Kemper_HazardTreeRemovalletter.pdf121 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 ® Fax: 425.771.0221 - Web:o
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION
December 18, 2014
Keith Kemper
7417 Meadowdale Beach Road
Edmonds, WA 98026
Subject: Hazard Tree Removal
Dear Mr. Kemper,
You have contacted the City of Edmonds regarding the removal of a hazard tree located on your
property at 9303 Olympic View Drive. The tree you identified is located next to a steep slope
which is considered a critical area pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
chapters 23.40 and 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.7, it involves the removal of
invasive species or hazard trees.
Atree hazard evaluation form from a certified arborist has been submitted documenting the tree
with a hazard risk score of 9 which classifies the tree as a high risk. ECDC 23.4-0.220.C.7.b.iv
requires that hazard trees be replaced with new trees at a ratio of two to one.
An exemption for the tree cutting is granted with the following conditions:
1. Only the tree identified in the tree hazard evaluation form may be cut.
2. The replacement trees must be species that are native and indigenous to the site and a
minimum of one inch in diameter at breast height (dbh) for deciduous trees and a
minimum of six feet in height for evergreen trees as measured from the top of the root
ball. The trees must be planted within one year of the tree cutting activity. Replacement
trees should be planted in the generally vicinity of the trees which are removed.
3. A plan for the replacement trees must be submitted with the building permit application
for the new single-family house proposed on the property.
4. Stump of the tree cut must be left in place to provide slope stability and prevent erosion.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, 425-771-0220.
Sincerely,
i
Sean Cony ad
Associate Planner
August 8, 2014
Keith A. Kemper
9303 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020
kkemperRelmlaw.com
SUBJECT: ARBORICULTURAL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
TREE ON THE KEMPER PROPERTY
Dear Mr. Kemper,
On July 29th, we walked your property and discussed the condition of the tree, what
care it needs, and what options you have available to best manage that tree. Given that
recent studies reveal that homes with mature trees and landscaping sell for as much as
19% more than architecturally similar houses without trees, it is a wise investment of
your time and resources to have the plants in your yard evaluated periodically.
We discussed some specific concerns you have about the Large Douglas Fir tree you
have in your yard. I will address each specific concern as I review the trees condition.
To evaluate your trees and shrubs and to prepare this report, I drew upon my education
and 19 years of experience in the fields of horticulture and arboriculture. Also, I followed
the protocol of the International Society of Arboriculture for Hazard Tree Assessment
while looking at the overall health of the trees and the site conditions. This is a
scientifically based process to look at the entire site, the surrounding land and the soil,
as well as a complete look at the trees themselves. In examining each tree, I looked at
such factors as: size, vigor, crown ratio and class, density of needles, injury, insect
activity, root damage and root collar health, crown health, evidence of disease causing
bacteria, fungi or virus, dead wood and hanging limbs. While no one can predict with
absolute certainty which trees will or will not fail, we can, buy using this scientific
process, assess which trees are most likely to fail and take appropriate actions to
minimize injury and damage.
There is one Douglas Fir Tree that is in significant decline that needs aggressive
treatment or removal as noted below.
1. Douglas Fir, PSEUDOTSUGA menziesii:
® Located on the north west side by the hill
® 36 inch dbh
® The bottom 6 to 7 feet of the trunk is swollen
® Throughout the trunk, there is evidence of banana cracks and pitch is coming
from those locations
® The tree was previously climbed 10 to 12 years ago by someone using spurs,
this intern has caused multiple holes in the cambium layer which is causing
sap to ooze from the bark
® The tree has been topped as well as over thinned
® The tree has an over abundance of cone growth, which is a strong indicator
that the tree is in decline.
Conclusion and Recommendations: The Large Douglas Fir tree has should be
removed because of its unstable condition due to the rot and extensive pruning.
SUMMARY:
These recommendations can be summarized as:
® The tree is located on a very steep sensitive slope and has a swollen trunk, and
a heavy cone set.
® 1 feel this tree is very unstable and should be removed as soon as possible so
that it does not hit the adjoining neighbor's house or fail in the other direction and
come down on the railroad tracks.
WAIVER OF LIABILITY:
There are many conditions affecting a tree's health and stability which may be present
and cannot be ascertained, such as, root rot, previous or unexposed construction
damage, internal cracks, stem rot and more which may be hidden. Changes in
circumstances and conditions can also cause a rapid deterioration of a tree's health and
stability. While I have used every reasonable means to examine these trees, this
evaluation represents my opinion of the tree health at this point in time. These findings
do not guarantee future safety nor are they predictions of future events.
Thank you for considering us for your arboricultural needs. I hope this report answers
your questions., Please call me if I can provide more information or be of further service.
Sincerely,
Patrick See
ISA Certified Arborist
PN-1463A
425-770-1114
1. A New Tree Biology: by Alex L. Shigo
2. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9t" Edition
3. The New Tree Biology Dictionary: by Alex L. Shigo
4. The Tree Doctor: by Daniel Prendergast, Erin Prendergast
5. Western Gardening Book
Address
See's Trees and Excavation, Inc.
18601 72"d Ave NE
Kenmore, WA 98028
425-770-1114
seestreesandexcavate@hotmail.com
iM
Map/Location: Edmonds Wa 21 3I 4 K
Date of Last Inspection: UnknoiTime: rFailure + Size of + Target = HAZARD I
Inspector: atricsee (Potential Part Rating RATING 1
Date of Last Inspection: Unknown 1 Immediate Action Needed 1
Owner: Public x Private Needs Further Inspection I
Unknown Other Dead Tree 1
d
TREE AG [ TIC
Tree :
1 Species: Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii
DBH:
36 # of Trunks: 9 Height: 80 Spread:
30
Form:
GENERALLY SYMMETRIC X MINOR ASYMMETRY
STUMP SPROUT STAG -HEADED
Crown Class:
DOMINANT CO -DOMINANT
INTERMEDIATE X SUPPRESSED
Live Crown Ratio:
75 %
Age Class:
YOUNG X SEMI -MAT. MATURE
OVER -MAT.
