Loading...
StaffReport_CU-2007-22.pdfp FDy TTY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North • Edmonds, WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us i ago DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING DIVIsiON TREE CUTTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF DECISION - File CUT -2007-22: Application by Ross Conley for the removal of four Douglas -fir trees, two alder trees, and removal of invasive blackberry and holly on a slope at 21116 Pioneer Way, located in the Single Family Residential (RS -8) zone. Property Owner/Applicant: Ross Conley 21116 Pioneer Way Edmonds WA 98026 Site Location: 21116 Pioneer Way in the Single Family Residential (RS -8) zone (Attachment 2). Project Proposal: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to rectify the illegal cutting of four Douglas -fir trees and will also evaluate the removal of two alder trees, as well as removing the invasive blackberry and holly, on a slope. The four Douglas -fir trees were cut to a height of approximately 15 feet last year prior to applying for and obtaining a tree -cutting permit, and the applicant has requested to further reduce the height of the stumps. The applicant submitted a site plan and arborist report that evaluates the four Douglas -fir trees that were cut, along with a follow-up letter from the arborist that evaluates the trees on the slope, including the two alders proposed to be removed, and invasive blackberry and holly that the applicant proposes to remove (Attachments 3 and 4). Review Process: Conditional Use Permit with an optional public hearing followed by a staff decision, pursuant to ECDC 20.95.050 (Staff Decision — Notice Required). The City has mailed notice to the surrounding property owners informing them of the application for a clearing permit. Major Issues: • Compliance with ECDC Section 18.45 (Land Clearing and Tree Cutting). • Compliance with ECDC Section 23 (Critical Areas). • Compliance with ECDC Section 20.95 (Application and Staff Review). • Compliance with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan (especially Vegetation and Wildlife). Page 1 of 7 Staff Report for CU -2007-22 Conley Tree Removal Analysis: A. Facts: 1. The improvements are proposed on property with a single-family residential zoning designation (RS -8) and is developed with a single family home that was built in 1986. 2. The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan designates this property "Single Family — Urban 1." 3. The subject property is irregularly shaped (Attachment 3) and contains 0.27 acres (approximately 11,761 square feet). 4. The area to the North, South, East, and West are also zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -8) and the surrounding properties are developed with single-family homes. 5. The subject property slopes up along the west side of the property away from the home. The slope is heavily vegetated and contains several large mature evergreens. The LiDAR map indicates that the slope is approximately 44 percent. Tree removal on slopes over 25 percent require a tree cutting permit. 6. The lot is not capable of being further subdivided. 7. ECDC Chapter 18.45 exempts clearing on undeveloped lots that are not capable of being further subdivided, except for that portion of the lot that is located in a designated environmentally sensitive area, and except for that portion of the lot that has slopes exceeding 25 percent. Some of the purposes of ECDC Chapter 18.45.000.A -M state a desire to: A. To promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Edmonds by preserving the physical and aesthetic character of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and ground cover on undeveloped or partially developed property; B. To implement the policies of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 as revised in 1984; C. To implement and further the goals and policies of the city's comprehensive plan in regard to the environment, open space, wildlife habitat, vegetation, resources, surface drainage, watershed, and economics; D. To ensure prompt development, restoration and replanting and effective erosion control of property during and after land clearing; E. To promote land development practices that result in a minimal adverse disturbance to existing vegetation and soils within the city,- F. To minimize surface water and ground water runoffand diversion; G. To aid in the stabilization of soil, and to minimize erosion and sedimentation; H. To minimize the need for additional storm drainage facilities caused by the destabilization of soils; L To retain clusters of trees for the abatement of noise and for wind protection; J. To acknowledge that trees and ground cover reduce air pollution by producing pure oxygen from carbon dioxide; K. To preserve and enhance wildlife and habitat including streams, riparian corridors, wetlands and groves of trees; Page 2 of 7 Staff Report for CU -2007-22 Conley Tree Removal L. To promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the city's natural topographic and vegetation features while recognizing that certain factors such as condition (e.g., disease, danger offalling, etc), proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvement, interference with utility services, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover; M. To promote the reasonable development of land in the city of Edmonds. 8. The performance standards for land development permits are given in ECDC Chapter 18.45.050. 9. The applicant is proposing rectify the illegal cutting of the four Douglas -fir trees and would like to remove two alder trees (as well as invasive blackberry and American holly) according to the submitted plans (Attachments 3 and 1). 10. The applicant cut the four Douglas -fir trees because he felt very strongly that they were a threat to his home. 11. The following are included as part of this proposal: scope of work (Attachment 1), site plan (Attachment 3), report by an ISA Certified Arborist and a follow-up report by the same arborist (Attachment 4), photographs (Attachment 5), and a comment letter (Attachment 7), 12. There are still many trees on the slope that will help support the soil. 13. There is abundant vegetation on the slope that will help support the soil. 14. The arborist report notes that the trees that were removed are approximately 15 feet tall. 15. The applicant is proposing to reduce the height of all four Douglas -fir trees that have already been cut. 16. The four Douglas -fir trees are at the bottom of the slope near the house (Attachment 5). 17. The arborist report recommends creating wildlife snags of the standing Douglas -fir stumps and attaches instructions for the applicant on how to create a wildlife snag (Attachment 4). 18. The arborist report advises the retention and preservation of trees in the remnant forest stand (Attachment 4). 19. The arborist report shows that 1F the four Douglas -fir trees fell down on their own, then the house would naturally be a target. Also, the arborist report concludes that the four Douglas -fir trees presented a moderate risk to life and property prior to height reduction. 20. The follow-up report by the arborist evaluated the two small red alder trees in question, and notes phototropic lean, poor height, and short life -span. The report recommends planting replacement trees on the slope prior to removal of the two red alder trees (Attachment 4). 21. The arborist report advises removing invasive blackberry and American holly from the NW section of the slope (Attachment 4). B. Conclusions: 1. The proposed tree cutting is compatible with the single-family residential Zoning designation. 2. The proposed tree cutting is compatible with the single-family residential use Comprehensive Plan designation. 3. Since an arborist has observed that the four subject trees likely posed a hazard, and because the applicant is proposing to replace the four subject trees with four Douglas -fir trees, the .Tree Cutting Permit should be approved with conditions. Page 3 of 7 Staff Report for CU -2007-22 Conley Tree Removal 4. The four Douglas -fir trees have been reduced to a height that does not put the house in danger, which was the applicant's reasoning for cutting the trees. Due to the current 15 foot height of the trees, they no longer pose a risk to the house because they are too far away to damage the house. The only point of reducing the height further would be for aesthetics. The arborist report recommends leaving the four Douglas -fir trees as wildlife snags, because that will promote wildlife habitat and will further reinforce the slope — which helps meet the intent of the tree cutting code and the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies (related to enhancing wildlife habitat). 