The URL can be used to link to this page

MartinHazardTreeRemoval_20160122.pdffie 194. January 22, 2016 CITY OF EDMON S 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION Mar jorie Martin 18704-94 1h Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Hazard Tree Removal Dear Ms. Martin, You have been iti contact with the City of Edmonds regarding, the removal of a hazard tree a located on the property line between your residence at 18704 — 94"' Avenue' '"est and 18628 — 94th Avenue West. The identified tree is located within 50 feet of a slope that is 40% or greater. Slopes with a 40% or greater slope are considered critical areas pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 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. An arborist report with a tree risk form was submitted documenting the tree as a high risk and recommended removing the tree and leaving the stump intact. ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b.iv requires that hazard trees be replaced with new trees at a ratio of two to one. A follow up email noted that two vine maples would be planted to replace the hazard tree, Given the tree is located on the property line, the adjacent property owner must also grant permission to remove the identified tree. A letter from the adjacent property owner was provided to the City granting the you authority to remove the tree. This approval is also being sent to the property owner. An exemption for the tree cutting is granted with the following conditions: 1. Only the tree identified in the tree hazard evaluation form as a high risk may be removed. 2. The two vine maple replacement trees must be a minimum of 1 -inch diameter at breast height consistent with ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b.iv and must be planted within one year of the tree cutting activity. Replacement trees should be planted in the generally vicinity of the tree being removed. 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. 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, k,neutttl�gtlartarmml,,'m5mlwlf, 425-771-0220. Si I"er°ely, er'rert Lien- Senior Planner Encl: January 5, 2016 Arborist Report prepared by Scott Selby of Arborwell November 3, 2015 Letter from Will Ip January 12, 2016 email from Ray Martin regarding replacement trees Cc: Will Ip Memorandum TO: Raymond Martin JOB SITE: 1870494 1h Ave West, Edmonds REGARDING: Risk Assessment of Douglas Fir FROM: Scott Selby, Board Certified Master Arborist #PN -1775B, ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor DATE: January 5, 2016 ASSIGNMENT & SCOPE At the request of Mr. Martin, I visited the residence on December 9, 2015 for the purpose of assessing the risk posed by a 40" DBH (diameter at breast height) Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziezii) located on the west property border. Ownership of the tree is shared with the neighbor at 18628 94th Ave West. Mr. Martin and his neighbor are concerned that damage to the tree's root system from previous construction activity has compromised tree stability and they are worried about the potential risk the tree poses to themselves and their homes. I was asked to provide a memo outlining concerns as well as complete a Basic Tree Risk Assessment form to be submitted with an application to remove the tree. My inspection was limited to visual assessment of the tree only and no diagnostic testing was performed. OBSERVATIONS Located on the west property border, the tree is growing on a small bank between the back yard lawn area of the Martins and the neighboring driveway to the west. It is approximately 95' height with a canopy spread (dripline) of 40'. 1 believe tree age to be approximately 75-95 years. From its low HDR (height -to -diameter ratio or tree height compared to tree girth) it is possible the tree was topped at some point. Alternately, it is possible that strong winds blowing off the Sound have simply stunted the tree's upward growth. It appears to be in generally good health and I saw no evidence of decay, disease or defect. The tree's branches extend over the driveway and home to the west and both homes are within striking distance if whole tree failure were to occur. Within a mile or so of Puget Sound, it is not uncommon for the area to experience strong, gusty winds. Much of the surrounding forest of trees was removed when the properties were developed, leaving the subject tree exposed to strong gusts. PO Box 1586 BOTHELL WA 98041 OFFICE: (888) 969-8733 CELL: (206) 849-4718 WWW.ARBORWELL.COM t' eni nt Arb(Tr' vell, �. rafessfc�nal tree min g �. While the overall grade of the hillside places the location in a "critical area" category, the tree itself is not in the immediate vicinity of a steep slope and is boxed in by a driveway on one side and a flat lawn area on the other. Visible in pictures 2 and 