
Likelihood
Likelihood of Impact
of Failure
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Imminent
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Very likely
Probable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Possible
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Improbable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
MaWx2. Risk rating matrix.
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Negligible
Minor
Significant
Severe
Very likely
Low
Moderate
High
Extreme
Likely
Low
Moderate
High
High
Somewhat likely
I Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Unlikely I
Low
Low
Low
Low
Mitigation qptions
09 L
2.
3.
a
I
CIA cy,
— r�
r�
i
W.r
North
u
4SpEC41W5
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High 1% Extreme ❑
Overall residual risk None ❑ Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High I Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data)gFinal ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed QgNo ❑Yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations 1KINone ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe
Ihis datasheel was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017
Page 2 of 2
September 11, 2018
To: City of Edmonds Planning Department
Subject: Removal of badly leaning Alder twin trunk tree leaning toward power lines
Mr. Jay Swank has our permission to remove a tree located at the northwest corner
of our property adjacent to the city right of way. The tree is now leaning
approximately 45 degrees to the southwest and looks ready to fall with the next
windstorm out of the north. Mr. Swank intends to get the proper permitting before
removal.
Regards,
Ed and Jan Chapman
701 12th Av. N.
Edmonds, WA. 98020
HECE VED
�� 1 � 13
d ui
DEVELOi'I)OIENT SERVICES
COUNTER