5. The conditions of approval should be consistent with the recommendations made in the initial arborist report and in the follow-up report, summarized below: 1. Create wildlife snag of the standing stumps. Do not further reduce the height of the four Douglas fir stumps. Refer to the page titled "Create a Wildlife Snag" in the arborist report. 2. Replace trees at a 1:1 ratio. Four trees were cut, replace with four Douglas -fir trees. 3. Install plants used for improving slope conditions and mitigate for canopy loss. Refer to the page titled "Planting for Slopes " in the arborist report. 4. Provide a two to four inch layer of woodchip mulch around new plantings. 5. Provide proper irrigation to new plantings. 6. Maintain new plantings and weed free areas. 7. Monitor stand annually for health and safety. S. Monitor the two small red alder trees and plant (two replacement) trees on slope prior to removal. Refer to the page titled "Small Trees and Large Shrubs for Steep Slopes " in the arborist report. 9. Remove blackberry and American holly from the NW section of the slope. 10. Planting for slope: use vegetation to reduce the rate of runoff and potential for surface erosion. Refer to the page titled "Small Trees and Large Shrubs for Steep Slopes " in the arborist report. Environmental (SEPA) Review. Land clearing and tree cutting is not exempt from environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The applicant turned in an Environmental Checklist, and staff issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) on June 14, 2007. No comments or appeals were received by the end of the business day on June 28. However, one comment was received via email at 9:56 PM on June 28. Both the City and the applicant have complied with SEPA requirements (Attachment 6). The attached comment letter will be addressed (Attachment 6). A summary of the concerns cited are in italics below, followed by a response from staff: • Neighbor is not convinced that there is no significant adverse environmental impact (DNS). A determination of nonsignificance (DNS) was issued by the lead agency because we determined that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant adverse environmental impact — because all impacts can be "mitigated" to a nonsignificant level through our code requirements. The mitigation measures will be the conditions of approval for this staff report, as advised by an ISA Certified Arborist. • How will the trees be replaced? Pursuant to the ISA Certified Arborist's report, at a 1:l ratio. Page 4 of 7 Staff Report for CU -2007-22 Conley Tree Removal • How will this process be enforced? The applicant will be required to call for a Planning Inspection once the two replacement alder trees are planted (prior to removal of the two alder trees) and again after all of the work has been completed. • Will there be any fines for illegal tree cutting? The applicant was required to obtain a tree -cutting permit, which cost $995.00. Questions about any additional fines can be addressed to the Code Enforcement Officer. Technical Review: The proposed Conditional Use Permit has been reviewed and evaluated by the City's Fire Department, Engineering Division, Parks and Recreation Department, and the Public Works Department. No comments were received. Public Comments: The City has received one comment letter for this project (Attachment 7). The following concerns were raised in the letter: • Will the City obtain an independent arborist report to validate the report? The applicant submitted a report by an ISA Certified Arborist — the report is thorough and the City is satisfied with this report. • Will the City consider that the entire tree did not have to be cut because only the branches were a moderate risk to the Conley house, according to the arborist report? Yes, this was indeed taken into consideration. Will the City require a geotechnical engineer to make recommendations sufficient to stabilize the slope, taking into account our home as a structure at the top of the slope when evaluating the permit application? The City is satisfied with the report by the ISA Certified Arborist. The arborist report observed that, "The stand on the upper slope is vigorous and does not appear to have any signs of major pests or pathogens that will impact tree health or stability." Later, in his follow-up report, he states, "Vigor of stand appears normal — no symptoms of stress visible in any trees with diameter greater than b inches." The slope will be stabilized by the replacement trees and by the additional vegetation that will be required as a condition of approval. • Will the City consider the increased noise of vehicles, dogs and people we now hear in the valley without the abatement that the missing fir trees provided when considering the permit application? The trees will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio, which will assist with noise abatement. • Will the City clarify the specific plans that will improve the slope conditions and which plants will make up for the canopy loss for permit requirements? And who will enforce the permit requirements for plants? Refer to the Conditions of Approval. Enforcement is done by staff, and inspections are required. Party of Record: Linda Skurdal & Steve Kirkpatrick 21090 881h Place West Edmonds WA 98026 Page 5 of 7 Staff Report for CU -2007-22 Conley Tree Removal Decision: Based on the facts, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff finds that the application for a Conditional Use Permit for this tree removal (file number CUT -2007-22) is APPROVED with the following conditions: 1. Create wildlife snag of the standing four Douglas -fir stumps. Do not further reduce the height of the four Douglas -fir stumps. Refer to the page titled "Create a Wildlife Snag" in the arborist report. 2. Replace trees at a 1:1 ratio. Four Douglas -fir trees were cut: replace with four Douglas -fir trees. 3. Install plants used for improving slope conditions and mitigate for canopy loss. Refer to the page titled "Planting for Slopes " in the arborist report. 4. Provide a two to four inch layer of woodchip mulch around new plantings. 5. Provide proper irrigation to new plantings. 6. Maintain new plantings and weed free areas. 7. Monitor stand annually for health and safety. 8. Monitor the two small red alder trees and plant (two replacement) trees on the slope prior to removal. Refer to the page titled "Small Trees and Large Shrubs for Steep Slopes" in the arborist report for a list of replacement trees — choose trees from this list that can provide similar functions and values as the two trees proposed to be removed. 9. Once you decide which two trees to use as replacements (see item 8 above), call Planning (425.771.0220) to confirm that this is an acceptable variety off the list that the arborist report recommends. Refer to the page titled "Small Trees and Large Shrubs for Steep Slopes " in the arborist report. 10. Call for a Planning Inspection (425.771.0220) after the two chosen replacement trees are planted (which needs to happen before the two alder trees can be removed). 11. Call for a Planning Inspection (425.771.0220) after the four Douglas -firs are planted. 12. Remove the invasive blackberry and American holly from the NW section of the slope. 13. Re -plant the slope: use vegetation to reduce the rate of runoff and potential for surface erosion. Refer to the page titled "Small Trees and Large Shrubs for Steep Slopes " in the arborist report. 