Loading...
Hazard tree removal STF20190030.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 'llc. 1 89�j October 28, 2019 Catherine Anderson 21100 Hillcrest PL. Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Hazard Tree Removal (STF20190030) Dear Catherine Anderson, The City of Edmonds has received documentation completed by you and by your arborist regarding a request for hazard tree removal. Bryan Petitclerc a certified arborist has recommended removal of two (2) Western Red Cedars located at 21100 Hillcrest PL. Portions of 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, tree #2 is larger than 4" DBH so a critical area hazard tree evaluation is required for tree #2 as it is located within a critical area or its buffer. The subject site is zoned RS-8 and has enough area to potentially be subdivided into an additional lot or lot(s). Per Chapter 18.45 ECDC removal of healthy trees from a lot which is capable of being subdivided requires a tree cutting permit. Tree #5 does not appear to be located within a steep slope or within a buffer of the steep slope and thus is not required to be reviewed under the critical area requirements. However the tree has been deemed hazardous by the arborist and per ECDC 18.45.030.F, in an emergency situation if a tree is a danger to life or property tree removal is exempt from a tree cutting permit. Because tree #5 is not located within a critical area or its buffer tree replacement is not required. ISA Tree Risk Assessment forms, prepared by Bryan Petitclerc (PN-7580A) were submitted with the request to remove two (2) Western Red Cedar trees with an overall risk rating of "high." According to the tree risk evaluation form, photos and description provided tree #2 shows signs of decay, and tree #5 is growing into the existing structure and thus is a hazard. Due to the high risk for failure of tree #2 and the hazard presented by tree #5 both of the trees are candidates for removal. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv each hazard tree removed from a critical area or its buffer must be replaced with new trees at a ratio of two to one. Tree #2 must be replaced with two trees because it is located within a critical area or its buffer. The applicant has proposed to replace the existing tree with two (2) Vine Maple trees. An exemption for tree cutting is granted with the following conditions: 1. Only the identified Western Red Cedar trees may be cut, tree #2 and #5. 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 Vicinity Map Cathy Anderson 21100 Hillcrest Place Edmonds, WA 98026 10-22-19 City of Edmonds Planning Department Dear City of Edmonds: RECEIVED OCT 22 2019 DEVEIAPCMENT OUNT SERVICES Zo kci CC -30 I propose to remove 2 Western Red Cedar trees from my property. These two trees were deemed hazardous om 11-25-13 by Bryan Petitclerc. The report and photos are attached to this file and are labeled #5 and #2. Tree number 5 is literally growing into my garage which is causing rot and water intrusion as well as having two tops. Tree number 2 is covered in ivy and leaning in a north easterly direction toward my garage and a neighbor's fence 75' away. Their house is probably 15' from fence. My residence is located 25' from the tree. I propose to replace the trees 2/1. 1 will use two Vine Maple trees (8' tall) and two Paper Birch (8' tall.) These 4 trees will be planted in the Spring rather than at this time. Since the windy season is upon us, I ask that you proceed in a timely fashion. Sincerely, n athy Anderson !�rGfu nuunot ivl n : L 01y A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM 2ndEdition SftAddress: e,2//Ck) thZI C'►r-SP r' Martocatlon.- edy»ao]ds rJ 0, . — - Ov,Ter puWme private unknown other Wa a // 2S- Inspector. (23ry,,7 Pe f m'iz/efG ;�/' %SgUAZ Dare of last in*pecoon TREE CHARACTERISTICS HAZARD RATING: -41 + -.I-- + Failure + Sire + 1hrget Harard Potential of part Hating Rating Immediate action needed Needs turther Inspection Dead Ires 'itent t Z species. _WCZSS` � -- 6dA/-- -- - ----- - — - - - ---- -- oDlt J41 i of trunks: I _ Height /I() Spread: Fasts: 0 cenarai i symmetric 59 minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry C stump sprout ❑ stag -treaded Crown richer D dominant 19co-dominant Dintemediate Osuppressed Lira am raid 7L % Ape cia= '4young ❑ semi -mature []mature ❑ over-maturclsenescent Pruning history: Ci cro•rin cleaned ❑ excessivolythkmned ❑ topped Da crown raised CJ pollarded ❑ crown reduced U flush cuts ❑ cabled/braced Elnone O nUliple pruning events Approx dates: Special Value: O spec,men ❑ heritage,Qmistonc C7 wfi de [--,unusual E7 street tree ❑ screen (' shade n- indigenous C7 protected by gov, agency TREE HEALTH Feiliage color, 16 normal ❑ chlorotic C, necrotic