The URL can be used to link to this page

Hazard tree STF20150031.pdfIoC. 189,J October 5, 2015 CITY OF EDMONDS 1215th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221,o Web: www.edmondswagov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION Luanna Lacher Elm Place Planned Residential Development Iwlacher@comcast.net Subject: Hazard Tree Removal (STF20150031) Dear Ms. Lacher, You submitted a request to remove a dying big leaf maple tree in the common area of the Elm Place development. The tree is near 6th Avenue South between the houses at 619 and 621 Elm Way. The slope in this area is considered to be a critical area according to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40 and 23.80. 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.7. A tree hazard evaluation form prepared by a certified arborist was submitted documenting the tree's risk and recommending immediate removal. According to ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b(iv), hazard trees that are removed from critical areas must be replaced at a ratio of two -to -one. An exemption for tree removal is granted with the following conditions: 1. Only the big leaf maple identified in the tree hazard evaluation form dated 9/18/15 maybe cut. Replacement trees must be native and indigenous and a minimum of six feet in height for evergreen species, one inch in diameter at breast height for deciduous species, and eight feet minimum height for multi -stemmed trees. Replacement must occur within one year of removal and the trees should be planted in the general vicinity of the removal. 3. The tree may be left as a stump, flush cut or ground out. It may not be mechanically pulled. 4. Downed wood must be removed from the site or chipped and spread. If you have any questions, please contact me at miclael.eiu Ston edmond'swa, ov or 425-771-0220. S' erely Mike Clugston, AICP Associate Planner XFINITY Connect XFINITY Connect elm place failed big leaf maple From : Scott Selby <sselby@arborwell.com> Subject: elm place failed big leaf maple To : Luanna Lacher < lwlacher@comcast. net> Cc: Kelly Duncan <kduncan@arborwell.com> Luanna Page 1 of 1 lwlacher@comcast.net i Font Size - Tue, Sep 29, 2015 05:47 PM ,02 attachments The big leaf maple tree at 619 Elm Place that I inspected on 9/18/15 is in very poor condition and represents a significant risk to people and property. Recent failure of one of the main tops of the tree is evidence of how structurally unsound the tree is. Continued breakage is very likely and I recommend action to remove the tree as soon as possible. Attached is a completed ISA Tree Assessment Form detailing the conditions. Please let me know if I can answer any questions. Thank you. �� N Scott Selby Account Manager Board Certified Master Arborist #PN -1775B ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor WSDA Pesticide Applicator Lic. #79052 Arborwell@ professional tree management 425.485.4758 local 888.969.8733 toll free 206.849.4718 cell Unknown <text/html> � 11.8 elm place tra 092915.pdf 61 MB Y' CT 0, 2011 DEEI,O ENT SERVICES ("O'OI. NTEI11 file:///C:/Users/Owner/AppData/Local/TempNQYMK3TU.htm 10/1/2015 J�Sjj, Basic Tree Disk Assessment Form,, client Elm Place HOADate 9/18/15 Time 0800 w w__ Address/Tree location 619 Elm Place. Edmonds Tree no. 1 Sheet 1 of 2 Tree species Acer macrODhyllum dbh 24 Height 60 Crown spread dia. 40 Assessor(s) scoff Selby, isa traQ Time frame 1 Tools used yta Target Assessment Target zone Occupancy M. rate m c X 1 -rare C ' e Target descrition a 2—occasional C 3—frequent G+ v 'In' �4—constant RECEIVED f+ a. E a1C Ca house and patio ✓ 3 in n 2 parked cars ✓ 3 n n 44 4 .7 Site Factors History of failures failed codominant top (2 months previous) _ Topography Flat91 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 ❑ % Describe Prevailing wind direction sw Common weather Strong winds ® Ice ❑ Snow El Heavy rain ❑ Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ❑ Normal 0 High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal .__..._.% Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests _ Abiotic Species failure profile BranchesN Trunk® RootsO Describe codoms, hypoxolvn Load Factors Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial® Full ❑ Wind funneling ❑ Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium 19 Large❑ Crown density Sparse 0 Normal ❑ Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑ Normal ❑ Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent or planned change in load factors maior failure of codom top has left remainder of tree exposed Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown ® LCR 40 % Cracks ❑ _ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches ❑ 20 % overall Max. dia. 4 Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number 10 Max. dia. 3 Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole _%circ. Over-extended branches Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history ' Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned N Raised a Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth Main concern(s) continued failure of codoms Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ■ Likelihood of failure Improbable El Possible ❑ Probable ® Imminent ❑ —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Missing bark N Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems N Included bark IB Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay K 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 poor Response growth Main concern(s) faRLIre of remaining codom top orsplitting_ Main concern(s) below Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ® Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ilk Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Pn oo I of 7 Risk Categorization Matrix/. Likelihood matrix. Matrix2. Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Consequences of Failure Failure & Impact Negligible Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Likelihood Likely Low Moderate High Hiah ` E Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low y Failure Impact Failure & Impact Consequences u(from Matrix 1) Risk C au o o rating2 g Conditions Targeto '�'c m E 2 �`vm of part cc (from ° Tree of concern a � H6 ProtctionE a a d �u t z" M IMacri.2) main heli of tree split out 15 40 1 no • • • 14-,11 high 1 trunk at in wind storm and 30' remaining half is poorly oorl attached • _ u upper PP splitting p g 10 40 2 no • •, • • high 2 codom 00000100 "-'IQ Q branches 3 0000000 C000C-10 4 Matrix/. Likelihood matrix. Matrix2. Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Consequences of Failure Failure & Impact Negligible Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High Hiah Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Notes, explanations, descriptions this tree has experience major failure and continued failure within defined time frame is likely with significant consequences Mitigation options None Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High N Extreme ❑ Overall residual risk Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ U! V North Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Work priority IN 21:1 30 411 Recommended inspection interval Data ■ Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ®No ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations NNone ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe 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 2 200 Feet Woodway Trois docurrient Is for general information purposes only and is rovided on an as is' and 'as available' WAS The datau used cornes from a variety o6 puubtic sources and no rvarr°anty of any kind is given as to its accuracy. Users of this document agree to ia�¢leoFnnify and save harmless the City -of Edmonds, its officials, officers.,. -:--.-- 1 200 fficers,-:-:--