14. Call for a Planning Inspection (425.771.0220) after the slope has been adequately replanted with vegetation. Attachments: 1. band Use Application (scope of work) 2. Quarter Section Map and Plat Map 3. Site Plan and LiDAR map 4. Arborist Report by Tree Solutions, Inc. (received 121812006) and Addendum (received 311212007) 5. Photographs 6. SEPA DNS and Comment Letter from Steve Kirkpatrick & Linda Skurdal 7. Comment Letter from Steve Kirkpatrick & Linda Skurdal Page 6 of 7 Staff Report for CU -2007-22 Conley Tree Removal T have reviewed the application for compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code. Gina Coccia, Planning Division Date Requests for Reconsideration, Appeals, and Expiration: The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Division for further procedural information. Request for Reconsideration — Section 20.95.050.13.1 allows for staff to reconsider their decision if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the posting of the notice of decision. Appeals — Section 20.105.01 O.A describes how appeals of a staff decision or recommendation shall be made. Appeals shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project applicant and the date of the decision, the name and address of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong, and the fee. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. Lapse of Approval: Section 18.45.045.C. states "Any permit granted under the provisions of this section shall expire one year from the date of issuance. No work may commence on the permit until the appeal time limit has expired. Upon receipt of a written request, a permit may be extended for six months." Page 7 of 7 J city of edmonds land use application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT \ VCONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (A aM f n J FILE # 91-N' D -4 002 -7 --ZONE ' S HOME OCCUPATION DATE Off` i'k' ()_+' REC'D BY GiC, ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE R 'yU RECEIPT# (i '3op ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE I';t . ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEV _ . 7t ` O OFFTCIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ HE STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ❑ STREET VACATION - ?0P ❑ REZONE $ 15 uv-ckAa��� ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT P�C:`^,M11T `t?R.lRI i ❑ VARIANCE 1 REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION GAP A OTHER; Tree UAL -1i L) $ ' 90 -- (:-L-indU-1i0,yNr l Use-( A &vniy)J PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION Lo e er W U PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) C O lel l e y TYe e Cu4-h)o q Pe*-ryl I ; - PROPERTY OWNER _ IN D 5 S r. o 0 (ey PHONE # 4/a 5 - 77b'-67Pk ADDRESS/ems f�(/%cV F -MAIL ADDRESS �'I'i f S e OCI��e(f LP/1-0 4/ e 60!y FAx # ✓J Ode TAx ACCOUNT # 6'Q -1Tq5 000oo3 a n SEC. TWP.//RNG. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE Trf f 1° r {r< n G1 . (ZelQu C2 � a "a G.i n � y S L1fgf45 dura� •fi` iri Pro2C 0 6614 0 R6,"noveV of g 5OtA ALele,- fo e`er ee .�w,4s� c�c hove �� av r� vafr`v�& C(Cker� �rul� /fr+leJ�'c'aw AoA APPLICANT R,55 [ w% PHONE# ya5•-776-(v/,?(o ADDRESS /// /'0 0 e er R/ �iyl.bvl. (is W �O (p E-MAIL ADDRESS Ivi V- 5 Lh et o�4:' Uil , COW FAX # P) QM Q CONTACT PERSONIAGENT &055 cn /ey PHONE # y19 S-- / R ­6PI6 G^ ADDRESS ;2-,W'Oneel WAY 6 0,1 s i/l%/l 9�0P2� E-MAIL A & ADDRESS 141,lrS GILC,16? 1r' p L,I aal. oPrL FAX# po,4e The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/herlits agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application onn%the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENTDATE 314111-2 Property Owner's Authorization By my signature, I certify that T have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and postiingf" attendant to this application. SIGNATUREOFOWNER_ �, Lt"Z__ DATE �n b This application form was revised on 1127100. To verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220. L:SLBRARYIPLANNING1Forms & Handeuts\Public HandculsNLand Use Applicalion.doc Attachment 1 File No. CUT -2007-22 SW 19 �27� ry04 ApvEmin(She9nw4emAhCau y o w� Mep a,°cn«a an D«rm6rr2$ 200d - - — - NW19-27-04 H 7 t 2 �� w �„»» o? w 4 ! B g} LA 3 4 5 6 8 6 Oij�x NO:_ry Z1' 6 z¢ 8 70 j04g0:: 6 A N '3 O i ry' g 2 r 1 04 03 a> 04 P S 7-39 Of F t i---204TH-Sl-SW-- - I I1 00 27 3 s z r 103f 02 of 3 02 2 3 :, „",", 02 I 05 '• 'A' '..,.A, #„.,R, 01 2 00 75 01 X44 02 ! 01 ; SP S•20-80 26P S-�-013 nra A 83 & 01 3 00 05 1 04! 031 02 02 ; 01 BIC pp I , .” !LC26 i q µ HILLS (5067) r 4 1 3 1 z r 3 3 [ 02 35 ACT B . SP y 13- 77,r 26 03 oz MALERVO P C (9 01 ) a 02 = c 02 36 anKr .» ,„ ,«....,,..", Y O1 '- 02x 03 R 3 2 7 «.k 4 e 0f r : 6z= s 78 27 " 07 i6 02 I (%�( i 37 N VLL-E 'S ,AR 67 q 3 2 1 206 60 5 4 i 6352 6 01 59 02 °T 4 56 03 05 ..,,w.,.•i,,, j 014,902 07 6 00 5 6 2e 01 31 " 01 7 E 02 T 20 29 00 O1 01 39f EE 210 r J 27 30 01 40# 02 » ,4 }'s }05 a° 03T k 22 31 0-95-197 JL 0 EA4 VI 6 - 02 ! W~A{t0 01 01 f 02 32 / 42 57 3 R 6 1 1 Z 3 0. 6 6 7 1- 207TH 51'SW--- k I _i S ! �! 13 ! 00 Ol 02y'" z S�-S1N- s 66 ,v06 ,.,. z 08} 12 i.x.,.�, 0703= ! N -7 01 ` a6 ; 02 x r I 02 A { 4 :46 ? 46 .„.`}4„i 43 T 7 8 674 j 05 3 I 3 2 't04 2 s. O! r74 00 01! 03 01 ;--9 ,�---02 SPS -1W83 7 8 01 ;6 02 03 «. 01 `O g 1 j 02 04 4{ z 9 i 01 «06 o1 «« ,"1 , u.i... "�g 2 I ,.�.. 2 .,«w 04 sr`,♦ .,\0304 PARKVIEW FIRS 10 4 R 09 r 05 J o3 08 3 03 p s CONDOMINIUM O "µ10 .n04 ” w7 3 r .."^",us i Vag 07 x; �, (6474) 5 11 0B : T..v»' a m 1 r rr°x' 02 t 7 3 4 ..",I ; 03f I 16 h6 5 4 AA 1 04 996 6 1 PH7 { -. 12 209T S4I1 B q 1 6 8 7 6 13 r 08 g A 0 4 82 7 .'t t¢� i 7 .v.�} ri 14 15 s 6 8 D5 21 70 6 't 5 m 14 6 3 P •12- 118 091Y, B 10 q 20 D 11 11 4 4 to 6 8 S- 135 7 .� 79 688 12 W 3 m 75 I l0 =� .,.". SP S •79 77 4 10 13� 12 ry11 5 6 a�,�.!.4 0 3 �-" 18 007 13 2 1 PH 2 3 Q 16 04'T4. 3 03 0rt7 2 14 "SW- ~is 2 3 9 Y ;TS �L RWO DM,AN¢f 6 7 6 Q 2 ♦ I 2 8 } 02 K. ^~ LL 1 6 05 15 16 17 8868 ` i c a f 1NO9( 36) ' 6 / 7 06 t 11 0 2�k 1 7 # �' 12 •k�/ 14 1 02 ,�.. 13 # a 9PH 3 � H } a o 5'$6 T".aZ..» MO 1R '•. a"« " 06 Q C DOMINIUM 33 02 31 s -0 10 6 A 72 03 (9175) n 05 LY N A TA 100 s ' , !0 a 75 16 17 PH 7` r •"•"�,`•", PH 2 19 t •-� _ � T 24 " 25 3P COMS.AUNITV PARK 23 3 - — - - - g —06 -T i -'-- 07 ALDE WOOD 11 ty ,e 5 72 ON9 (736) 4 6 26 2 11 ,0 2 3 27 � x z I { 02s 0 _ O 14 QQ Attachment 2 Fite No. CUT -2007-22 t,'014 FIOI.LIQQ'd )4uvd ArfrKO.L av2ze '"lY°" •2615 N9v . 5M v J Q , •• � , h �` .e W O t•' '• �•5 ��P;I : ii[3fJ�YJ Q{3Di�it1�Q'��7 � +' �'A .y d , ' i r' `• +!' a +f y- � r • • F go � ~ � � i a - � 3 jillp -L Y a ( ° ,r�r��°os��° p�.p��Ml oil }�,}^�i34Frl�� _l z f � r � - i - ° 1 � �• 0 � � to ap�i}0 Milk t'.z1�i?°-o2l(iarlY 1l 1> 3i ,' '�zY• �� �I Z ; Pp` �j� � � i�Ir Y � �ro t''r .•� n •������� !o ��'�°3 cai1rj3 vv l a—ti���3�;s F J C] ib4 €1°I. u.E Q. � •7�� �f . ,•5 '. L]y3� IJHMI., A S x i`LC z W '} - ,00'09 i N9v . 5M v J Q , •• � , h �` .e W O t•' '• �•5 ��P;I : ii[3fJ�YJ Q{3Di�it1�Q'��7 � +' �'A .y d , ' i r' `• +!' a +f y- � r • • F go � ~ � � i a - � 3 jillp -L Y a ( ° ,r�r��°os��° p�.p��Ml oil }�,}^�i34Frl�� _l z f � r � - i - ° 1 � �• 0 � � to ap�i}0 Milk t'.z1�i?°-o2l(iarlY 1l 1> 3i ,' '�zY• �� �I Z ; Pp` �j� � � i�Ir Y � �ro t''r .•� n •������� !o ��'�°3 cai1rj3 vv l a—ti���3�;s F J C] ib4 €1°I. u.E Q. � •7�� �f . ,•5 '. L]y3� IJHMI., 4'06, -359 39� 39� 3 'jf7 5%5- 37y 372- 34o 72 34o d 3GY 3b9. 3 4�o -353, File No_ CUT -2007-22 Consulting Arborists MOO I1, "Valuable Knowledge of Trees„ TO: Ross Conley JOB SITE: 21116 Pioneer Way, Edmonds WA 14-0 %Vsv nos FROM: Tree Solutions, Inc oc SUBJECT: Tree Risk Assessment DATE: 11.28.2006 PREPARED BY: Sean Dugan, Certified Arborist PN -5459A Contents Summary Assignment & Scope of Report Observations Discussion Recommendations Glossary References Assumptions & Limiting Conditions Attachments: Table of Trees Tree Hazard Evaluation Forms Plantings for Slopes Wildlife Snag Summary 9 i 1-f Four Douglas -fir trees, which had been reduced to fifteen foot tall snags„ were assessed for health and safety to determine potential risk prior to tree work activities. All four trees were of fair health showing signs of stress. Two trees showed positive indicators of Armillaria root disease and two trees had potential indicators of the same disease. This disease can cause the dieback of lateral branches, a condition noted by the property owner as the reason for removal. Branches would be the part most likely to fail. The home is the most probable. target. The trees were found to be of moderate risk to life and property. Assignment & Scope of Report This report discusses the findings made by Sean Dugan of Tree Solutions Inc. on 11--9-2006. 