Loading...
Hazard tree removal STF20190005.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 'lle. 1 89�j March 22, 2019 Deborah Hironaga 23008 106th Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Hazard Tree Removal (STF20190005) Dear Deborah Hironaga, The City of Edmonds has received documentation completed by you and by your arborist regarding a request for hazard tree removal. Steve Lambert a certified arborist has recommended removal of one (1) Big -leaf maple (Acer Macrophyllum) located at 23008 106th Ave. W. The subject property contains slopes greater than 25% 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 Big -leaf maple tree is larger than 4" DBH so tree hazard evaluation is required. ISA Tree Risk Assessment forms, prepared by Steve Lambert (PN-1061B) were submitted with the request to remove one (1) Big -leaf maple tree with an overall risk rating of "high." According to the report, photos and description provided the subject maple tree has a number of negative defects from the crown and branches to the main trunk. The arborist report notes large codominant stems with visible crack/separation of stems of the crown and branches, and suspected decay column/main trunk within the trunk of the tree. Due to the high risk for failure of the tree it is 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. The applicant has proposed to replace the existing tree with two (2) Vine Maple (Acer Circinatum) trees. An exemption for tree cutting is granted with the following conditions: 1. Only the identified Big -Leaf Maple tree may be cut. 2. Two (2) replacement trees (Vine Maple) must be installed within one year of the tree cutting activity. Deciduous species must be a minimum of one to two inches in diameter at breast height (dbh), and evergreen species must be a minimum of 6-feet in height consistent with ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv. 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. 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: Cover Letter Tree Risk Assessment Forms Photos Site Plan Tree Removal and Replacement Project Coversheet Project Location The project is located at 23008 1061h Ave. W. in the City of Edmonds. The project tree is located within a buffer to a steep slope critical area along the property street front on 106th Avenue W. See site plan. Scope of Proiect To remove one existing Big -Leaf Maple tree (Acer Macrophyllum). This project tree is currently presenting with an aggregate of negative conditions. See History of Project section below. See site plan for location. And To replace the removed tree with two new Vine Maple trees (Acer Circinatum). See site plan for locations. History of the Project In recent years, the project tree has been dropping an increasing number and increasingly larger sized limbs of deadwood. In November/December 2018, the homeowner scheduled tree work to remove deadwood from the project tree. The climbing arborist found extensive decline and wood pecker damage in the top canopy. After investigating all major stems, he was unable to find solid anchor points to attach his ropes. The lead climber declared the tree to be too hazardous to perform the deadwood removal. A manager would need to reassess the situation. In January/ February 2019, the district manager of the tree company visited the site and recommended a complete reduction of the crown of the tree using a crane. The homeowner visited the City of Edmonds Development Services Department to inquire about the large-scale pruning project. A city planner determined that the project tree is located in a buffer to a steep slope critical area. An ISA Certified Arborist would need to assess the tree's condition if the pruning may cause the tree to die. The City would need to review the project. Approval of the project would be required prior to commencing tree work. In February/March 2019, the homeowner schedule an independent ISA Certified Arborist to visit the site and review the project tree. The arborist performed a Tree Risk Assessment (TRA). See attached TRA. He also evaluated the tree's overall condition. His observations noted a number of negative defects in the tree from the crown and branches down to the main trunk. Two main areas of defects are believed to be connected. About forty feet up the main trunk, there is a large crack between two major codominant stems. The crack opens into a hollow space within the tree. The crack was observed to be actively moving with wind loading the tree back in December by the climbing arborist. The main trunk at the base shows a dark long vertical line of decayed wood with moisture and fungus growing. There is a panel of abnormal bark in another section of the main trunk. Taking these observations altogether, there exists an extensive column of decay within the main trunk of the tree. The column of decay appears to run up the main trunk to a height of approximately forty feet where the crack is located between the splitting codominant stems. Given the aggregate number of negative defects observed in the crown, branches and main trunk of the tree, the recommendation by the independent ISA Certified Arborist is to remove the tree. In the first week of March 2019, the current project for removal of the tree is being submitted to the City for review. See Scope of Project section above. Szafran, Michele From: Steve Lambert <lamberttreecare@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 8:44 AM To: Szafran, Michele Subject: Re: Tree Removal Request (23008 106th Ave. W.) Attachments: TRA form - Hironaga, Debra.pdf Michelle Szafran, I have attached a supplemental TRA Form, for the Big -leaf maple located at 23008 106th Ave W, showing a time frame of three years, rather than the one year time frame in the initial TRA Form. This longer time frame increases the likelihood of failure from Possible, to