Eptcennics? Y N Foliage dens": 16 normal ❑ sparse Leaf size: ❑ normal ❑ small Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent J" average ❑ poor TwIg Dlebadc? Y Woundwood damreiopment: ❑ excellent 19,averaga EJ poor C none vigor da= C excellent ❑ average ` 6 fair © poor Major pesWdiseases: GrorrW obstructions: ❑ stakes ❑ wirettles ❑ signs N ❑ curb/pavement C guards 0 other - G cables SITE CONDITIONS Site character. % residence C commercial C3 industrial ❑ park =❑ open space ❑ natural ❑ woodlandVorest Landscape type: `parkway G raised bed ❑ container C) mound '91awn fJ shrub border ❑ wind break Irrigation: C none %adequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive L trunk vrelded Recent sue disturbance? Y N Cl construction C i soil disturbance Cl grade change C_I fume clearing r site clearing • ddplhw paved: 0% 0 25° 25-50910 50-75% 75-100% Pavemeut tilled? Y N • dripfine wJRU mlt 0% JG-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75400% • dripiine tirade lowered: 0% *-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% d Seat probluaw 0 drainage ❑ shallmv 11 compacted 0 droughty CJ saline CD alkalm ❑ acidic C small volume C disease center ❑ history of fain ❑ clay J expansive 'Cl slope ° aspect obtdr>tctions: ❑ lights ❑ signagee ❑ line -of -sight ❑ view ❑ overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑ traffic ❑ adlaant veg. ❑ _._._, Exposure lomod: lA single tree C below canopy, ❑ above canopy ❑ recently exposed ❑ windward, canopy edge ❑ area prone to wirndthrow Prevaltiap wind dirBdiorc Al r Occurrence of snowruce storms Ii never U seldom ❑ regularly TA ROOT Use l Tree: t building ❑ parking I tratfcc D pedestrian C recreation ❑ landscape Ci hardscape C smallfeatures ❑ utility lines Co target be moved? Y a Coo ttse be restricted? Y occupancy, ❑ occasional use 71intermitterrt use ❑ frequent use V constant use fie Intemmnal Society of Arboriculture assumes no resporsibifityr for conclusions or recommendations derived frorrm use of this form. ,tv TREE DEFECTS RWT DEFECTS: Suspedmot rat Y N Mushroom/conkfiracketpresent Y N ID: Exposed roots: F-1 severe U moderate U low Undermined: IU severe L moderate U low Root pruned: _ — distance from trunk Root area affected: % Buttress wounded: Y N When: Restricted root area: ❑ severe Cl moderate l 7 low Potential for root failure: ❑ severe C moderate CG low LEAN: _ In deg. from vertical U natural Aunnatural i 1 Belf-corrected Soil heaving: Y Decay in plane o1 lean: (DN Roots broken Y N Soil cracking: Y O Compounding factors: —___ __ _______ -_ _ Lean severity: C! severe 1:1 moderate Li low CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual detects and rate their severity Is - severe, m = moderate, I = low) DEFECT, ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow, sweep --�--- Codomirrantslforks — Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight Cracks/splits Hanoers Girdling Wounds/seam DecayCavity Conks/mushroomOracket Bleeding/sapBleeding/sap flow Looselcracked bark _ Nesting holelbee hive Deadwood/stubs Borem4ermites/ants Cankers! alWburls Previous failure _ HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail: Failure potential: 1 - low; 2 - medium; 3 - high; 4 - seven: Inspection period: annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm): 2 - 8-18' (15-45 cm); Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating 3-18-3U" (45 75 cm); 4 - AY (75 cm) I / Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use: + + _ _ % 3 - frequent use; 4 - constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: E remove defective part L reduce end weight D crown clean O thin ❑ raise canopy i 7 crown reduce F1 restructure 1-1 shape Cable/Brace: — —_ ______ Insped further. L root crown U decay U aerial i] monitor Remove tree N Repla"?G N Move target YO Other. ___---.-- --- --- Etted on adjacent treat 1%none 17-7 evaluate Notllicatlort: owner G manager C) governing agency Date: COMMENTS A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM zed Edition Ste -Address e2/100 H010C.51 0*-re, puNic pnvate u unkno,Nl other Owe 11 -�-'� 1� k'$i�or /Ciro / r C L°YC Dxe of Last ".coon HMRO RATING: --T--+ _+- LI Fadure + Slae + Hoard Potential pf part Rating Rating Immediate action needed Needs further inspection Dead tree TREE GHARACTERISnGS Tree 1: _.;' -- • specim fr711 �seClazl �i DBH: - 16 a of trasks: �— Height -L.Q-- spread: Form: I generally, symrretnc 0 minor asymmetry ❑ ma;or asymmetry C stump Sprout C stag -headed Crown class: Y- dominant ❑ co -dominant 71 intermediate im3 suppressed the wen raft _.9 % Ape class: Yyoung ❑ semi -mature O rnature ❑ over matumiseneseent Pruning history: U crorm cleaned U excessivO/ thinned U topped ❑ crown raised U pollarded U crown reduced CJ flush cuts U