1 was asked to conduct a health and safety assessment of four Douglas -fir trees located on the rear slope at the above job site. Included in this report are my findings and discussion of my assessment with recommendations for site mitigation. I have attached to the report International (206) 528.4670 1058 N. 39H' St. - Seattle, WA - 98103 Attachment 4 Conley Report www.treesofutions.net File No. CUT -2007-22 u" I U v a° 91 v "Valuable Knowledge of Trees" Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Tree Hazard Evaluation forms for each tree assessed and information supporting my discussion and recommendations. Unless stated otherwise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those trees that were examined and reflects the. condition of those trees at the time of inspection; and 2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of the subject trees without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring unless explicitly specified. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the subject trees may not arise in the future. Observations I based my health evaluation and risk assessment on visual tree assessment (VTA) methods. The basis behind VTA is the identification of symptoms which the tree produces in reaction to a weak spot or area of mechanical stress. A tree reacts to mechanical and physiological stresses by growing more vigorously to re -enforce weak areas, while depriving less stressed parts. An understanding of the uniform stress allows an arborist to make informed judgments about the condition of a tree_ The Site The trees are located on a steep slope, near the toe, with an east aspect. Soils are native and free draining_ The upper portion of the slope is a mixed native deciduous/coniferous forest stand_ The stand on the upper slope is vigorous and does not appear to have any signs of major pests or pathogens that will impact tree health or stability. The Conley residence is located at the base of the slope and is the primary target of the reduced Douglas -fir trees and the remnant forest stand. The understory layer is mixed with native (75%) and invasive weed (25%) species. Invasive weed species including Himalayan blackberry (Rebus discolor) and American holly (Ilex opaca), which appear to be heading down the slope from the North West comer of the site. The lower slope is barren of vegetation below the four trees that were reduced in height. The Trees I inspected four Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesh) trees. The trees were reduced in height to approximately 15 feet tall prior to my inspection. Each assessed tree was numbered with red marking paint on the west side of the trunk_ Information specific to each numbered tree can be found in the attached Table of Trees and Tree Hazard Evaluation Forms. All four Douglas -fir trees show signs of Douglas -fir beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae). I observed multiple areas of white sap flow, resin streamers, where beetles enter the tree. i removed several sections of bark and found insect larva. (206) 528A670 1058 M 39"' St. • Seattle, WA $ 98103 lean@treesolotions.net Conley Report www.treesolutions.net Page 2 of 7 V o I u V1 o U v "Valuable Knowledge of Trees" Trees # 1 & 2 had similar characteristics. I removed the bark from the tree # 1 and found black stained wood characteristic of Armillaria root disease_ Tree # 3 had a lean towards the residence, which appears to have been phototropic_ A stump of a subdominant lead was adjacent to the base on the Southeast side. I observed the cross section of the stump to have six annual rings per inch of diameter growth. Tree # 4, the largest of the group, had orange colored boring dust and insect frass at the base. This tree was the only one to still have several branches remaining. The foliage on these branches was discolored with dieback. It was stated to me by Ross Conley, the property owner, that the trees were reduced to decrease the potential risk to the home. Mr. Conley indicated the trees had a significant dieback in the canopies and were dropping large branches_ Discussion Based on my findingsthe trees presented moderate risk to life and property prior to height reduction (see attached hazard forms). The four trees appeared to be in fair health showing symptoms and signs of stress. The resin streamers, from the beetle attack, indicate the trees had the capability to push out sap in an attempt to ward off the invasion. This means the trees were likely alive but stressed; otherwise, the beetles would not attack the tree. I was unable to determine if the orange frass and boring dust occurred before or after the trees were cut. Root disease can predispose trees to bark beetle attack. Positive indicators of Armillaria root disease were found in trees # 1 and 2. The primary affect of Armillaria root disease is mortality of the infected trees. This is often preceded by reduced growth and foliar dieback. Reduced annual growth, six rings per inch of diameter, was observed in the sub dominate lead cross section adjacent with tree # 3. Trees in good health will typically have four or less rings per inch of diameter. 1 was unable to view the cross sections of the four trunks. Conifer trees infected by Armillaria usually exhibit thinning crowns, declining shoot growth increments, foliage chlorosis, distress cone crops, and heavy basal resin flow. This is consistent with Mr. Conley's observations. I observed branches in tree # 4 to have discolored foliage and needle loss. I believe branches were the part most likely to fail prior to reduction. Based on my knowledge of the species and observation of similar size treesrthere were likely branches with diameters of four inches or greater_ The location of the trees (206) 528.4670 1058 N. 39"' St_ @ Seattle, WA • 98103 sean@treesolutions_net Conley Report www.treesolu'Lions..net Page 3 of 7 v v e u v a „.a u -"Valuable Knowledge or frees" on the slope with an aspect towards east increases the probability of the home being the primary target. Fungal species such as Armillaria typically travel with water down slope. It is . unlikely that the forest stand up slope will be impacted by the disease but monitoring on an annual basis for tree health and safety is suggested. A monitoring sheet was provided during my initial site visit. Invasive Weeds Blackberry and holly are aggressive plants and are beginning to displace the native species on the site. The invasive weeds are considered poor slope stabilizers with shallow root systems insufficient to create friction and hold soil in place. These species also have the potential to create monocultures that can degrade ecological function of forest stands. Removal of invasive species and replacement with native vegetation should be an integral component of mitigating and managing the slope. Native Vegetation on Slope Reducing surface water runoff and improving slope stability can be accomplished through the use of native vegetation. Native plants are often the best choice as they will naturalize and adapt to the site's light, soil and water conditions without becoming invasive. The use of multi -layered vegetation is best for stabilizing slopes and creating a more natural environment. A list of plant species useful for slope stabilization is included with this report. Recommendations ➢ Retain and preserve all trees in the remnant forest stand ➢ Create wildlife snag of the standing stumps ➢ Replace trees at a 1:1 ratio Install plants used for improving slope conditions and mitigate for canopy loss ➢ Provide a two to four inch layer of woodchip mulch around new plantings Provide proper irrigation to new plantings ➢ . Remove invasive species A Maintain new plantings and weed free areas (205) 528.4670 1058 N. 39"° St. a Seattle, WA . 