Loading...
Hazard Tree Removal Decision +Attachments.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS 121 5" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771 .0220 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION fhC. 10" July 18, 2017 Jeff Taylor and Jeff Pittman 16012 74th Pl. W Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Removal of Two Hazard Trees at 16012 74" PI. W (PLN20170016) The City of Edmonds has received a request to remove three trees on your property at 16012 74"' Pl. W. The three trees identified are located within Edmonds' Earth Subsistence and Landslide Hazard Areas (ESLHA) on a slope classified as Severe Erosion Hazard and adjacent to a stream. The location is considered a critical area pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.40, 23.80, and 23.90. Generally the removal of trees, or any vegetation, within a critical area or critical area buffer is not an allowed activity, unless, pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.7, it involves the removal of invasive species or hazard trees. ISA Tree Risk Assessment forms, prepared by John Lewis (PN-1163-A) of Kenny Tree, Inc., were submitted with the request to remove the trees. A Red Cedar (#30), Douglas Fir (#31), and Hemlock (#32) were evaluated. Tree #30 received an overall risk rating of "moderate", while Trees #31 and #32 received an overall risk rating of "high." Only Trees #2 and #3 qualify as hazard trees which may be removed in accordance with ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b. Tree #1 would require a permit for removal. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv each hazard tree removed must be replaced with new trees at a ratio of two to one. The arborist recommended replacing the hazard trees with either Western Yew or Vine Maple. An exemption for the tree cutting is granted with the following conditions: 1. Only trees #2 and #3 identified in the arborist report may be removed under this approval. 2. Four replacement trees must be planted in the general vicinity of the removed trees. The replacement trees may be either Western Yew or Vine Maple. In accordance with ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv, evergreen replacement trees must be at least six feet in height as measured from the top of the root ball and vine maple must be a minimum of 1-2" diameter at breast height. The replacement trees must be planted within one year of the tree cutting activity. 3. If the identified replacement trees cannot be found in the required size, substitute replacement trees that are native and indigenous to the area may be approved by the Planning Division. Please contact the City before substituting replacement tree species. 4. Stump of the tree cut must be left in place to provide slope stability and prevent erosion. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions at brad.shipley@edmondswa.gov, or 425-771-0220. Sincerely, Brad Shipley Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Cover Letter 2. Critical Areas Map 3. Vicinity Map 4. Site Plan 5. ISA-Tree Risk Assessment Forms 6. Photos Page 2 of 2 S*-r 2T)1-7DD I � June 30,' 2017 Jeff Pittman & Jeff Taylor 16012 — 74`h P I W Edmonds WA 98026 City of Edmonds Planning Division To Whom It May Concern: We are submitting a request for your approval to remove three trees which pose a potential hazard, based on the assessment of a professional arborist. We are submitting the attached information as required for your review and approval: • Tree Risk Assessment forms for each of the trees, which include site plan sketches on the back, • Photos of the trees, • And this cover letter. These trees, listed in the attached Tree Risk Assessment Forms as 430, 31, and 32, would be removed and replaced by two Mountain Ashes. Jeffrey Pittman Jeffrey Taylor ATTACHMENT 1 City of Edmonds Critical Area Map 0 0 VE E, ME/ " P7O00i , , V0, �/W'o -, 0 23.51 47.0 Feet This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION Legend = Creeks ® Seismic Hazard Areas Earth Subsidence and Landslide L! Minimum Buffer Adjacent to Haz Wetlands Wetlands Boundary —. - Wetland Boundaries Not Completel Wetland Known Extents Floodplains Landslide Hazard Area 40% ® Severe Erosion Hazard 15%-40% Erosion Hazard Areas 15%-40% Notes ATTACHMENT 2 - � ems.•.; - �- - �--.� =- Property line -+ • ►_ ,�, 00513105800 ir Nguyen house :M t r•r.s' e. �_ . w 1 ��� •rye . ra 4 •� i � Tree f� Tree Tree I r '+ �. 007904000001001 KK D%b'.niPtT Kr;'T4bT i l•Kr '.OliM iA 3P. 2• northofStream of house. 10' south of stream Dusq* 13' souHi of stream 1' - x 73RD PL W 7 00790400000200' ED?,'YONG 0P 00790400099900 73RD PL W Ml_ DECEIVED JUL 18 2017 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER ATTACHMENT 3 Property line D� n �Ttl /Tavfo� garage Brps,r; ho ;,:r Putman/ Taylor house Stream Tree #30 is 9' east of house, 2' north of stream Tree #31 is 15' southeast of house, 10' south of stream Tree #32 is 23' south of house, 13' south of stream Still to be planted, trees #33-36, south of the stream, are where we intend to plant 4 Vine Maples RECEIVED JUL 18 2017 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER ATTACHMENT 4 1 SA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form #3°� y Client i' Date G • 17 Time %: Y/ Address/Tree lot tion coo 12 7414 ree no. 3 Sheet /_ of Tree species Ra Ct Olaf dbh 2.2 Height L O Crown spread dia. 2S Assessors) �,U L.l - //L i,d Time frame —I vej Tools used - K//r f — Target Assessment Target zone Occupancy rate i-rare 8 9 m `o c ` i' s f 7 2-occss-nt r+ 9 IS c Target description a F rn " 3 _ frequent r u 9 4—constant a E c a 1 2 3 4 Site Factors History of failures dipat. Topography Flat❑ Slope �% Aspectt,) Site changes None UrGrade change Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts❑ Describe Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated GeShalloweCompacted Pavement over roots❑ % Describe Prevailing wind direction�� Common weather Strong winds Ice❑ Snow❑ Heavy rain7W Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal)❑ None (dead)❑ Normals% Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests Abiotic Species failure profile Branches❑ Trunk❑ Roots Describe Load Factors Windexposure Protected❑ PartialOKFullO WindfunnelingRelative crown size Small❑ Medium Large❑ Crown density Sparse1211"Normal❑ Dense[] Interiorbranc es Fe� Normal❑ Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent or planned change in load factors A9 04 o y&-� A. e .