3, a utilities box is located within approximately 5' of the trunk and the neighbor's driveway is 3' away. Mr. Martin states in his comments that the 20' driveway easement was cut through to the 18628 property around 1967-1968. When the original owner of the home sold in 1985, the new owner had a 4' deep trench dug at a distance of 2.5' from the trunk in order to provide electrical service to a newly installed pool. Mr. Martin also stated that around the time that their house was torn down and rebuilt (around 1995), two large white pine trees—which had previously shielded the subject fir from winds—died from disease. DISCUSSION The process of calculating risk includes both evaluating and interpreting physical evidence and interpolating from best available information when little or no physical evidence is present. Because I could find no above -ground evidence of defects, decay or infection and because impacts to the tree happened many years ago and occurred below -ground, history of the site provided by Mr. Martin (see Appendix) is essential to building an understanding of the potential instability of the tree as well as appreciating concerns about the risk it poses if it were to fail. Digging up the soil to examine the roots for damage is not possible (many of the roots may be buried under the surrounding driveway) or practical (the act of digging for evidence would itself likely cause damage). Roots & Tree Stability Because sufficient root structure is crucial to tree stability, preserving roots during construction becomes essential. Large roots provide anchorage and support and significant impacts from activities such as trenching or root pruning substantially increase risk of whole tree failure. The Best Management Practice (BMP) for tree preservation during construction was developed for the purpose of providing guidance on avoiding damage to roots. The BMP identifies a Critical Root Zone (CRZ) surrounding a tree. The CRZ serves as the primary footprint for the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) or area surrounding the tree in which construction activity should be restricted to protect roots. The dimensions of the CRZ are calculated using tree diameter and canopy spread. The zone extends from the trunk to the dripline of the tree, or 1.5' per inch DBH, whichever is greater (see Figure 1 on next page). In the case with this tree, the area in which the severing of roots should have been avoided extended out a radius of 1.5' x 40" or 60'. PO Box 1586 BOTHELL WA 98041 OFFICE: (888) 969-8733 CELL: (206) 849-4718 WWW.ARBORWELL.COM Arb re ell, protessional tree management Figure I. CRITICAL ROOT ZONE N ORM = Diameter of trunk at E 4.5 feet above Around Roots — 30 Feel If this tree's ( extend out DBH Is 20 \\\VVVrrr 21o3 CRITICAL ROOT ZONE inches then the times the AND TREE a critical root and drlpllne. PROTECTION ZONE a tree protection Zone Ise 30 Extends out from the trunk to the toot area driIlne, or to a distance of 1.5 feet P (radius) around per inch DBH, whichever Is greater„ 111e Vee. Tree Risk Assessment I used the ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form included at the end of this report to give the tree a risk rating of "high" over a 3-5 year time frame. CONCLUSIONS Evidence strongly suggests that trenching occurred in very close proximity to the trunk of the tree and it is very likely that such work caused significant injury to the tree's structural roots. Assessment of the roots is not possible because a majority of the root system is likely covered by the driveway and because excavation would cause harm to the roots. Because structural roots are essential in preserving tree stability, the inability to inspect the roots and quantify the extent of possible damage is genuine cause for concern. Strong winds occur on a regular basis in this location and an absence of adjacent large trees to shield the subject tree leaves it exposed to the full force of wind gusts. Because of the proximity of the tree to homes, whole tree failure represents a significant risk of injury or property damage. Removal of the tree is unlikely to have a significant impact on the stability of the surrounding slope. PO Box 1586 BOTHELL WA 98041 OFFICE: (888) 969-8733 CELL: (206) 849-4718 WWW.ARBORWELL.COM A, A.) r el I professional tree managenient RECOMMENDATION Remove the tree and leave the stump intact. PO Box 1586 BOTHELL WA 98041 OFFICE: (888) 969-8733 CELL: (206) 849-4718 WWW.ARRORWELL.COM Arb r (-,111. professional tree management Photos Photo - 1. Subject fir is growing approximately 50' from client's house and overhangs neighbor's driveway and house (out of picture). Photo - 2. Neighbor's driveway and parking area in relation to tree. Note construction of driveway within 3' of tree's buttress roots as well as installation of concrete pad for utility