98103 sean@treesolutions.net Conley Report www.treesolutions.net Page 4 of 7 v v r u V t Val v "Valuable Knowledge of Trees" ➢ Monitor stand annually for health and safety Glossary crown (canopy): the leaves and branches of a tree (Matheny et al. 1998) canopy (crown): the leaves and branches of a tree (Matheny et al. 1998) crown cleaning: removal of watersprouts and dead, dying, diseased, crossing, and hazardous branches from a tree (Lilly 2001) DSH: diameter at breast height; the diameter of the trunk measured 54 inches (4.5 feet) above grade (Matheny et at. 1998) decay: decomposition of woody tissues by fungi or bacteria (Lilly 2001) decay: degradation of wood by fungi and bacteria (Matheny et al. 1998) decline: loss of vigor of the entire tree; may be associated with root loss, rendering the tree prone to failure (Matheny et al. 1998) monitoring: keeping a dose watch; performing -regular checks or inspections (Lilly 2001) phototropism: influence of light on the direction of plant growth (Lilly 2001) risk assessment: process of determining the level of risk posed by a tree or group of trees on a property (Lilly 2001) risk management: process of assessing and controlling risk in tree management (Lilly 2001) species: a group of organisms composed of individuals of the same genus that can reproduce among themselves and have similar offspring (Lilly 2001) stand: community of trees sufficiently uniform in species, size, arrangement, and age to be distinguishable as a group (Matheny et al. 1998) structural defects: flaws, decay, or other faults in the trunk, branches, or root collar of a tree, which may lead to failure (Lilly 2001) target: person, object, or structure that could be injured or damaged in the event of tree or branch failure (Lilly 2001) topping: c u ing back a tree to buds, stubs, or laterals not large enough to assume apical dominance (Lilly 2001) vigor: overall health; capacity to grow and resist stress (Lilly 2001) wildlife snag: any standing dead, partially dead, or defective tree at least 3 metres tali that provides present or future habitat critical for the maintenance or enhancement of wildlife (adapted from Dunster 1996) References (266) 528.4670 1058 N. 390' St. v Seattle, WA e 98103 sea n@treesolutions.net Conley Report www.treesolutions.net Page 5 of 7 V v'" V& °'o v" "Valuable knowledge of gees., 1. Lilly, S.J., Tree Climbers' Guide. Champaign, IL: The Intemational Society of Arboriculture, 2001. 2. Matheny, Nelda and James R. Clark. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. Champaign, IL: Intemational Society of Arboriculture, 1998. 3. Mattheck, Claus and Helge Breloer, The Body Language of Trees.: A Handbook for Failure Analysis. London: HMSO, 1994. 4. Washington State University Cooperative Extension, Pullman WA. hit ://ext.nrs.wsu.edu/forest ext/foresthealth/notes/doublasbeetie.htm (accessed 11027/2006) Assumptions & Limiting Conditions I. Consultant assumes that any legal description provided to Consultant is correct and that title to property is good and marketable. Consultant assumes no responsibility for legal matters. Consultant assumes all property appraised or evaluated is free and clear, and is under responsible ownership and competent management. 2. Consultant assumes that the property and its use do not violate applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or regulations. 3. Although Consultant has taken care to obtain all information from reliable sources and to verify the data insofar as possible, Consultant does not guarantee and is not responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 4. Client may not require Consultant to testify or attend court by reason of any report unless mutually satisfactory contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such Services as described in the Consulting Arborist Agreement. 5. Unless otherwise required by law, possession of this report does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any person other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior express written consent of the Consultant. 6. Unless otherwise required by law, no part of this report shall be conveyed by any person, including the Client, the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media without the Consultant's prior express written consent. 7. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the Consultant, and the Consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specific value; a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event or upon any finding to be reported. 8. Sketches, drawings and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of any information generated by architects, engineers or other consultants and any sketches, drawings or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. inclusion of such information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Consultant as to the sufficiency or accuracy of the information. (206) 528.4670 1058 N. 39"1 St. • Seattle, WA • 98103 sean@treesolutions.net Conley Report www.treesolutions.net Page 6 of 7 V v. u vIV #I v ''vaeuabre xnomeege or frees" 9. Unless otherwise agreed, (1) information contained in this report covers only the items examined and reflects the condition of the those items at the time of inspection; and (2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing or coring. Consultant makes no warranty or guarantee, express or implied, that the problems or deficiencies of the plans or property in question may not arise in the future. 10. Loss or alteration of any part of this Agreement invalidates the entire report. Attachments: Table of Trees Tree Hazard Evaluation Forms Plantings for Slopes Wildlife Snag (206) 528.4670 1.058 N. 39"' St. + Seattle, WA • 98103 lean@treesoiutions.net Conley Report www.treesolutions.net Page 7 of 7 IL IL u. Urban Areas- HAZA ' EVADATION FORM 2.d Ed Site/Address: 1 .-- RA "ZMD TING: MapA.ocation: - T. 3 -7 failure + Size 4- IkW = Hazard Owner_publicPrivate JZ__ unknown, PqtenU .,of part Rating Rating. We- Inspector Immediate action needed Dat of W inspection: Needs further inspection Dead tree TREE CHARACTERISTICS Tree t. Species:. &,odrtiwi 4 DBH- il of trunl= Height: Spread. Form' ❑ generally symmetric minor asymmetry _._Omajqrasyanetry_ ..-.,r-lstump.spro-ut---.fl.stag-headed Cnm da= 0 dominant 0 co -dominant Ointernediate Osupp=ed­---__ Live crown ratio: % Age class: ' C1 young_© semi- relsenescwt Pruning history: D crown cleaned 0 excessively thinned_ [] topped 0 crown raised- ©pollarded crown teducec! Offush aft OcabbAraced 0 none 11 multiple pruning events --Approx. dates - Special Value: Ospecimen Oheritagethistoric Owlildlife dun_6sual ffs64 tree 0 screen 0 shade Oindigenous 0 protected bygov.awty TREE HEALTH Foliage color C3 normal behlorotic 0 necr.ofic Ep'CoWlj4? y N . GWwtlr_qbSJrUCftJD= Foliage densitr- ❑0 normal ❑C1.3parse Leaf size: - D normal Osmall -0 stakes - Dwbafit--�- 0 signs- 11a"M -4- Annual shoot VFOWtk Oe=Pent Ozverage Opoor TwigUleback? Y ­_K -0 - �urWpawm e _W 13 guards Woundwood developmenk 0 excellent Cl average Cl poor: 11 none 0 other Tiger rJa= Oexcellent Daverage Dfair 11 poor - Major peWdiseases: gK- SITE CONDMOKS J SiteCharacier eresidence Dco'mmercial 0 industrial 0 park Dopen space 11 natural 0 woodlanMorest Landscalietype: ' O*kwW Oraised bed 0 container 0 mound -0 lawn- 13 shrub border . 0 windbreak Irrigation: Onone Oadequate. -Dinadequate:'16-EY excessive Otrunkweffled-_ Recent site dWurbance? Y N 0 6nstrudio4 C! sod disturbance 11 grade change 0 Iku 0i -ft dearMg % dripline paved: 001or 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement Fitted? Y N %dripline Wiwi soft ffa.10-25% 25-5D% _5Q:7596_ % dripfine grade lowered: 0% 10-25% Soil problem 0 drainage 0 shallow Ocompacted 11drouft [Isaline Clalkaline Oacidic O.small volume 11disease center [1history 0f fag 0 clay 0 expansive 0 slope Obstructiomm Olights O -signage Oline-of-sight- Oview ❑Eloverheadfim . 0 underground Otraft0 adjacent veg. 0 ExPosuretewind: Osingle tree Obelow canopy Oabove canopy 0 fecently exposed 0 windward, canopy edge' 0 area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: Occurrence ofsnawficestorms Onever ,'n0seldorri"' Oregularly TARGET . .. .... ..... - Ilse Under Tree: 36building Oparking Otraffic Opedestrian Drecreation Olandsscape Ohardscape [Ismall features Clutility lines Call target be moved? Y Can use berestricted? Y OcMP;kncr. 0occasiorduse Ointermittent ase Ofrequentuse; Oconstant use 496dn1L�ti�J� . to-ofBazard-Trees in. Urban Areas---., = UA TION FOBM'2ndtdii� site/4►ddress: 2-1116 i_04{�s 5 QUA /&Z,4k==_._� MaplLocation: Owner: public private unknown J~ _ other_ - Y late - 'd inspector I -- -)v ... - Date of last inspection: TREE CHARACTERISTICS ' Failure + Sae + Target = Hazard .Potential ._af.part .Bating Rating... Immediate action needed Needs furthef inspection Dead tree Tree IF. Z.._____ species: +,,.. - -- DBH: 5r # at trun)m Height:- Spiea Forex' [] generally symmetric ❑ minor asymmetry....