Pruning History:
X CROWN CLEANED X EXCESSIVELY THINNED
X TOPPED X CROWN RAISED
NONE
POLLARDED CROWN REDUCED
FLUSH CUTS CABLED/BRACED
X MULTIPLE PRUNING EVENTS; APPROXIMATE DATES:
Special Value:
SPECIMEN HERITAGE/HISTORIC
WILDLIFE
UNUSUAL STREETTREE
SCREEN
SHADE X INDIGENOUS
PROTECTED
Foliage Colour: X
NORMAL
CHLOROTIC
NECROTIC
Epicormics? (Y/N)
Leaf size:
NORMAL
SMALL
Foliage Density:
NORMAL
SPARSE
Twig Dieback? (Y/N) YES
Annual Shoot Growth:
EXCELLENT
AVERAGE
X POOR
Woundwood Development:
EXCELLENT X
AVERAGE
POOR
NONE
Vigor Class: EXCELLENT
AVERAGE
FAIR POOR
Site Character: X
RESIDENCE
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
PARK
OPEN SPACE
NATURAL
WOODLAND/FOREST
Landscape Type:
PARKWAY
RAISED BED
CONTAINER
MOUND
LAWN X
SHRUB BORDER
WIND BREAK
Irrigation: X NONE
ADEQUATE INADEQUATE
EXCESSIVE
TRUNK WETTED
Recent Site Disturbance? (Y/N)
n0
CONSTRUCTION
SOIL DISTURBANCE
LINE CLEARING
GRADE CHANGE
SITE CLEARING
Put an 'Y' above the correct division
X
% Dripline Paved:
0% 10-25% 25-50%
50-75% 75-100%
Pavement Lifted? (Y/N)
X
% Dripline with fill -soil:
0% 10-25% 25-50%
50-75% 75-100%
% Dripline Grade Lowered:
Soil Problems: DRAINAGE X SHALLOW
DROUGHTY SALINE
SMALL VOLUME
HISTORY OF FAIL
EXPANSIVE SLOPE:
0% 10-25% 25.50% 50-75% 75-100%
COMPACTED
ALKALINE ACIDIC
DISEASE CENTER
CLAY
DEGREES
ASPECT:
Obstructions: LIGHTS SIGNAGE LINE -OF -SIGHT
VIEW OVERHEAD LINES
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES TRAFFIC
ADJACENT VEGETATION:
Exposure to Wind: X SINGLE TREE BELOW CANOPY
ABOVE CANOPY RECENTLY EXPOSED
WINDWARD, CANOPY EDGE
AREA PRONE TO WINDTHROW
Prevailing Wind Direction: south
Occupance of snow/ice storms: NEVER X SELDOM REGULARLY
TARGET
Use Under X BUILDING PARKING
TRAFFIC PEDESTRIAN
Tree: RECREATION X LANDSCAPE
HARDSCAPE SMALL FEATURES
UTILITY LINES
Can Target be Moved? (Y/N) no Can Use be Restricted? (Y/N) no
Occupancy: OCCASIONAL USE INTERMITTENT USE
FREQUENT USE X CONSTANT USE
rcoor uerecrs: Suspect Root Rot: (Y/N)
Mushroom/Conk/Bracket Present: (Y/N)
ID:
Exposed Roots: SEVERE
MODERATE
LOW
Undermined: SEVERE
MODERATE X
LOW
Root Pruned: DISTANCE FROM
TRUNK
Root Area Affected:
%
Buttress Wounded: (Y/N)
When:
Restricted Root Area: X
SEVERE
MODERATE
LOW
Potential for Root Failure:
SEVERE
X MODERATE
LOW
Lean: DEGREE FROM VERTICAL
Soil Heaving? (Y/N)
NATURAL
UNNATURAL
SELF -CORRECTED
Decay in Plane of Lean: (Y/N)
Roots Broken:
(Y/N)
Soil Cracking: (Y/N) Compounding Factors:
Lean Severity: SEVERE
MODERATE
LOW
Crown Defects: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, I = low)
DEFECT''
Codominants/Forks
ROOT CROWN
TRUNK
SCAFFOLDS
BRANCHES
Multiple Attachments
Included Bark
Excessive End Weight
Cracks/Splits
Hangers
Girdling
Wounds/Seam
Decay
M
Cavity
Bleeding/Sap Flow
M
Loose/Cracked Bark
Deadwood/Stubs
Borers/Termites/Ants
M
Cankers/Galls/Burls
Tree Part most likely to fail: trunk
Inspection Period: annual biannual other:
Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating
Failure Potential: 1-low; 2-medium; 3-high; 4-severe.
Size of Part: 1: <6"(15cm); 2: 6-18" (15-45cm); 3: 18-30" (45-75cm); 4: >30" (75cm)
Target Rating: 1-occassional use; 2-intermittent use; 3-frequent use; 4-constant use
Prune:
remove defective part
reduce end weight
thin
crown clean
raise canopy
shape
crown reduce
restructure
Cable/Brace:
Inspect Further:
root crown
decay
Remove Tree? (Y/N)
yes Replace? yes
aerial
monitor
Move Target? (Y/N)
Other:
Effect on Adjacent Trees:
none
evaluate
Notification: x
owner manager
governing agency Date:
Comments: This trees trunk is swollen which is an indicator of internal decay. This tree has a heavy cone set, which is an
indicator of exti