box. Red line indicates trenching location for installation of underground power lines. PO Box 1586 BOTHELL WA 98041 OFFICE: (888) 969-8733 CELL: (206) 849-4718 WWW.ARBORWELL.COM Photos (cont.) Photo - 3. View looking across neighbor's driveway at client's home. Trenching location for installation of underground power lines shown in red. PO Box 1S86 BOTHELL WA 98041 OFFICE: (888) 969-8733 CELL: (206) 849-4718 W W W,ARBORWELL.COM Arba,r Ven, prcfes^;innaI tree management Appendix 1- Raymond Martin Statement 1. Marge and I first viewed our property and the tree in mid-August 1970. It was for sale then. 2. The tree was almost the same exact height as it is today. It is not growing taller and hasn't since probably the construction of 18628 (co-owner of the tree). At that time the tree was the tallest tree on the property. In contrast, the trees at 18626, the property you evaluated in 2012, were only about 15 feet high in 1970. 3. We moved into our home on or about Oct 10, 1970. 18628 was fully built and occupied by a family then, probably in 1968. My memory tells me they had lived there for a year or two. The city had until recently stated 18628 was built in 1971. That info has been removed, probably because of my input. 4. The easement road (to 18628 94th Ave West) was non-existent in a 1960 Snohomish county map that I found. I estimate that the 20' easement was cut through in 1967 or 1968.The original owner moved out about 1985. The new owner very soon installed a swimming pool which apparently required an electrical upgrade. A new hole was dug within 21/2 'of the tree trunk; about 4' deep and in addition to the 2 to 3 foot cut of the easement that occurred. The electricians obviously needed sufficient working space around the previous ditching to modify the electrical. The 4' hole looked very big and scary to me that close to the tree. I wish I had had enough sense then to snap a picture but I didn't. In addition to electrical there is a main line sewer pipe and water line very close to the tree. 5. In 1995 we demolished our home and built the new one. I removed about 12 other large firs and retained 18 trees which still stand today. At this time I asked for permission to remove the subject tree. The lady owning 18628 adamantly refused. She was a devout tree preservationist. She tried to interfere with the removal of my trees for construction and made about 8 complaints, none of which had merit. She was warned by Edmonds police to quit trespassing during the construction period. Also about that time she lost two large white pine trees due to disease, which had shielded the subject tree from the strong southwest winds we often have. She died in 2013. PO Box 1586 BOTHELL WA 98041 OFFICE: (888) 969-8733 CELL: (206) 849-4718 WWW.ARBORWELL.COM A rob r cA 1, ri.f r ,, irtr'°�rJ ti ;, trr<�ir� r,r i�,r�rw1 Appendix 2 — Google Satellite Image Explore this area PO Box 1586 BOTHELL WA 98041 OFFICE: (888) 969-8733 CELL: (206) 849-4718 W W W.ARBORWELL.COM esic Tree Fisk Assessment Fort Client Raymond Majsrt Date 12/9/15 Time 1330 West Edmonds AddreTree ss/TreeJac CIC1' n No IIdbh HeightTee no. Sheet o Assessor(s)s'f ID CIo y� Nva a Time frame -. yom Tools usedVla Ulb Crown spread dia. Target Assessment Size Factors History of failures branch. breakage graph Flat❑ Slo g, ._ Site changes None ❑ Grade Chan a R Site clearmgg Changed soil hyd _ l _.. .. dv construction, Topography .._-pe® 25% Aspect w g g rology❑ Root cuts Ml Describe "" action„ underground utilities Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow Mr Compacted IIII Pavement over roots 0 50'x° % Describe Prevailing wind direction SW Common weather Strong winds 0lee ❑ Snow 13 Heavy rain 13 Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ❑ Normal VIII High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests armlllaria„ phellinus, phaeolus Abiotic Species failure profile Branches* Trunk■ Roots �N Descrii3e arge scaffold f i ure, sa ura a soy s- Ig �r n s ccmpromNse roots Load Factors Wind ex osure Protected .......__._ ... ._�.....� Load - Factors w._....._.__...._.....mm.�..W...�.-.-.... p ❑ Partial❑ FullN Windfunneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium❑ Large Crown density Sparse ❑ Normai ■ Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑ Normal MMDense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent or planned change in load factors Target zone Occupancy rate ', 1 -rare « 01 eLIDE = Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Target description $ccasional u! Tuz 3—frquent4—constant Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole _% circ. Over-extended branches ■ Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ElSapwood damage/decay ❑ Crown cleaned 13 Thinned 13 Raised 0 dE Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ 1 2 homes Response growth normal 4 no no 2 parking Mil Imminent ❑ ............. 