Loading...
Hazard Tree Removal Approval.pdf'C. 18-i CITY OF EDMON DS 121-5'h Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION November 6, 2017 Clif and Karen Bradford 7112 Meadowdale Beach Rd Edmonds, WA 98026 SUBJECT: HAZARD TREE REMOVAL (STF20170028) Dear Clif and Karen, You have contacted the City of Edmonds regarding the removal of one alder tree located on your property at 7112 Meadowdale Beach Rd. The subject parcel does not fall into exemptions from tree removal permitting requirements of ECDC 18.45.030 as it is known to contain slopes in excess of 25-percent. Slopes on the western portion of the property where the trees are located exceed 40- percent and are categorized as potential landslide hazard areas pursuant to ECDC 23.80. Generally, the removal of trees or vegetation within critical areas are not an allowed activity, unless, pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8), it involves removal of invasive species or hazard trees. An ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form was completed by Craig Bachmann (RM-7652A) was submitted which evaluated the risk of the subject tree. According to the report, the tree exhibits a 20-degree lean towards the house, sheds, and yard. The canopy is weighted in the same direction and lacks corrective growth — indicating that the lean has increased significantly in a short period of time. The tree is categorized as a high risk for whole -tree failure due to loose soil at the base of the tree and overall lean. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220(C) (8) (b) (iv), each hazard tree removed within a critical area or critical area buffer must be replaced with new native species at 2:1 ratio. You have indicated the tree will be replaced with two vine maples. An exception for the tree cutting is granted with the following conditions: Only the tree identified in the report by Craig Bachmann dated October 11, 2017 may be removed. 2. Two replacement vine maples must be planted in the general vicinity within one year of the tree cutting. 3. Trees shall be fell onto private property. 4. Vehicles and equipment shall be located on private property. Should it be necessary to utilize any portion of the City right-of-way, including the street or sidewalk, to perform any of this work then the contractor shall apply for and obtain a right-of-way construction permit in advance of starting work. A traffic control plan will be required as part of the right-of-way permit application. 5. Contractor/owner is responsible for keeping all debris on site and preventing any silt laden runoff from leaving the site and/or entering the city storm system. 6. Contractor/owner shall repair/replace any damaged sections of curb/gutter, sidewalk or other public improvements in City right-of-way per City standards that is caused by or occurs during the permitted project. 7. Contractor/owner is responsible for locating all on -site utilities and any utilities on neighboring properties that could be impacted by the tree removal. Relocation/revision/repair to any utilities may require separate permit. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Since ly, Brad Shipley Associate Planner Attachments: Cover Letter ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment form Photos of tree Page 2 of 2 S+�zonco28 October 11, 2017 Re: Tree Removal 7112 Meadowdale Beach Road Edmonds, WA 98026 To Whom It May Concern: ftcel ocr � J ��► °EVECOP " Z01I 10 UNrER RW'CES We have a tree on our property that posses a high safety risk to structures as well as people who may be in our yard in the event it would fall. We would like to have the tree removed to eliminate this threat. Please find the enclosed documents per the City of Edmonds: 1) Site Plan 2) Tree Risk Assessment Form complete by ISA Certified Arborist/Tree Risk Assessor- Mr. Craig Bachmann 3) Six photos from varies angles showing the tree, its large unbalanced canopy, and significant lean toward our house, sheds and yard. 4) Two vine maples will be planted adjacent to where the alder will be removed with adequate spacing to promote growth of both new trees. The tree is located on a sloped area of our yard which has had other alder trees fall, the most recent being 2 years ago. (The 5 yrs ago noted on the Tree Risk Assessment Form is an approximation.) We would like permission to have the tree removed, which is recommended by Mr. Bachmann, to eliminate all risk versus a crown reduction that would only lower the risk from high to medium. According to Mr. Bachmann, we understand that a crown reduction is a short-term mitigation and can expedite the death of the tree, creating ongoing risk for failure in the near future. If you have any questions, please contact us via the information below. We can also provide contact information for Mr. Bachmann if needed. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Respectfully, Clif and Karen Bradford 7112 Meadowdale Beach Road Edmonds, WA 98026 405-919-1121 CZdA .L-N o-OA ! 