Probable, resulting in an overall tree risk rating of High. Please contact me if you have any further questions or concerns. Best Regards, Steve Lambert Board -Certified Master Arboristrrr-1061B ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Lambert Treescapes LLC 206-949-7641 On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 5:08 PM Szafran, Michele <Michele.Szafran&edmondswa. og_v> wrote: Steve Lambert, I have received a Tree Risk Assessment Form completed by you regarding a potential hazard tree removal request from a City of Edmonds property owner (Debra Hironaga) located at 23008 106th Ave. W. The tree, a Big -Leaf Maple, is located along the property street front off of 106th Ave. W. From the applicants description of the tree it appears that her understanding is to remove the tree at this time due to the number of defects identified, however the overall tree risk rating is marked as moderate on the tree risk assessment form. It is the City of Edmonds policy that in order to be considered a hazard tree the overall tree risk rating would be deemed as high or extreme, and thus a moderate rating would not qualify as a hazard tree. Per the city LiDAR map the location of the tree appears to be within a slope of 25% or greater and thus is considered a critical area and subject to requirements of tree removal within a critical area. A couple of options for tree removal within a critical area is either hazard tree removal (if deemed a hazard tree with an overall tree risk rating of high or extreme), or a tree cutting permit is required. I believe the applicant's initial intent was to trim the tree, but based on the recent findings as provided in the tree risk assessment form a mitigation option has been presented to remove the tree. I thought I would contact you for further clarification regarding the tree in question, are there other mitigation options the applicant may consider at this time, such as trimming the tree that would not result in further decline of the tree? Because the overall tree risk rating is not considered either high or extreme it would not classify as a hazard tree removal at this time, please advise on any other mitigation options other than tree removal. Feel free to email me or call at your earliest convenience. Thank you, Michele Q. Szafran / Planner City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 425-771-0220, x 1778 michele. szafranaedmondswa. g_ov General permit assistance, online permits, and Web GIS: http://www.edmondswa.gov/handouts.html Permit Center Hours: M, T, Th, F 8:00 AM — 4:30 PM Wednesday 8:30 AM —12:00 PM 2 ISA. Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client Debra Hironaga Date 03/02/19 Address/Tree location 23008 106th Ave W, Edmonds Tree no Tree species Big -leaf maple (Ater Macrophyllum) dbh 52in Height Assessor(s) Steve Lambert, BCMA, TRAQ Time frame 3 yr Tools use Target Assessment Time 1113m 1 Sheet. _ Crown spread dia. tape measure 1 of 1 Target zone Occupancy M1• r a 3 = v t 2 rate 1—rare m c F Target description d EL c 3 x u1 z—occasional F W ` F F 1Z ai ~ —frequent3 u> u Fv 3 4—costant 6` E z `L 1 House ✓ 4 2 Street ✓ 3 3 Carport ✓ 2 4 Site Factors History of failures Yes, dead limbs Topography Flat❑ Slope❑ % Aspect Site changes None ❑ Grade change ❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ 20 % Describe Carport Prevailing wind direction S Common weather Strong winds 0 Ice ❑ Snow 0 Heavy rain 0 Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low 0 Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) 0 None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests Abiotic Species failure profile Branches0 TrunkM Roots❑ Describe Load Factors Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial0 Full ❑ Wind funneling❑ Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium ❑ Large 0 Crowndensity Sparse0 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 0 LCR % Cracks 0 Large codominant stems Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches 0 20 %overall Max. dia. 12" Codominant 0 Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Several Max. dia. 5" Weak attachments 0 Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Over -extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures 0 Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark 0 Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay 0 Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth Main concern(s) Large codominant stems with visible crack/separation of stems Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant 0 Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable 0 Imminent ❑ —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Missing bark 0 Abnormal bark texture/color 0 Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems 0 Included bark 0 Cracks 0 Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay 0 Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ. Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms 0 Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole 5 % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Lean ° Corrected? Response growth Response growth Main concern(s) Suspected decay column/main trunk Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant 0 Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable 0 Imminent ❑'KImprobable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Page I of 2 Risk Categorization Likelihood -0 E u a) -0 Consequences Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) c N +° Risk rating s „ a c Conditions L ° °' uLa Tar et g o a N o f 2 3 m v v, £ Y Y �, r- G a) of part (from c°� Tree part of concern a LL protection £ a a > ° _ ° > z 0 0 Matrix 2) House Main Trunk 52" 100ft 1 010000 101 0 000 000o High a 010000 OIO 00I00 0000 010000000 00 000 Street Main Trunk 52" 100ft 2 OOOO O OO OO OOO High 2 0000 0000 O 000 00000 0 000 Carport Main Trunk 52" 50ft 3 0000 0000 000 0 0 • High 3 1 00000 000 0000 000 000 0000010 01010 0 00010 ao 0 0 0 0 0 01010100000 000 000 4 IOIOIOIOQQOOIOOI00510010101 Matrix I. