Hazard tree removal STF20190001.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
"Ic. I S9V
January 23, 2019
Jacob and Caitlin Hitchner
18414 79th PL. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Subject: Hazard Tree Removal (STF20190001)
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hitchner,
The City of Edmonds was contacted by your arborist regarding a request for hazard tree
removal. Jeff Ingmire a certified arborist has recommended removal of three (3) Alder trees to
a 12-16 foot Habitat trunk located at 18414 79th PL. W. The subject property contains slopes
greater than 40% according to the City's LiDAR information, which is considered a critical area
pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40, 23.80.
Generally, the removal of trees or vegetation within a critical area or a 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 Alder trees are larger than 4" DBH so tree hazard evaluation is
required.
ISA Tree Risk Assessment forms, prepared by Jeff Ingmire (PN-7640A) were submitted with the
request to remove three (3) Alder trees to a 12-16 foot Habitat trunk with an overall risk rating
of "high." According to the report and photos provided the subject Alder trees have had
significant limb and top breakage due to wind and one trunk has cracked and is leaning towards
the garage. The trees have been engulfed in ivy and show significant signs of declining health,
the height and bulk of the ivy and canopy now present a hazard to the property. Due to the
high risk for failure the trees are a candidate 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.
Per information provided by the applicant, the site butts up to a forested hillside which
contains a mix of trees. The arborist has proposed to remove the three (3) Alder trees to a 12-
16 foot Habitat trunk with roots, trunk and ivy left intact and thus replacement trees will not be
required.
An exemption for tree cutting is granted with the following conditions:
1. Only the three (3) identified Alder trees may be cut to a 12-16 foot Habitat trunk to
provide slope stability. Tree replacement will not be required.
2. If a Habitat trunk of at least 12 feet is not provided, replacement trees that are native
and indigenous to the area will be required. Please contact the City Planning Division
before substituting replacement tree species.
3. The downed wood may be left onsite or removed.
If you have any questions, please let me know at either michele.szafran@edmondswa.gov or
425-771-0220.
Sincerely,
Michele Q. Szafran
Planner
Encl: Arborist Cover Letter
Tree Risk Assessment Forms
Photos
Arborist Report
Jeff Ingmire PN 7640
425-508-0904 jeff@eastsidetreeworks.com
1/10/2019
Site: Jake HITCHNER, 18414 79 Place West, Edmonds, Wa 98026
Subj: Tree Removal
neciejV
BAN �, ieo
1 , 1319
p(
Site: This site contains a single-family dwelling with a bump out side garage that includes a small fenced
in yard. This yard butts up on right side to a moderate sloping hillside down to forest area of mixed
trees. Most of the trees around this property are older trees, not trimmed or maintained because the
yards stop at top of this slope and the lower area with trees is not walkable. Several neighbors have
removed dangerous trees along this slope in past years and many trees have fallen on their own. Mr.
Hitcher has 4 Large Ivy engulfed Alders remaining next to his property.
Assessment: Of these remaining 4 alders, they are engulfed in ivy and have significant decline in health
do to age and being hard to maintain located on not useable space. These trees have significant limb
and top breakage do to wind and one trunk cracked and is now leaning toward the garage. The height
and bulk of ivy and canopy of these trees have now become a hazard to the Hitchers yard and dwelling.
Although the trees serve a purpose with roots holding the hillside, the canopy of these trees have now
become a hazard.
Recommendation: That Mr. Hitcher be allowed to remove 3 of these remaining alders to a 12-16-foot
Habitat trunk with roots, trunk and Ivy left intact to continue holding the hillside. This would accomplish
the purpose of maintaining tree roots on the hillside but remove the burden and hazard of these trees
upper canopy from the occupants and dwelling.
Sincerely,
RNA.Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client 3q Ce TC Ee Date / /o/ I Time
Address/Tree location /8y11j Z WGsr E_�WAS Y OZG Tree no. — Sheet of
Tree species leie(5 dbh Height Crown spread dia.