-[][ asymmetry_---D--4ump sprout-. __-stag-headed - Crewn dans: ❑ dorrurrant 0 co -dominant 0 intermedrft 0 suppressed------ Live crown ratio_ % Age class: ©young ` ❑ semi -mature _ ❑ rnazu _g -. ❑over-mat;rrelserrescent Pruning Wory: 0 crown cleaned 0 excessively thinned-- ❑ topped --•O crown-ralsed- l] pollarded J?1 crown reduced 0 flush cuts O cabled/braced O none O multiple pruning events - Approx--- Special Value: ❑ specimen ❑ heritage/historic ❑ wildlife D unusual 0 street tree 0 screen O shade I1 indigenous ❑ protected by gov agency TREE HEALTH Foliagecolor: ❑normal ❑chlorotic 11 necrotic EpicorrniW Y N - -- _ .. _ _.:. Growth obstructions: Foliage density: O normal []sparse Leal size: - 0 normal 0 small - 0 stakes - © wir � [] signs ' O cables Annual shoat growth: O exceflent 0 average O poor Twig Ofeback? - Y- -N O curb/payemet 4 ' 0 guards Woundwood derrelopmenE O excellent ❑ average 0 poor ` O none, ❑ other Vigor class: O excellent O average ❑ fair ❑ poor- - - Major pests/diseases-- SITE ests/diseases -SITE CONDITIONS Site Character: i f residence ❑ commercial ❑ industrial © park_- C1 open space O natural_ O wood"rest - - Landscape type: 0 parkway P (WSW bed O caritairm �© Mom '.0lawn- .0 shrub border - ❑ wind break Irrigation: O none O adequate `=0 inadequate - }!� 0 excessive O-fimk_wetded_ ,.r----1 Recent site disbrrbarrce? Y` H 0 co€rshu_ etioir , 0 sodfiisturbance ❑ gra ie change ❑ de a*— © siii Bearing dripl'ure paved 100 'W 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavementlifted? Y N - %MOWS WIfill sail: 0% 10-25%x25-50% _50-7536ti ,J5100..- % dripline grade lowered: 0% 1025% Soil problems: 0 drainage O shallow El compacted 0 droughty ❑ saline © alkaline 0 acidic 0 small volume (3 disease center O history of fall 0 day ' O expansive O slope a r ".aspi i— Obstnrctions: ❑ lights 11stnage O fine -of -sight- Oview Ooverheadfine's'7 ❑ underground i tllities' O traffr. ❑ adjacent veg. ❑ EVesare to wind: ❑ single tree ❑ below canopy ❑ abave canopy O recently exposed O windward, canopy edge' ❑ area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind directiarr Occurrence of snow/ice storms ❑ never =' O seldom 0 regularly TAiiGET Use Under Tree: Z building 0 parking ❑ traffic [] pedestrian O recreation O landscape ❑ hardscape 0 small features ❑ utrTrty Gees Can target be moved? Y 0 Can rise be restricted? Y (0 _ ()CmWLY- 0 occasional use 0 intermittent use Fetrequerd use 0 constant use A Photog i. ic. u1 E -ago H[azard-Treesin-Urban �Ar as- REE HAZOD' E�_ A UA_ TION FORM 2nd Edi - &ae/Address-1LH_1_V I iy^e1.i v.J t'k% F4s1._n. !Z,- AA//Y F1£'LJ .z}: i:: HAZARDRAT[Nfk Map/Location: _ ,.e Y- + 2 + 3 = - Failure + Site + Target = Hazard Owner public private unknown _ other. - Potential ., of -part Rating Rating _ _- Date: 10-06 Inspector. av-, - f Immediate action needed Date of last inspection: - bleeds further inspection Dead tree TREE CHARACTERISTICS - Tree #: 3 Species: f_{yJ,a 7.:�..:.�.., OBH: 7`- # of iruaI� Height: Spread: Form:` U generallysymmetric D minor asymmetry..__© maidusymmeia ..:Q--tump sproi -_ ..D.stag-headed Crown dais: O dominant ❑ co -dominant 0 mterrirediatr; 0 suppressed �' -_- _. Live crown ratio: % Age class` 0 young 0 semi -mature ©mare__.. El over_-mafirrelsenesced Pruning history: D crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned- © topped_ O crown -raised• © pollarded Kcrown reduced 0 flush cuts 0 cabtedlbraced 0 cense 0 multiple pruning events --Approx.- Special Value: O specimen O lieritagelhistoric D wildlife 'O unusual ❑ street tree O screen 0 shade Effindigenous ❑ protected try gow agermpy TREE HEALTH Foliage solar: 0 normal O chloro& 0 necrotic Epkorrnics? Y N _ _ .. _ _:. Grawth.obstrudtous: _... ; Foliage density: O normal ❑.sparse Leaf size. - © normal El small -. ❑stakes - O wirelti 0 signs ' 0 tables Annual shoot growth: 0 excellent O average 0 poor Twig Dlebadr? - Y'_ N 0 curb/paverneati CDguards Woundwood development ❑ excellent 0 average . O poor ° .Onone 0 other Visor class: O excellent 0 average 0 fair 0 poor- Major oorMajor pesWdiseases:_ Jm- SITE CONDITIONS - - - Site Character. 1dresiience O commercial ❑'industrial O park_- 0_open space ❑ natural 0 WDodlanc9lforest Landscape ripe: O padmay 0 raised bed Oconda ner, 0 mound .01awn- . ❑ shrub border - ❑ wind break Irrigatiorc 0 none 0 adequate -0 inadequate O truhk wettted_Recent site disturbance? Y N O construction _.©. soil�sturbance O grade age ❑ lire clearing, O sitideariing ... -.._ sem: _ % dripiine paved: :M 10-25% 25 -SW,. 50-750/0 75-100% Pavement tidied? Y N % dripfine w/ fin snit: 09'0 10-25% z25-50% 5G-7�°la; % dripline grade lowered: MI. 10-25% 25- 0% SON problems: 0 drainage 0 shallow 0 compacted D droughty 0 saline ❑ alkaline O acidic 0 small volume O disease center O history of fag ❑clay ' l7 expansive 0 slope aspic& Obstructions: O tights O signage O Gne-of-sight- ❑ view ❑ overhead Cines `O underglound uti❑'traffic ❑ adjacent veq. ❑ EXPosure is wind: O single tree ❑ below canopy O above canopy 0 recently exposed 0 windward. canopy edge O area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind directiorc Occurrence of snow/ice storms © never 0 seldom ' 0 regularly TARGET Ilse tinder Tree: 15building O parking 0 traffic ©pedestrian O recreation 0landscape 0 hardscape 0 smallifeatures O uft lines Can target be ``moved? Y [ Can use be restricted? Y (fib Occuoantr- ❑ occasional use D intermittent use ^fequent use O Constant use raph,�u � b > .o�tf:�azard-Try-in Urban Areas- Y _ 9._ _ w = ® TREE HAZARD' EV_ ALUA_TION FORM 2nd 5itedAddress: -211.14 4,L t; � ? .,,, c - A- Y��i .: ....., wlzARn RAENG: Owner public private bate: 0( inspector: _ Date of last inspection: TREE CHARACTERISTICS unknown _ otherf - ' 'Failcure + size + target Hazard - Potential ._ ot.part Bating Raft _ Immediate action needed Needs furthei inspection Dead tree Tree #: 4 Species DBH: -, 2.1 d attruhi= - A - Heig tr-._� Sptea� --- Form: ❑ en metric ❑ minor - generally symmetric: asymmetry.._._Q majorasyr metry- _ 11 mp sprout-- - L].stag-headed - Crown class: O dominant O co -dominant O intermediate . O suppressed-- ---__ _. . Save crown ratio: % Age class: ❑young ❑ semi -mature ©mature —� over-rturelsetescent _ - Pruning history: ❑ crown cleaned 0 excessively thinned-- D topled---O -raised- © pobr&d .l crown reduced ❑ Bush cuts ❑ cabledt 'Mced Q none ❑ multiple pruning events--Approx Special value: Q spec imen ❑heuitage/his#oric ❑ wcldkfe 'Q uncisuat O street tree 4❑ screen . ❑strode �irhd�genous O protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color. ❑ normal Pfchloro& RTnecrotic Epicormic4? Y N _ - _ _ _..- Growth. obstructions: Foliage density: O normal OFsparse. Leaf size: - D normal - R! Small - ❑stakes Owik!W O Signs ' ©cables Annual shoot growth: 0 eicellent ❑ average ffpoor Twig Dleback? - tD X ❑ curbtpayepeqfLguards Waundwood development [:)excellent ❑ average . O poor ` 0 none _. 0 other Vigor class: D excellent 0 average Q fair ❑ poor- Major oor Major p%Vdiseases:. - SITE CDHDITlONS Site p�----n- Character: . ,®residence - ❑ commergal ❑ industrial ❑ _ ❑open space _ - Hato woodiarhdlforest landscape type: ©parkvray � raised bed O cantairier O mound .O kWn_ Lo shrub border. 0 wind break irrigation ©none Cladegtrate -j-0ina*uate`'-=0eiu;essive 0trunkwettlad__-.----- Recent site disturbance? Y- N O_ constr_ictioir .-O soilslisturbance O grade change 0 I clearing- O elle clearing % dripline paved: 001a 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-10D% Pavemannt lilted? Y N % drhwoe W/fill soik 0`Yo 10-25%�25-50% R. % dripline grade lowered: 0% 10-25% Sohl problems: O drainage ❑ shallow ❑ compacted 0 droughty D saline © alkaline 0 acidic ❑ small volume D disease center O history of fad O day D expansive 0 slope ash Gb*tmr . 