Hazard Tree Removal STF20190015.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
Ion. I S9"
June 12, 2019
Kim Meinke
15724 — 701h Avenue West
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Hazard Tree Removal
Dear Ms. Meinke,
Mathew Brenan of Devoted Tree Solutions has contacted the city on your behalf regarding the removal
of two hazardous trees on your property located at 15724 — 70th Avenue West. The property at 15724 —
70th Avenue West does not fall into exemptions from tree cutting permitting requirements of ECDC
18.45.030 since the subject trees are located in a critical area and/or critical area buffer. Slopes on the
property to exceed 40% according to the City's LiDAR information. These areas are considered potential
landslide pursuant to ECDC 23.80.
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.8, it involves the removal of invasive species or
hazard trees.
Mr. Brenan, an arborist with Devoted Tree Solutions, has documented that the two trees have been
damaged in recent storms and were determined to by a high risk according to the attached ISA Tree Risk
Assessment forms. Mr. Brenan recommended the trees be removed. Pursuant to 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 amended the cover letter noting that 4
wester red cedars will be planted to replace the two that are proposed for removal.
An exemption for the tree cutting is granted with the following conditions:
1. This approval only pertains to the two trees evaluated in the attached arborist report.
A minimum of four replacement trees must be planted in the general vicinity noted on the
attached site plan. The replacement trees must be native and indigenous 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 deciduous trees must be a minimum of one —two
inches diameter at breast height. The replacement trees must be planted within one year of
tree the tree cutting activity.
Four western red cedar (Thuja plicata) have been proposed as replacement trees. Alternative
species must be approved by the City of Edmonds.
3. Stumps of the tree cut must be left in place to provide slope stability and prevent erosion.
4. Replacement trees must be planted within one year of removal of the hazard trees. Please
notify the City once the replacement trees have been replanted for an inspection.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions at kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov, or 425-771-0220.
Sin &Iy,
i
K rnen Lien
Environmental Programs Manager
Encl: Devoted Tree Solutions Arborist Report dated
Cc: Mathew Brenan
ST'Fzr,,tgM(5
aae'a"a'saAA:.
\0
Sp Lv C
Protecting iOur Family' Tree.
Helping Root Communities
8716 3041h ave ct e
Graham, Wa 98338
Customer and Location:
Kim Meinke
15724 70th Ave. W.
Edmonds, Wa. 98026
RECEIVED
JUN C. S 2019
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
COUNTER
To whom it may concern:
We will be removing 2 Cedars one is a co -dominant ( included wood) multi topped and the other
one a storm damaged conifer. Replanting will take place within all city protocols.
Species: Western Redcedar, , (Thuja Plicata)
1 co -dominant multi -topped Cedar, DBH 25" HT 120' and 1 broken top Cedar DBH 23"
HT 65' from storm damage. The storm damage fell almost perfectly between the two homes,
they were lucky. Most likely would have caused major damage. The co -dominant multi -
topped tree is even closer to Kim Meinke's home then the other one that broke in the last
storm.
Arborist Recommendation:
Based on the location, proximity and history of failure from the other Cedar I am
recommending removal of both. Following the cities protocol for leaving the debris and also
habitat stumps approximately 8-10' highfor slope retention. Replanting ofXnew Western
Redcedars per cities code.
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.
ISA. Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client KIM MEINKE Date 2/18/19 _ Time 2PM
Address/Tree location 15 24 70TH AVE W EDMONDS Tree no. 1 Sheet 1 of 2
Tree species CEDAR dbh 27 Height 90 Crown spread dia. 35'
Assessor(s) MATHEW BRENAN Tools used EYES Time frame 1 HR
Target Assessment
`
Target zone
a
occupancy
c
c
c
E
'e
Target description
Target protection
d
c
t
=
3 =
rate
rare
8 m
u
c a.
ii
a
x
x
2-oocc casional
3-frequent
0
�p
,N-i
4-constant
�
a E
ac a
1
HOME
NONE
3
NO
NO
2
3
4
Site Factors
History of failures BROKEN TOP FROM STORM DAMAGE Topography Flat❑ Slope[2 40 % Aspect S
Site changes None ❑ Grade change ❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts ❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated 57 Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ 0 % Describe
Prevailing wind direction SW Common weather Strong winds ❑ Ice ❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rain ❑ Describe TYPICAL NW WEATHER
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low ❑ Normal 5a High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal)❑ None (dead)❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic %
Pests /Biotic Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches ❑ Trunk❑ Roots ❑ Describe TOP GONE
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Full 5a Wind funneling ❑ Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium[2 Large ❑
Crown density Sparse IR Normal ❑ Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑ Normal 5a Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss C2
Recent or expected change in load factors STORM DAMAGE TOP BLOWN OUT
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and Branches —
Unbalanced crown Q LCR 90 % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/branches ❑ %overall Max. dia. 10" Codominant IR PLUS MULTI TOPS Included bark IR
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Weak attachments IR Cavity/Nest hole% circ.