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impacting Target 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 Extensive column of decay coalescing from base of tree up to splitting codominant stems at height of approximately 40 ft. Mitigation options Remove tree Overall tree risk rating Overall residual risk Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High 0 Extreme ❑ Low 0 Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ North Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Work priority 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ Recommended inspection interva Data M Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations ONone ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe 4❑ 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 IN Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form D� h,� .. , Client 1Y`D 11�i A / Date u' ���/i_ _Time;��,., Address/Tree location �? G,�S /66 ;' P 6 Tremon�l S Tree no.Sheet of _ Tree species n.ti,.le _,Ac-r �„,Grr:.l dbh_ � Bich Height SP i" Crown spread dia. Assessor(s) f3� 7—kACi Tools used tom ' j'1C'i sldrr Time frame Target Assessment Target zone a Occupancy E 'c Target description Target protection t vs 3 3= t 3 X rate o_ U .. a �� x z _occasional 3-frequent �' u > U a`+ u 4-constant a 0 at a 2 3 1+4 Site Factors History of failures ) S Chic./ I ZAs Topography Flat❑ Slope❑ % Aspect Site changes None ❑ Grade change ❑ Site clearing El Changed soil hydrology El Root cuts ❑ Describe Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots I@ n O % Describe Ch&Oor Prevailing wind direction .. Common weather Strong winds EL Ice❑ Snow® Heavy rainjM Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor LowA Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal)IN( None (dead)❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests/Biotic Abiotic Species failure profile Branches&T TrunkM Roots❑ Describe Load Factors Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial tq Full ❑ Wind funneling ❑ Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium ❑ LargeJ4 Crown density Sparse bg� Normal ❑ Dense ❑ interior branches Few C4 Normal ❑ Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent or expected change in load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown LCR % Cracks ( .. C-r,lnsn'f S,A`,..S Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches34 _ZQ % overall Max. dia. I 2_T Codominanf mk Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number ,=ve,-,j_ Max. dia. _� o Weak attachments.A Cavity/Nest hole /circ. Over -extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures] Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Dead/Missing barkJR Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised Conks ❑ Heartwood decay lq Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size g Fall Distance /00 0*- Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant l�k Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Missing bark,l�- Abnormal bark texture/color Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems 6� ` Included barkAQ CracksA Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay Q Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ. Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay K Conks/Mushrooms,EQ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole 5— % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Lean ` Corrected? _ Response growth Response growth __ / r� Condition (s) of concern SKS1>'00'eG ae,26V f OluMvt nha;n trunK Condition (s) of concern Part Size - - Fall Distance /t12r Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant,10 Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable El Possiblejr Probable 0 Imminent 11 Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable 0 Imminent 0 Risk Categorization Target (Target number or description) Tree part Condition(s) oconcern f Likelihood Consequences Risk rating (from Matrix2) Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) v o f o a o a '_ _ 3 ° m > c £ ' w m 2 Y t m o LA a Y M Y = > en y Z V m in of i ,tip„►'K �'ucf !� 1 � ,,,,� �, ti� 4', -- 1�1�® Matrix I. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood Likelihood of Impact of Failure Very low Low I 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 Matrix 2. 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 ►k#' --t"I ..y"f' :,f' Mitigation options 1._ I�ew.o��_ tYz-'t- Residual risk 2. Residual risk 3. Residual risk 4. Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate M High ❑ Extreme ❑ Overall residual risk None ❑ Low EN Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval Data [&Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations 'None ❑Visibility ❑Access []Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe I 1� Photos of Project Tree Located at 23008 106ih Ave. W. Edmonds Main Trunk Observations • Close up of crack ➢ between two major codominant stems Extent of internal column of decay coalescing from base of the trunk showing external signs of decay to splitting codominant stems at a height of approximately forty feet. "l City of Edmonds a .•� �.!^ .��� Via' 1 "��• ' ^- :_.% Map Title Sf4-e F I a V-\ 2 --300 e) 10Cv eve- I :f ,r 4 Ill 1: 564 14 Legend ArcSDE.GIS.STREET CENTERLINE: -- <all other values, 1 2 s; 4 $71,7;8 -ff-eo- removed L FeFtaCevnervf- -�ree s 21 Notes 23.51 470 Feet This map Is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and Is to reference only. Data layers that appear on this map mayor may not be accurate NGS_1984_Web Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, crotherwise reliable ) City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION i II