0 Pgtft ©-signage 0 lineIgM ©view O overhead knee bi uncierWound dr' 0 traff c ❑ adjacent veg- ❑ Fxpasnre to wind: O single tree O below canopy O above canopy ❑ recency exposed ❑ windward. canopy edge O area prone to wirid nm- PrevaThng wind direction f1wirrence of snowfiee storms 0 never -. = 0 seldom - 0 regularly TARGET the Under ire*_ RIN&Ew O parldreg ❑traffic ©pedestrian O recreation O landscape ©haniscape O small features ❑ utility lines Can target be moved? Y 2E Can use be restricted? Y (3Occapa- nctr- 0 occasional use D intermiitterd use J ffretluerd use ©constant use 1 r 4 V-' IIt Consulting Arborists Create A Wildlife Snag An alternative to tree removal: create a healthy wildlife habitat on your property as part of the urban forest ecosystem! When a large tree develops decay or structural problems that present a hazard, the first response is often to completely remove the tree. However, many trees can be left in place to be managed, with reasonable safety, as a wildlife snag. A tree chosen to be snagged is intentionally reduced in size to a point where it is unlikely to fall over or break under a wind load_ We cut the tree in a manner that imitates a tree broken in a storm and we expect decay. Care is taken to insure no damage is done to the plantings beneath the tree. These techniques were pioneered by Tim Brown, who is a master of artificially created or enhanced snags. The intent is to disguise the fact that the tree has been artificially cut. Living branches are left on the tree to keep some energy flowing into the trunk to slow the deterioration of the remaining tree and to lessen the visual impact of the change. We won't let the tree grow back in an unwieldy manner. Instead, as we manage our snag, we will keep pruning off some of the expected new growth. Cavities pre cut into the tree to attract birds. A "bat slit" can also be cut to attract bats. Normally, ii would take several years for the tree to be developed in this manner by fungi and woodpeckers. A a tree begins to decay, the early decomposers attract woodpeckers, who in tum begin the cavities which will eventually accommodate somE of the local cavity -nesting birds. Bats often shelter under the bark as it begins to slough off. Contact us to see if your tree is suitable for "snagging' instead of removal. We can also provide snag specifications to your tree company. (206) 528.4670 7018 470' AvenueNE•Seattle•WA*98115 www.treesolutions.net . "Valuable Knowledge of Trees' Tree Solutions inc_ Planting for Slopes svonsulting Ar6orists Sponsor: Center for Urban Horticulture University of Washington Plant Material for Steep Slopes Evergreen Ground Covers and Small Shrubs Arctostaphyllos uva-ursi Berberis x stenophylla Calluna vulgaris cvs Ceanothus gloriosus Ceanothus thysiflorus repens Cistus hybridus Cotoneaster spp & cvs Escallonia cvs Euonymus fortunei cvs Gaultheria shallon Heliantheraurn cvs Hypericum spp & cvs Juniper horizontalis cvs Juniper sabina cvs Juniper squamata. cvs Juniper x pfitzeriana cvs Kerriajaponica. Lonicera pileata Mahonia spp Microbiota decussata Pinus mugo cvs Polysticum munitum Prunus `Otto Lukens' Rubus calycinoides Stranvaesia davidiana Deciduous Ground Covers and Small Shrubs Berberis cvs Hippophea rhamnoides Neillia sinensis vines Akebia quinata Clematis spp & cvs: Parthenocissus spp & cvs. Rhus aromatica cvs Rosa spp & cvs Symphoricarpos aibus (206) 528-4670 7018 47`h Ave NE -Seattle -WA -98115 seottdb@attbi.com Page 1 of 2 Tree 15olutfon5 InC. Con5ultingAr6orists Small Trees and Large Shrubs for Steep Slopes Winner Flowering Trees and Large Shrubs Cornus mas 15' Corylus cornuta 12' Oemleria cerasiformis 6' Cornus stolonifera 15' Hamamelis mollis 15' Viburnum bodnantense 12' Corylopsis spicata 10' Corylus avellana 15' Spring Flowering Trek and Large Shrubs Aesulus carnea `Briotti' 25' Laburnum x wateri 30' Syringa persica 12' Amelanchier grandiflora 20' Malus `Sugar Tyme' 15' Syringa reticulata 30' Asimina tribola 7' Malus `Prairifire' 20' Syringa vulgaris 20' Cercis canadensis 30' Prunus cerasifera `Thundercloud' 20' Viburnum lentago 30' Forsythia intermedia 10' Rhododendron `Nova Zembla' 15' Viburna opulus 20' Fraxinus globosa 20' Ribes sanguineum 12' Viburnum plicatum tomentosum 15' Clethra barbinervis 10' Cornus kousa 25' Fuchsia magellanica 6' Hibiscus syriacus 12' Summer Flowering Trees and Large Shrubs Holodiscus discolor 20' Hypericum `Hideote' 4' Mespilus german ica 18' Philadelphius lewisii 20' Physocarpus opulifolia 10' Rhamnus frangula 18' Robinia `Frisia' 30' Rosa rugosa 8' Weigela florida 10' Fall Color Trees and Large Shrubs Acer circinatum 35' Acer campestre 30' Acer ginnala `Flame' 20' Acer japonicum 20' Acer palmatum 20' Amelanehier `Autumn Brilliance' 20' Carpinus caroliniana 25' Crataegus lavallei 25' Cotinus coggygria 25' Euonymus alata 10' Fothergilla major 9' Rhus typhina 15' Rosa rugosa 8' Sorbus tianshanica 16' Sambucus callicarpa 8' Styrax japonica 25' Vaccinium corymbosum 6' Viburnum tribolum 10' Coniferous Evergreen Trees and Large Shrubs Chamaecyparis obtuse 20' Pinus mugo 8' Cryptomeria japonica. `Elegans' 25' Broadleaf Evergreen Trees and Shrubs Ceanothus velutinus 8' Photuria fraseri 20' Rhododendron macrophyllum 10' Cotoneaster franchetti 8' Pieris japnica 10' Stranvaesia davidiana 20' Eleagnus pungens 15' Prunus lauaoccrasus lusitanica 20' Vaccinium ovata 5' Mahonia aquifolium 8' Prunus laurocerasus `Zabelliana' 6' Viburnum burkwoodii 8' Osmanthus burkwoodii 10' Rhamnus alaternus 20' Viburnum rhytidophyllum 12' (206) 528-4670 7018 47u' Ave NE -Seattle -WA -98115 scottdb@attbi.com Page 2 of 2 MELD NOTES CLIENT DATE ADDRESS TIME IN ' � t TIME PHONE EMAIL BILLABLE HOURS [�f .)...� . ...c.'!!fi VIA-, S --dile-e- #� -.- - ......... .... 4... c -&--,Dr CONSULTANT: Affbeffmoonal, e*vaF ure C ed Arborist No: I 11 f ' W JT LI Member American Society of Consulting Arb xisft 10 .39th Seattle WA 98103 * (206) 528-4670 * www.beesolu#ions.net Attachment 5 Fite No. CUT -2007-22 t,,�' --\ Nom. _.. fl �'•1 'W�.. ;. 4 �y 5'�; A _ `. _ -. -Fe i ': {'�T ia�-+•'4txt, 'y"- i b fY"� '.•1 � • S1�x : 40 fl "C „IMEii '1— !iw '' - x. at•'e.-"a,,'rri'� 5''O �<i«.rx a•"_ ��T'�. �. ,'>�'-- ; ,'�a '��4t"G_�'�i '�^...,,_ Ir.."'7� ���L,la�`.'i-.�i*.-.".5. -- -. .. r. - , �.��•. _ ��`.....� K;:.-_� �5..4 . , •m _�, .� -'` A„;s� r� r y it � � i' 9 � 3a `�� i <eK✓4 ' k 6 FS .i 1 of E°M o� Fsr. 1 990 cirY OF FDMONDS 121 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Tree cutting permit - the proposal is to reduce the height of four fir tree stumps and to remove two small aider trees, as well as remove some invasive blackberry and holly bushes in the rear of the property which is on a slope of 25% or more_ The proposal is also to correct the illegal cutting of four fir trees mentioned above, because tree removal on a slope of 25% or more first requires an approved tree cutting permit. A report by an arborist was submitted for this project, which includes replanting, slope stabilization, and recommended mitigation measures (File: CUT -2007-22). Proponent: Ross Conley, Owner_ Location of proposal, including street address if any: 21116 Pioneer Way, Edmonds_ lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS_ The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency_ This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below_ Comments must be submitted by June 28, 2007. Project Planner: Gina Coccia, Planner Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1425-771-0220 Date: 0(.0.4 L-4 -, • XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than June 28, 2007. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals_ XX Posted on _June 14, 2007, at the Edmonds Public library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. Page I oft Attachment 6 $EPADETFRMMATION 21tI6-PIONEERWAYDOC - File No. CUT -2007-22 6112!07 SEPA • Mailed SEPA Determination to properties within 300 feet of the site_ • Mailed SEPA Determination and the Environmental Checklist to the following: .ccr 03 XX Owner: Ross Conley XX Environmental Review Section 21116 Pioneer Way Department of Ecology Edmonds, WA 98026 P.O. Sox 47703 Lei Olympia, WA 98504-7703 XX DNR SEPA Center S. P.O. Box 47015 XX COMCAS7 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 Outside Plant Engineer, North Region +11 410 Valley Ave NW #12 XX Dean Saksena, Senior Manager Puyallup, WA 98371-3317 Snohomish Co- PUD x 10 PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206-1107 .ccr 03 Y O8 A Q t 3 997 € tT4 Lei $ 06 z 21 1t1 S. �`- +11 s SITE i35 x 10 4 �� 2D .. 10 a ._7 z 79 77 N 19 $TR $s 12 a ' 12 f ?; s t t k 5 or 4` a 16 16 02 04 } 3 f4 03 1 14 92 J1717t 4AdAU t5 (D MA 7~ s 4*) g � 7 C CC I flf 1S �16t t NO g { 36) F 41� o t> j i 06s tug 204 s trcwrr OS Vi Z _ y,. 10 J' z .....:'.^ 09 T� 3 fla - 1 � � too 15 i73 11 tfOy .Z. 3 .. H.1 J:in±,yF 0304 ... { 25 10 T 04 3 CQWAUWTV PANIC 23 ._ 5 4. 07 AWE WOOD if 1s . '"s. 22 `/`�' � �.' 26. 21 r3 4 07 s4r.....tp�y.n.»..+.t H wx•a ,� 0 NO 9 i f 27" g. 07 4 02 09 OS # 06 4 �W 1 00 3 . L1ll�i Z FSA fC t 02 3 - r Y 03 Tfa g 4 � � � TO s 99s 7 64 .ccr 03 Y O8 A Q 4 3 997 i at« f 1 } Y, $ 06 z 21 1t1 S. �`- +11 s SITE i35 x 10 4 �� 2D .. 