Over -extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures 5a Similar branches present ❑
Pruning history
Dead/Missing bark 12 Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised Gd
Reduced ❑ Tdpped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth
Condition (s) of concern
Part Size 5-10" Fall Distance 50' Part Size Fall Distance 50'
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant5a Load on deflect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant lk
Likelihood of failure improbable Possible Probable IR Imminent ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable IR Imminent ❑
—Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar —
Dead/Missing bark 5a Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible fa Depth Ste7girdling ❑Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ® Cracks Q Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mms Ga
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
Condition (s) of concern CODOMINANT MULTI TOPS Condition (s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate IR Significant ❑ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate IR Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable 63 Imminent ❑ Likelihood of failure improbable 0 Possible 0 Probable IR Imminent 0
Risk Categorization
Target
(Target number
or description)
Tree part
Condition(s)
of concern
CODOMINANT MULTI
TOPS
MEMENEEMENEEMENOM
NONE
NOON
NONE
NOON
Matrix I. 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
I 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
CODOMINANT MULTI TPS HISTORY OF FAILURE TREE NEXT TO
IT
Mitigation options
1. REMOVAL
z.
3.
a.
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High fd Extreme ❑
North
Residual risk LOW
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Overall residual risk None ❑ Low p Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval NONE
Data Winal ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed 5allo ❑Yes-Type/Reason _
Inspection limitations ❑None ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines 5aRoot collar buried Describe
ISA. Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client KIM MEINKE Date 2/18/19 Time 2PM
Address/Tree location 15924 70TH AVE W EDMONDS Tree no. 1 Sheet 1 of 2
Tree species CEDAR dbh 27 Height 90 Crown spread dia. 35'
Assessor(s) MATHEW BRENAN Tools used EYES Time frame 1 HR
Target Assessment
Target zone
a
Occupancy
c
c
E
e'
Target description
Target protection
.0
r
C
s
rateo
i-rare
V -
m
C
°
x
.q
x
Lq
�'
2—occasional
3—frequent
u >
.
tm
�o
4-constant
d` E
0 a
1
I HOME
NONE
3
NO
NO
2
3
4
Site Factors
History of failures BROKEN TOP FROM STORM DAMAGE Topography Flat❑ SlopeG7 40 % Aspect S
Site changes None Grade change❑ Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated 5a Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ 0 % Describe
Prevailing wind direction SW Common weather Strong winds ❑ Ice ❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rain ❑ Describe TYPICAL NW WEATHER
_ Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low ❑ Normal Ga High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic %
Pests/Biotic Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots❑ Describe TOP GONE
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Full 5a Wind funneling ❑
Relative crown size Small ❑ Mediumlid Large ❑
Crown density Sparse IR Normal ❑ Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑
Normal IR Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss Cit
Recent or expected change in load factors STORM DAMAGE TOP BLOWN OUT
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and
Branches —
Unbalanced crown IR LCR 30 %
Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/branches ❑ 100 % overall Max. dia. 10"
Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia.
Weak attachments❑ Cavity/Nest hole %circ.
Over -extended branches ❑
Previous branch failures 5a Similar branches present ❑
Pruning history
Dead/Missing bark IR Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay Cal
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised Gd
Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑
Conks5a Heartwood decay ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other
Response growth
Condition (s)
of concern
Part Size 5-10" Fall Distance 50'
Part Size Fall Distance 50'
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate[] Significant 5a
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant R
Likelihood of failure improbable Possible Probable IR Imminent
Likelihoodof failure Improbable❑ Possible Probable IR Imminent
—Trunk —
— Roots and Root Collar —
Dead/Missing bark R Abnormal bark texture/color ❑
Collar buried/Not visible IR Depth Stem giCodominant
stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks R
Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushro
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
Condition (s) of concern TOP MISSING
Condition (s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ ModerateIR Significant ❑
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate[$ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible 0 Probable IR Imminent 0 Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible 0 Probable Q Imminent 0
Risk Categorization
Target
(Target number
or description)
Tree part
Condition(s)
of concern
Likelihood
Failure Impact Failure & Impact Consequences
(from Matrix 1)
Risk
rating
(from
Matrix2)
w
m
a:
CL o
E 0. A.
E
3 E > L
o w 3
Z 3 w m Y E
j 2 S con
d
�
x 00
Z to
> Z
°c
m
c
in
LA
HOME
TREE
TOP MISSING
N
HIGH
I
'
_
JU
1
�T Jl
f
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
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
UPPER THIRD OF TREE IS GONE DUE TO STORM DAMAGE
North
Mitigation options
1. REMOVAL Residual risk LOW
2. Residual risk
3. Residual risk
a. Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High 5a Extreme ❑
Overall residual risk None ❑ Low Gd Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval NONE
Data 5aFinal ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed 5allo ❑Yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations ❑None ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines WRoot collar buried Describe
I
pi
aP�L
S
M -iny -,, ° G tvt (?5
M
v
r
. ;.
AW
f �• �~
ram•
�'�
J
.
' r
r