Assessor(s) G� �l 12t, - A5fsli-1(i ►E �JQZ S Time frame Tools sect t:!�ub�
Target Assessment
Target zone
Occupancy
�•
�_L°
a
Is
P�
lire
z-occasionar
o=
F C
Target description
'D
F
}; N
3—frequent+
4—constant
9 t
a
.T_+
1pt<A
O
11
2
iJ 0
w 147
.10
O U
3
4
Brie raaors _ _
History of failures i L T'TcS �/V tJrrDUA �e rQ Topography Flat❑ Slop %Aspect
Site changes None Grade change❑ Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts [I Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow WL Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe
Prevailing wind direction 5 UJI Common weather Strong windsil, Ice❑ Snow❑ Heavy rain * Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low C14Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic %
Pests Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches lief Trunkir Roots 1T Describe
_ Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial* -Full ❑ Wind funneling❑ Relative crown size Srnnall/❑ ediurn ❑ Large[]
Crown density Sparse ❑ Normal ❑ Dense Interior branches Fe ormal ❑ Dense ❑ V�Mistletoe/Moss IS ✓ ✓
Recent or planned change in load factors
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and Branches—
Unbalanced crown 1 J LCR % Cracks o- 6U14f Wul+lY /Q✓�- N Its Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/branches d %Q % overall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia.
Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole %circ.
Over -extended branches Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
Pruning history X/O,t/C,
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ _
Flush cuts ❑ Other Res onse""grro��wth �"�
main concern(s) �R f1AS V 7B QO fYuF eGL►/krN
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable Imminent YE
—Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar —
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visiblfco- Depth Stem girdling ❑
Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ 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. D pth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑
Lean ° Corrected? O9
Response growth r Response growth
Main concern(s) " t!s Main concem(s)
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderat�0"SlignificantyO"� �Load on defec�P,,,ib�le[03
NA ❑ Mior ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑Likelihood of failure hood of Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑inent ❑obable❑Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Page I of 2
Risk Categorization
. .Target
rating
of part
(from
mmm�
02101215
C��C
CC:
C7ri7
CCWIN
WrCC
9
1010
ice
W,
YY0■
CCCIJ
CC
CC
rCC�C!C
`-
l—
l_Ia
cl•
cC
YM
r
M
M
M
I FMCCC13CCC
�]CCNrCCCCC10
mMNY
C
C
CC
CCC
C
cnn�
C
C
W.
C
I
YYY
CCCC
CCC
Cher
.
C7
CC:C
P,W
t
CCC
ENcc
�11
•
99CC
co
C
L.
=
YYY�CCCCCCCI
WNCCCC:C�
�.
YYY�
CC
•
•
CCCC
W
r
CC
a•�C
•
YY
YYiY�
CCC
•CCCC
51CCC
CCC
•
YYY
CCC
X
Col
Col
Col
C
C
Col
CC
CCC
YYY
CCC
X
CCCC
CC0
CO
CCC
0
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
I Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Improbable
I 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
t
Mitigation options
fr
g-Nsr'
*- 3 st,,>nf
l,K V
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ HigFA Extreme ❑ Work priority 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑
Overall residual risk Low ❑ Moderate ❑ HigHth Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data ❑ Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations ❑None ❑Visibility 14Access *ines fit►toot collar buried Describe
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is untended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists — 2013
Page 2 of 2
wxs(�
7
.'0000
k�w I
�it I... _ �' 'r, �y0' r � ' � .•ice. K -- � �I t-'z
�,. ''�1 '-a. - I� � I _ _,� �., tom` �•
1t .:+i6 • ..- -�-1 '#� 7�IN1�.^' � - I I sic �I �I __^I - •► ,
m
Orz,
-t sip
Al
W-P 0
Wit
Nr
i V—
A. I
a• •�•q' "f is � `��' •_ ,,� ,�
IWO,
ip
I ZA