10 a ._7 z 79 77 N 19 $TR $s 12 a ' 12 f ?; s t t k 5 or 4` 2 F 0 a 18 t3 2 04 } 3 f4 a3 14 J1717t 4AdAU t5 (D MA 7~ s 4*) g � 7 C CC 02� 1S �16t t NO g { 36) t> j 05 F _` t214 < 02 OS Vi Z 334 i . A 12 03 : FA3 04 1 � � too 15 16 17 Y Tar 100 a ` [ f4 I r7. ... 25 r' +� t T 04 CQWAUWTV PANIC 23 ._ 5 4. 07 AWE WOOD if 1s . '"s. 22 `/`�' � �.' 26. 21 r3 4 '� 121 11 I s4r.....tp�y.n.»..+.t H wx•a ,� 0 NO 9 i f 27" A,.,� 07 pc: File No. CUT -2007-22 SEPA Notebook Page 2 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION_ 21 I l6-PIONEERW".DOC 6712l07.SEPA Coccia, Gina From: Ijskurdal@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, June 28, 200 E-56:PM: To: Coccia, Gina Subject: DNS197-11-3 40(2) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Gina, gft�r butt'1ne55 hours Page 1 of 1 We returned home from vacation yesterday and picked up our mail this afternoon, finding the notice about the DNS for Ross Conley. We left town before you letter arrived and were gone two weeks. I have written a comment for the proposal and will deliver it early tomorrow morning, but wanted to let you know that we do have comments for the city to consider. I am sending this email in order to make the June 28th deadline requirement. See you in the morning, Linda Skurdal 7/5/2007 Recejif ti) 6/28/07 JUN 2 9 2007 TO: City of Edmonds Planning Dept PERMIT co Attn: Gina Coccia & Rob Chave ANTER RE: DNS197-11-344(2) Comments below are regarding the decision of the City of Edmonds to grant permit for tree cutting by Ross Conley on the property at 21116 Pioneer Way. The city already has our comments on file regarding the tree cutting of the four fir trees below our property, but we would like to reiterate the serious concern we have about the replanting and slope stabilization requirements recommended by the arborist that Mr. Conley hired himself after the city intervened to stop the illegal cutting. The letter the city sent us (DNS) said "...no significant adverse impacts have been created by the tree cutting". We are not convinced that this is true. The city did not hire an arborist themselves to check the validity of the arborist report. No geologist was required and, as far as we know, no one checked the hillside impact on our property. The more trees that are out, the more risk that the existing trees will not stand up to the winds we have been experiencing the last few years. Our home is above the slope area where Mr. Conley cut the trees. The cutting compromised the slope, created more wind to the remaining trees, and increased the noise level from the valley. It will take years to replace the help the fir trees provided so we request that Mr. Conley be fined and held accountable. Here are our main concerns about the decision of the city: • The arborist recommended that the standing stumps remain as wildlife snags. The permit request is to reduce the height of the stumps but does not say what the reduction will be. What will the requirement be in order for the roots to hold the soil sufficiently? Will it be held to the arborist definition on page 5 of his report to be at least 3 meters tali or will the snag as described in the article provided by the arborist, "Create A Wildlife Snag"? • The arborist recommends replacing the trees at a 1:1 ratio, but does not list the type of tree at the beginning of his report. The last pages of his report list a variety of trees and shrubs. Will Mr. Conley be required to replace with the same type of tree so that the root systems are similar and the wind stopping capacity similar? • Will all of the arborist requirements be enforced and how? Will there be a time limit to fulfill the requirements? • Will Mr. Conley have to pay a fine for the illegal cutting prior to a permit since the arborist failed to prove that there was sufficient reason to cut the trees in the first place? Answers to our questions can be sent to us at the address below. Sincerely, rnda Skurdal & Steve Kirkpatrick 21090 88th Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 116/07 Stephen Bullock Gina Coccia City of Edmonds Planning Division 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Tree Cutting at 2116 Pioneer Way, Edmonds Mr. Bullock and Ms. Coccia, Thank you for your time last Friday when Linda inquired about the status of the Ross Conley permit process. He is the neighbor who hired L & G Tree to cut the four large fir trees without a permit last October. The City of Edmonds stopped the cutting because the trees were located on a slope that is greater than 25%. Our home is located at the top of the slope, so of course we are threatened by compromised slope and loss of wind and sound protection caused by the illegal tree cutting. We have some questions and concerns regarding the permit which is now required of Mr. Conley. Our hope is that our questions will assist you when evaluating the tardy permit application. • Will the city obtain an independent arborist report to validate the report? Mr. Conley was very slow in obtaining an arborist report which raises doubt about the validity of his claim that the trees were diseased. The city planner stopped Mr. Conley's tree cutting because he did not have a permit to cut trees on a 25% slope. The planner also noticed the cut trees looked in good health. Mr. Conley was warned of a fine and the need for a permit. He was told to obtain an arborist report to validate his claim that the trees were diseased by November 17th, which he failed to do. The city extended Mr. Conley more time and finally Sean Dugan (arborist) provided a late report to the city December 8, nearly two months after the cutting occurred. • Will the city consider that the entire tree did not have to be cut because only the branches were a moderate risk to Conley house, according to the arborist report? The dead branches alone could have been trimmed (as we do with the fir trees on our property) instead of destabilizing the slope below our home. The arborist looked at the trees after a month and a half had passed since the cutting. He was unable to prove that the conditions described in his report began before or after the trees were cut. The only conclusion the arborist was able to make was that the branches were the part of the tree most likely to fail on the trees before they were cut. Attachment 7 File Na. CUT -2007-22 Will the city require a geo-tech to make recommendations sufficient to stabilize the slope, taking into account our home as a structure at the top of the slope when evaluating the permit application? In November we were told that a geo-tech may be required by the city for the permit. Today we discovered that a geo-tech is usually required only when a structure is being constructed in the area of the permit. Since our home is at the top of the affected slope, we are very concerned about the integrity of the slope and the threat to other trees falling on our property during the current high winds and rain we are experiencing this winter because the missing cluster of 4 large fir trees. Will the city consider the increased noise of vehicles, dogs and people we now hear in the valley without the abatement that the missing fir trees provided when considering the permit application? The arborist report provided a list of recommendations_ One of the recommendations was "replace trees at a 1:1 ratio". The report does not state the type of tree (fir) or the size of trees recommended. A seedling will take years to provide any type of substantial canopy in contrast to an eight foot fir tree. • Will the city clarify the specific plants that will improve the slope conditions and which plants will make up for the canopy loss for permit requirements? And who will enforce the permit requirements for plants? Another recommendation in the arborist report is to "install plans used for improving slope conditions and mitigate for canopy loss". The list of slope plants that the arborist provided at the end of his report lists many options and does not designate how many or which plant type would stabilize the slope and help the sound and wind issues. Thank you for answering our questions and concerns. Our mailing address is: Steve Kirkpatrick & Linda Skurdal 21490 88t Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 Si rely,, Linda & Steve