Hazard tree removal STF20180033.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121511 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
"c. 18yNJ
August 20, 2018
Neal Baker
ArboristsNW
neal@arboristsnw.com
Subject: Hazard Tree Removal (STF20180033)
Dear Mr. Baker,
You contacted the City regarding the possible removal of one red alder tree on property owned
by Mary Bell at 798 Daley St. The tree is located approximately 20 feet southwest of the
existing house on the site. The tree is also approximately 50 feet away from Shell Creek which
runs a little further to the southwest. Shell Creek is a critical area pursuant to Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40 and 23.90.
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 red alder is larger than 4" DBH so tree hazard evaluation is
required.
According to your report and supporting documentation, the alder tree is 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 for every tree
removed is required and two vine maples are shown on the site plan provided.
An exemption for tree cutting is granted with the following conditions:
1. Only the identified red alder tree maybe removed.
2. 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,
Mike Clugston, AICP
Senior Planner
Cc: Mary Bell
Encl: Arborist report from Neal Baker (PN1075A TRAQ) and supporting documentation
Clugston, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Good Morning,
Not sure what happened there.
Here in email form;
Neal the Arborist <neal@arboristsnw.com>
Monday, August 20, 2018 8:59 AM
Clugston, Michael
RE: tree removal 798 Daley --Mary Bell
Bell site map 8-20-18.png
We will be cutting the tree to ground as the tree has only epicormic growth on the bottom half of the tree and
completely dead top half.
The tree will be removed by hand, cutting lowered small pieces until it is below the utility lines directly under it.
All debris is to be removed short of sawdust.
The replacement trees will be Vine Maples
Neal Baker
ArboristsNW.com
ISA Cert. PN1075A
TRAQ ISA (Tree Risk Assessment Qualified)
Member AREA & SOCA
206 779 2579
From: Clugston, Michael <Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov>
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:40 AM
To: 'Neal the Arborist' <neal@arboristsnw.com>
Cc:'nealkal2@gmail.com'<nealkal2@gmail.com>;'mary.maribel@gmail.com' <mary.maribel@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: tree removal 798 Daley --Mary Bell
Hi Neal,
Following up on this one. I received the risk assessment form and tree photos on July 31 but had requested:
1) Scope of work describing the hazardous nature of the tree, what work is proposed to address the hazard, how the
work will be done, what will happen with any downs, what native species will be replanted at 2:1
2) Marked up aerial photo or site plan showing the tree in question and location of replacements
I haven't received these items yet so can't move forward on this one. Please forward that info so I can continue with my
review and decision.
Thanks
Mike
Michael Clugston, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Edmonds
425-771-0220 x 1330
mkhoel-clugston@edmondswo.gov
Permit assistance, codes, online permits, and Web GIS: http://www.edmondswo.aov/handouts.html
Permit Center Hours:
M, T, TH, F 8:00 AM — 4:30 PM
Wednesday 8:30 AM —12:00 PM
From: Clugston, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 1:53 PM
To:'Neal the Arborist' <neal@arboristsnw.com>
Cc:'nealkal2@gmail.com' <nealkal2@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: tree removal 798 Daley --Mary Bell
Neal,
The list of four items is what I need to see. It looks like the pictures (#3) and assessment form (#4) are attached so that's
good but the cover letter (#1) and site plan (#2) are still needed. I'll keep this info and expect the rest of the info in a
subsequent email.
Mike
From: Neal the Arborist <neal@arboristsnw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 11:57 AM
To: Clugston, Michael <Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: mary.maribel@gmail.com
Subject: tree removal 798 Daley --Mary Bell
Greetings and Good Morning,
I was planning on filling out the complete application, but this morning Ms. Bell called. She was told by your office that
all she needed was to have this hazard evaluation sent in.