� t T Ye e 0.11 Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR­W % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches ❑ %overall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole_/o tire. over -extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ RK Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth - Main concern(s) _ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate Significant ❑ r ilure Improbable❑ Possible � Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — ark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stemgirdling❑ ms ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay � Conks/Mushrooms ❑pge/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ %circ. Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness GK Lean " Corrected? Response growth AIR Response growth Main concern(s) Main concern(s) _�acz—L rD t✓^,� 9&Z"< —/ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant Ifs Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable 09"' Imminent ❑ Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable Rl", Imminent ❑ Page I of 2 .aa:gaa Scanned by CamScanner ATTACHMENT 5 ISA Client.Je E- Address/Tree Tree species _ Assessor(s�,j �31 Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Dates - / 4 - / 7 Time / : / S Tree no. 3 / Sheet / of 2 _ dbh 3B " Height Crown spread dia. -- _ Time Irame�ft Tools used Target Assessment 6 Site Factors Topography Fiat❑ Slope Aspect Aspect History of failures Site changes None❑ Grade change❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Rootcuts❑ Describe Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated ❑ Shallow93JCompacted Ice ❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rainPavement over roots[]% Describe Prevailing wind direction,Common weather Strong winds _ f ,"Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ❑ Normal High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal)❑ None (dead)❑ Normal _W % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests_j10_f,L'i_ Ablotic Species failure profile Branch es❑ Trunk Roots❑ Describe Load Factors Wind exposure Protected❑ Partial Full❑ Wind funneling T— — Relative crown size Small Medium Large❑ Crown density Sparse❑ Normal l>6'�Dense❑ Interior branches Few Normal l(Dense❑ ine istletoe/Moss — Recent or planned change in load factors _ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown W LCR Dead twigs/branches ❑ % overall Max. dia. Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Over -extended branches ❑ Pruning history —/ Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned El Raised [� Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Main concern(s) Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Codominant 2/ Included bark ❑ Weakattachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Previous branch failures ❑ _ Similar branches present ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Response growth Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor M' Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible WK Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ — Roots� and Root Collar — Collar buried/Not visible ttf/Depth Stem girdling ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity❑ %circ. Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk (toot plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness e —Trunk Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal ba1rk texture/color ❑ Codominant stems iB" Included bark O Cracks ❑ Sapwood damage/dewy GT/ Cankers/Galls/Burls Sap ooze lie Lightning damage Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms❑ Cavity/Nest hole _%circ. Depth Poortaper ❑ Lean—LD Corrected? Jan Response growth L Main concern(s) fEktl (& A r - Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Slgnificant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent , Response growth Main concern(s) - Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate Gro"Significant RI Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible � Probable ❑ Imminent 0 Page I of 2 Scanned by CamScanner .# 3 JS;J. Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form �q s Client,1gf � M Date, - /6- 1 7 Time / =00 ?M Address/Tree location I E VIA 7 q' Fb 1✓, E, M,,NJ1 5e, Go rA/tr Tree no.---31 Sheet I of .i Tree species P'1i G dbit / r" Height 75 ' Crown spread dia. Assessor(s) I e►✓:S A•1163, Time frame —J—yr_Toolsused T.—t Aeeneemnn4 Target zone `m Occupancy rate re 1-ra Q d m c nt £ x .21 � E �~ f� 2-oGU No�.�l e Target description Y r 3-frequent o A 4-wmtant a E a< a 1 �� A) IC% 2 3 4 site i actors History of failures-�� Topography Flat❑ Slope L9� Z % Aspect '=aJ Site changes None Q Grade change ❑ Site clearing❑ Chan ed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts❑ Describe Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ ShalloA l Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots❑ �—% Describe Prevailing wind direction_ Common weather Strong winds Ice❑ Snow El Heavy rain I, Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low 2KNormal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal SO % Chlorotic % Necrotic —% Pests Abiotic Species failure profile Branches TrunkOfRoots❑ Describe Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full❑ Windfunneling❑ Relative crown size Small Medium❑ Large❑ Crowndensity Sparse lf7edNormal❑ Dense❑ Interior branches Fewo Normal❑ Dense❑ (Vin Mistletoe/Mossild"' _. Recent or planned change in load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure / — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown Or LCR _ 10 Y- Cracks ig Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches ❑ _%overall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Weakattachments ❑ _ Cavity/Nest hole _%circ. Over -extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised [� Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth — Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate e Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible � Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color [Er Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks d Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity %circ. Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth _ _ Poor taper Root plate lifting ❑ soil weakne s l� Lean-j - Corrected? 00 Response growth AID AZt Response growth d0'✓C Main concerns) Pdm - .-r�� %i/� wJG t.� Croup, Main concern(s) ✓ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate Itl Significant ❑ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor Ilr Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable M Imminent ❑ Improbable ❑ Possible Ll Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Page I of 2 Scanned by CamScanner i