Hazard Tree Removal Request for Replacement Species.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 a Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
.1/lc. 18W0
December 17, 2019
Tanky Shiu
7403 —169th Place SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
Subject: Hazard Tree Removal (File Number CRA2019-0199)
Dear Tanky Shiu,
Mr. Mathew Brenan of Devoted Tree Solutions dropped off information regarding the removal of a tree
on your property located at 7403 —169th Place SW. The tree was located on slope that exceeds 40%
which is considered a potential landslide hazard area according to Chapter 23.80 of the Edmonds
Community Development. Landslide hazard areas are a type of critical and generally speaking, 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.8, it involves the removal of invasive species or hazard trees.
In order to fall under the hazard tree provisions of ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b a tree must be determined to
be a high risk by a certified arborist. Mr. Brenan submitting documentation noting that a maple tree had
been damaged in a storm and as a result posed an extreme hazard. Given the extreme hazard, it was
recommended the tree be removed immediately. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.vi, trees that pose
an imminent threat such as this may be removed prior to receiving written approval from the City of
Edmonds; provided, that within 14-days following such action a restoration plan is submitted to the City.
In accordance with 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 trees at a ratio of two to one. Mr. Brenan's cover letter noted
that the maple tree will be replaced at a ratio of 2 to 1 in accordance with city specifications. The
replacement trees must be native and indigenous species pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv. The
replacement species has not been identified at this time.
Please provide the City of Edmonds with the proposed replacement species and general location the
replacement trees will be planted. Note that the replacement trees must be a minimum of one to two
inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) for deciduous trees and a minimum of six feet in height for
evergreen trees as measured from the top of the root ball and planted within one year of the removal of
the hazard tree. Information regard the replacement species may be emailed to me at the email
address below.
Once the replacement species has been approved and planted, please call for an inspection.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions at kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov, or 425-771-0220.
Sin rely, N
d�
ernen Lien
Environmental Programs Manager
End: Cover Letter
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Form
Site Plan
Photos
CAA �-0 Lcl V 10(1 (-,-4
'5T f-- 3-o 0 v ; I ( S'-tc �)
�00
•�S��A��O a��1•
s0L13
Protecting Your Family I ree Hno
Helping Root Communities
8716 304" ave ct e
Graham, Wa 98338
Customer and Location:
TANKY SHIU
7403 169rn PL SW
EDMONDS,WA. 98026
To whom it may concern:
RECEIVE®
DEC O 7J7 201
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
COUNTER
Devoted Tree Solutions has removed a broken (storm damage) maple from the Shiu property
DBH 17" HT 90'
Species: MAPLE DBH 17" HT 90'
Arborist site observation: MAPLE HAD STORM DAMAGE. BROKEN APPROX. 15'
FROM BASE AND HUNG UP IN ANOTHER MAPLE LEANING TOWARDS SHIU
HOME WITHIN 1 % TIMES THE DRIP LINE. THE TREE WAS IN IMMINENT
DANGER OF FALLING ON THEIR HOME
Arborist recommendation: Removal was the best choice at this time for maple in question.
Replanting will happen to city specifications, 2 to 1.
Mathew Brenan
ISA Certified Arborist PN-8620A
425-248-5765
Limiting conditions:
Unless expressed otherwise: information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and
reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection; and the inspection is limited to a visual examination of
the items without dissection. excavation, probing or coring. There is not a warranty guarantee, expressed or implied,
that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future.
i_ Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client s: K� Vt- Date %'Ys�/C1 Time �AM
Address/Tree locatio y u 3LAt L SLt j G Tree no. Sheet of�
Tree species dbh / % Height. 20 Crown spread dia.
Assessor(s) I'1,10��U I) (_- N� 1 -�S �Oi� Time frame ZV (LIL Tools used (✓X t C-P-M �
Target Assessment
Target zone
Occupancy
Lm E
C
X
=
rate
1—rare
m
C—
I�
Target description
a
,
c
H t
3 x
2-occasional
3—frequents
u y
>
fi
~
4—constant
a
H
F
as E
01:
1LAD!ti
N
D
2
3
4
Site Factors
History of failures i'� CAS �E�,N ' 1 1� We-ef- D 1 �i7 ! Topography Flat❑ Slope$ D % Aspect
Site changes None 6XGrade change ❑ Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts ❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume IRSaturated ❑ Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe �I rl C.+ L
Prevailing wind direction 5�11 Common weather Strong winds L i Ice ❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rain ❑ Describe 6 P� L W v—
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low a Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) None(dead) 6( Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic
Pew Abiotic I
Species failure profile Branches ❑ Trunk[] Roots❑ Describe w Kole % A-t6F,A d - `YEj--(-XtC4 PWK,A S�
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected �K Partial If Full ❑ Wind funneling ❑ Relative crown size Small? Medium ❑ Large ❑
Crown density Sparse N Normal ❑ Dense ❑ Interior branches Fewo Normal ❑ Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑
Recent or planned change in load factors
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and Branches —
Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR % Cracks ❑ _ Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/brancheh( I bu %overall Max. dia.10 Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. o
Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole / _circ.
Over -extended branches ❑
Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
Pruning history
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other Q- Response growth 1
Main concern(s) I�`'�d �22� [3Wkttr�l C/LI+C/C t � l'>RPwx /SVV
�� J
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent
—Trunk — is and Root Collar —
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried Not visibl Depth Stem girdling ❑
Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ ecay ❑ 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 weakness ❑
Lean ° Corrected?
Response growth Response growth
Main concern(s) C Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significantl Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderat Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure A Likelihood of failure
Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent � Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Immine
Risk Categorization
E
c
c
c
O
u
Tree part
Conditions
of concern
N
ftl
a
c
�
N
�
y
.0
E
o°'u
rL0
Target
protection
Likelihood
Consequences
Risk
rating
of part
(from
Matrix 2)
Failure
Impact
Failure & Impact
(from Matrix 1)
a
2
CL
a
O
a
„
a`
n
E
_
o
ari
>
p
r
ro
_
Y
e
o
C
,�
T
Y
Y
y
>
v
to
iu
Z
c
ib
v,
Z
v�
1
-r"ti
�VYLS
2
3
4
Matrix 1. 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 1
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
Low
Low
Notes, explanations, descriptions
North
Mitigation options fU- l'Atu eA Residual risk ` VL
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme(o Work priority 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑
Overall residual risk Low �� Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data Winal ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations QNone ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe .
Ic
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists — 2013
Page 2 of 2
�I
ti
�-+► K
kp W1*0
s
Auk-
7403 169th
Place Southwest
low*►, .
W--... low