Find attached the ISA hazard evaluation for Ms. Bells Alder tree, that needs to be removed
Neal Baker
ArboristsNW.com
ISA Cert. PN1075A
TRAQ ISA (Tree Risk Assessment Qualified)
Member AREA & SOCA
206 779 2579
Virus -free. www.avast.com
ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client Mary Bell Date 7/26118 Time 1.30PM
Address/Tree location 798 Daley Edmonds, WA just off back SW cornerof home Tree no. 1 Sheet 1 of
Tree species Red Alder dbh 23" Height 80' Crown spread dia. 25'
Assessor(S) Neal Baker PN1075A TRAQ Tools Used DBH tape & camera Time frame 6mths
Target Assessment
Target zone
a
Occupancy
�•
S
S
c
E
Target description
Target protection
d
2
r 4
3 x
rate
1—rare
$ m
m
u
c n
pip
x
�p rl
x
�p N
2—occasional
3—frequent
'i2
` F
+•
F
H
F
H
4-constant
a. E
X a
1
Utility lines
none
4
n0
n0
2
neighbors home
none
✓
3
n0
n0
3
owners home
none
3
n0
n0
4
Site Factors
History of failures top of the tree and several branches Topography Flats Slope❑
Site changes None® Grade change❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts[] Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots@ % Describe
Prevailing wind direction sw Common weather Strong winds@ Ice Snow❑ Heavy rain@ Describe seasonal
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low @ Normal @ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal)❑ None (dead)❑ Normal 40 % Chlorotic `'
Pests/Biotic Abiotic
% Aspect
% Necrotic of %
Species failure profile Branches@ Trunk@ Roots❑ Describe
Load Factors
Windexposure Protected❑ Partial@ Full@ Windfunneling❑_ Relative crown size Small❑ Mediums Large
Crowndensity Sparse@ Normal❑ Dense@ Interior branches Few@ Normal@@ Dense@ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑
Recent or expected change in load factors ll CCJ UI I JC JIUC I Cl I IUVUU
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and Branches —
Unbalanced crown I9 LCR 25 %
Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/branches @ 50 %overall Max. dia. 10"
Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number 5+ Max. dia. 6-6"
Weak attachments @ Cavity/Nest hole %circ.
Over -extended branches ❑
Previous branch failures @ . Similar branches present 17
Pruning history
Dead/Missing bark B Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay 0
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised 0
Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑
Conks ❑ Heartwood decay B
Flush cuts ❑ Other
Response growth woundwood forming but slower then internal decay
Condition (s)
of concern
lop h,V of Iree is con,plelely dead and rolled
Part Size 6-10"x25'-30' Fall Distance 70'
Part Size 66 Fall Distance 70'
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant [E
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant 0
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable III! Imminent ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable @ Imminent ❑
—Trunk —
— Roots and Root Collar —
Dead/Missing bark @ Abnormal bark texture/color @
Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑
Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑
Dead ❑ Decay @ Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Sapwood damage/decay @ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑
Ooze ❑ Cavity @ 25 % circ.
Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay @ Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk
Cavity/Nest hole 25 % circ. Depth 10" Poor taper @
Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑
Lean 20 Corrected? no
Response growth woundwood forming but slower then internal decay
Response growth none
Condition 5 of concern tree in severe decline rot in root flare
( )
Condition (s) of concern top half dead large cavity in lower trunk
Part Size 23 Fall Distance 60
Part Size 23 Fall Distance 80,
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ®
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant @
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible @ Probable IN Imminent ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible @ Probable @ Imminent ❑
Page I of 2
Risk Categorization
Likelihood
Consequences
Failure
Impact
Failure & Impact
Target
(Target number
Tree part
Condition(s)
of concern
(from Matrix 1)
Risk
m
ordescription)
cu
a
v
c
3
°
'-
T
v
=
°°
c
rating
c
a
E
a
o
a
E
j
3
a
sen
2
'�
�
E
°n
>
Y
Z
>
ao
z
°c_
c
n
>
LA
(from
Matrix 2)
branches/Sc
affolds
too much end weigh
0
G)
010
0®
0
moderate
2
0
DG)JO®
(i)
0(i)
0
•
moderate
3
0
O
0
0
010
O
0
®
•
moderate
1
trunk
large cavity/+50% df
0
(�)
(:)
(�)
000
0
C)
•D
high
2
0
00
�
low
3
0
O
O
0
0•
0
•
moderate
1
root
collar/roots
25% cavity
•
•
high
2
Q
•
0
Q
0
0
0
low
3
0
G
O
O
0
O
0
0
•
moderate
0
0
®®
®0®
0
®
0
00
000
0
0
0000000
Matrix 1. 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
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
only live foliage is epicormic sproutiing on lower trunk_ Top half of tree is dead, losing bark and has lost many branches
tree trunk is activly failing
Mitigation options
1. cut to stump
2.
3.
4.
North
rr
Residual risk none
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High R Extreme ❑
Overall residual risk None R Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval 2mths
Data R Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations R None ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 Page 2 of 2
:1 1'!
Aq,
7,11
, , *
4h
I , t
0,
�N
t