cabled/braced tenor* 0 multiple pruning events Approx, dates: special Valor T%speamen 0 heritagelhistonc ❑ mldlite M unusual ci street tree C7 srreen r shade rl indigenous Cl protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage Color: 19normal O chlorobc C necrotic 41conmics? Y N Growth obstrnttlamm: Foliage denslW, �Ci normal O sparse Leal stxe: ❑ normal L1 small U stakes O wirenies U signs U Gables Annual shoot growth: Cl excellent W average 'L] pow 701g 0leback? Y N Li eurbJpavemerd J guards Wounftmod development: O excellent Vaverage Cl poor C none 0 other. -- Vigor class` C' excellent C1 average befarr C1 poor Major pesWrilseasem -- -- --- ---------_-- SITE CONDITIONS SRs Character. $residence C comT►ercial D indtuoial O park O open space Gi natural U woodlawNforest Landscape fW ttpditay C raked bed ❑ contalner O mound Clam 13 shrub border O wInd break Irrigation: U none L: adequate 04inadequale U excessive L3 trurdc weltled Recent site dlsturbaKe? Y f N) (11 construction r i sop dis bance I i grade change I I fine clearing 1 ? silo curing % Weis paved: �✓ 0% 10.250' S 5096 50-75% 75-100% pavemsml Ilf "? Y N %dripbe wlml UIL• 0% 10-25% 25-500.10 50-75% 75-100% % dnpline grade lowered: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% SW proeleme Lrl dra,naye 0 shallow Wcompacted © droughty C1 saline M oikalume G acidic C small volume Cµ, dneasn coar n history of Lul 1 eley I expansive i 1 slope ° aspect. Obstructions: []lights r1 sionage ❑ 14*-of-sight C7 view n overhead liner; rl underground utditw-FI tnft i-I adlaceid veg rl �,� Exposure llo wild: n tiuK)le tree C twlow canopy n above canopy n recenity extrosed 1i wia(herd, canopy edge C1 tires prooli to windthrow Prrrtrajfisp wind direction: �% _____ Occurrence of snow/ice storms Onever I`Addom Hregularly TARGET Use Under Tree: )Ouilding J i parldrtg ! 1 traffic i pedenuian O recrealion : 1 landscape D hardar ipe I'll Small featurtrs l ,I UliNty lir►ix Can target be moved? Y `.J Cam the be restricted? Y art/ 0ccopancy: I. i occasional use 'Irnte(mitterd use () Irequent use D14orisianl use "he Intermmnal Society of Arboncullure assumes no responsibility for conck r4cos, or mcommeadatlons derived from a ,c of 0A Ivan. 04�1 TREE DEFECTS ROUTUMM Susped rood rot Y N Mushroomkonkbacket present Y N ID: Exposed roots: i1 severe O moderate 0 low Undermined: U severe E moderate J low Root poised: - ranee from trunk Roof area affected: % Buttress wounded: Y N When:_ -- Restricted mot area: C severe U] moderate D low Potential for root failure: 0 severe C moderate C low LEAIIf: deg. from vertical 0 natural ❑ unnatural 771 self -corrected Soil heaving: Y N Decay in plane of lase Y N Rools broken Y N Soil cracking: Y N Compounding ladors: Lean severity [� severe L7 moderate L bar nd their sever s vere, m = moderate, I = low CROWN DfFECT� Indicate presence of individual defects rate dY C 1 DEFECT Poortaper ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES - - - - Bow, sweep Codominantsliorks Mrdtiole attachments Included bark. -- Excessive end weiaht cracks/splits _ Harwrs 6_irdling — Woundslseam Derr — — - - -- --- -- — -- -- fi-- ConkslmushroomsWcket Bieeding/sap flow Looselcracked bark Nestino hobla hive Deadwood/stubs _ Borers/termdeslants Cankers/ allslburls Previous ;lure — --- - --- - - HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail: Failure potential 1 - low; 2 - medium; 3 - high; 4 - severe Inspection period: annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm): 2 - 6.18' (15-45 cm): Failure Potential + Size of Pail + Target Rating = Hazard Rating 3-18-30" (45 75 cm); 4 - Air (75 cm) Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use: --44_ + -L/ - L 3 - trequent use; 4 - Constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prone: La remove defective part C reduce end vrelght ❑ cram dean C thin ❑ raise canopy !7 crown reduce f i restructure [] shape Cable/Brace: _-- -- _ _-- Inspectfurther. C root crown d decay �' aerial O monitor Remove free: � Replace? Y6D Move target Y (D tither: ----- - - ----- Efled en adjaceol Frew 76none f7 evaluate Notification: %owner E manager D goveming agency Date: COMMENTS r i - iR • a 1 � �7 1 r - —T V46 �f-o OCT 22 204 DEALOPMEW SERVIWWM �€§ i A �R,�, I r 4 'lotL 1� City of Edmonds Vicinity Map 0 47.02 94.0 Feet This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION Legend = Creeks ® Seismic Hazard Areas Earth Subsidence and Landslide L _I Minimum Buffer Adjacent to Hat Wetlands Wetlands Boundary Wetland Boundaries Not Completel p Wetland Known Extents Floodplains A AE VE X Landslide Hazard Area 40% ❑ Severe Erosion Hazard 15%-40% E Erosion Hazard Areas 15%-40% ArcSDE.GIS.STREET CENTERLINE: <all other values, 1 2 5; 4 9171-1718 Notes 21100 Hillcrest PI.