3 no no 3 landscaping, utility box ✓ V 4 no no 4 Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ 11 Lean ° Corrected?, normal not observed Response growth 67i Size Factors History of failures branch. breakage graph Flat❑ Slo g, ._ Site changes None ❑ Grade Chan a R Site clearmgg Changed soil hyd _ l _.. .. dv construction, Topography .._-pe® 25% Aspect w g g rology❑ Root cuts Ml Describe "" action„ underground utilities Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow Mr Compacted IIII Pavement over roots 0 50'x° % Describe Prevailing wind direction SW Common weather Strong winds 0lee ❑ Snow 13 Heavy rain 13 Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ❑ Normal VIII High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests armlllaria„ phellinus, phaeolus Abiotic Species failure profile Branches* Trunk■ Roots �N Descrii3e arge scaffold f i ure, sa ura a soy s- Ig �r n s ccmpromNse roots Load Factors Wind ex osure Protected .......__._ ... ._�.....� Load - Factors w._....._.__...._.....mm.�..W...�.-.-.... p ❑ Partial❑ FullN Windfunneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium❑ Large Crown density Sparse ❑ Normai ■ Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑ Normal MMDense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent or planned change in load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — d crown ❑ LCR 60 % FDead Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ s branches ❑ %overall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑ngers Number Max. dia. Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole _% circ. Over-extended branches ■ Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ElSapwood damage/decay ❑ Crown cleaned 13 Thinned 13 Raised 0 Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ other Response growth normal Main concern(s) scaffold limb failure Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor 13 Moderate 13 Significant ■ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable Mil Imminent ❑ —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible N Depth 10-t 2'" Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ. Lightning damage 13 Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots IMI Distance from trunk 2.5' Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Lean ° Corrected?, normal not observed Response growth 67i Response growth tree failure due to cut roots/high wind Main concern(s) Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant N Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ■ Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible'9 Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable MM Imminent ❑ Page I of 2 Risk Categorization ` Consequences of Failure Failure & Impact Negligible Minor Significant Severe Very likely Likelihood Moderate High Extreme Likely Low E High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Failure Low Impact Failure & Impact Consequences Notes, explanations, descriptions c E from Matrix 11 Risk C = g C rating of V Conditions �o Target a —` E s t; Z ,. So ; , a part (from 13 Tree part of concern H protection E d d E > 3 i x § > z Matrix 2) run roots severe 40" 90' 123 no , ilr high roots during construction - 1 activity scaffolds over extended 10" gp' 2,3 noOC ( high limbs 2 0000C C 3 ii 4 Matrix I. 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 High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Notes, explanations, descriptions Mitigation options none requested Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High 0 Extreme ❑ Work priority 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ Overall residual risk Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval Data ■Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed WNo ❑Yes-Type/Reason no decay/defect observed Inspection limitations ❑None ❑Visibillty IINiAccess ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe roots growing under driveway 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 e: will.ip@email.com Will l p: 778.708.8680 November 03, 2015 Dear Madam / Sir I, [Will Ip], owner of 18628 94th Ave W. Edmonds, WA, hereby provide my agreement [with Ray & Marge Martin — who are kind enough to take responsibility and coordination] in the effort to cut down and remove the. Fir Tree that straddles the property line between my property (aforementioned) and 18704 94th Ave Vu:, owned," by Ray & Marge. Sincerely, em.ro Will Ip Ray Martin From: Scott Selby <sselby@arborwell.com> Sent Tuesday, January 12, 2016 4:15 PM To: Ray Martin Subject tree replacements Ray Tree replacement suggestions for the removed fir: Vine maple z Paperbark maple Service berry (Amelanchier sp.) Strawberry tree Dogwood I hope this helps. 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