4 spi Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client Karen Bradfor Date 10/11 /2017 Time 11:15arn Address/Tree Ippcation I I Wale Beach Hid Zre,� no. Sheet fit f Tree species AlnUS CU dbh 18 in Height 0 Tt Crovirl spread dia Assessor(s) a19 C mann HM-7652ATime frame 5 yrgTools used rape measure, MMt Target Assessment Target zone Occupancy rate 1-rare $ w to c to c X c 2 Target description } a 7�,•C c f— x Ln 2-occasional 3—frequent 9 U H H 4—constant a E C IZ 1 House at 7112 Meadowdale Beach Rd V4 no no 2 People in yard 2 no no 3 Sheds, Fence and Landscaping ✓ 4 no no 4 Site Factors History of failures Failure of adjacent Alder (10 ft away) approx 5 yrs ago Topography Flat❑ Slope2l 60 % Aspect N Site changes None ■ Grade change ❑ Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe None observed Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe Very loose soil Prevailing wind direction W Common weather Strong winds ■ Ice ❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rain ❑ Describe Seasonal storms Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ❑ Normal ❑ High ■ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal luo % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests Burrowing rodents in soil adjacent to root plate Abiotic None identified Species failure profile Branches❑ Trunk❑ Roots■ Describe tone to whole -tree failure Load Factors Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ■ Full ❑ Wind funneling Possible along road Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium ❑ Large 0 Crown density Sparse❑ Normal■ Dense❑ Interior branches Few❑ Normal■ Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss E Some moss, few vines Recent or lanned chan a in load factors None identified P g Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — 70 Unbalanced crown ■ LCR % none observed Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches ❑ <5 %_overall Max. dia. 3 in Codominant ❑ no Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number�ot� Max. dia. in no no 0 Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole _/ circ. Over -extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures ❑ none observed Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history _ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ElSapwood damage/decay ❑ Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ none observed Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other none observed Response growth n/a no concerns at this time Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A ■ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ nia Likelihood of failure Improbable ■ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ nia —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth n/a Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ n/a % circ. Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk n/a Cavity Nest hole no % circ. Depth n/a Poor toper ❑ �0 Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ■ Lean Corrected? No corrective gro�nr h observed None observed Response growth Response None observed u p nse growth Mid -stem failure due to unbalanced Main concern(s) Main concern(s) oot plate a ure ue to loose soil and lean canopy and signficant lean Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant N Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ■ Likelihood of failure A Likelihood of failure Improbable 11 Possible 0 Probable 11 Imminent 0 Improbable 0 Possible 0 Probable 0 Imminent 0 Risk Cateeorization „ I ' ®®O®eCo CCoCCCo:W�.��CCo .. -.. . to loose "A0o0Co0CCC "All CNIo� . • :: CCCCCCCC o,Co.CCCCC Mid -stern._ ��O • ° Co.CCCCCCCo.CCCCo.CC� due .:. C N WJ I Fol Ci:Ci7CCWJWJ o OCn1�CCCo Co.CC:CC1074 X. Ca! 9 CC! CCC CC! 0MNo© C•, Xo � CCCCr,NJ WC WA � O �® Option- CC !CoCCCCCCC CC C . • • o CCC CCCCC! oMitigation. . C o c o CC CC CCo�CC CC o C • Matrix I. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood Likelihood of Impacting Target 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 Matrix2. 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 Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low I Low Low Notes, explanations, descriptions Tree exhibits 20-degree lean toward corner ot house and she s Canopy is weighted tot the same direction. Lack of corrective growth in a vigorous tree suggests lean has increased significantly to a short penoa of time. may De related to prior taiiure or adjacent ree. Mitigation options Option 1 - Major crown reduction (topping) - remove 15 ft from top of tree (-6" final cut) Option 2 - Complete tree removal (RECOMMENDED) Note - Crown reduction would reduce risk, but will not eliminate the potential for whole -tree failure. North Residual risk Medium Residual risk Zero Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ■ Extreme ❑ Work priority 1 ■ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ Overall residual risk Low ■ Moderate ■ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval 6 mos if not removed Data ■Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ■No ❑Yes-Type/Reason n/a Inspection limitations ■None ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists - 2013 n_ __ n -KIN do •y:T.'. �r5 v w y' e 41( �3 l IL v kQ�j