Loading...
STF20150011 exemption haz tree in CA.pdfrA20. 1 S9v March 19, 2015 CITY OF EDD 1215th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 ® Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION Starla Sage 9112 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Hazard Tree Removal — Allowed Activity Dear Mrs. Sage, On March 9 you submitted materials to the City of Edmonds in support of a request to remove one Western Red Cedar (Thuja plicata) located on a steep slope immediately west of your house. The materials included a cover letter and scope of work, photos of the subject tree, a site plan, and a tree hazard evaluation prepared by Tim Selim, Certified Arborist and Tree Risk Assessor. This letter is in response to that request. The slope where the tree is located is considered to be a critical area pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40 and 23.80 where slopes from 15% to 40% may be considered potential erosion hazards and slopes greater than 40% are considered possible landslide hazard areas. Generally, the removal of trees or vegetation within a critical area or critical area buffer is not an allowed activity unless it involves the removal of invasive species or hazard trees, pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.7. Based on the information provided, the tree is too close to the house and improvements and clearly is a candidate for immediate removal. In this case, the removal is considered to be an allowed activity relative to the critical areas code referenced above and no further critical area reports are required. Mr. Selim recommends that the tree be cut to a stump. A nurse lot is to remain with the branches removed from the site or chipped. According to ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b(iv), hazard trees that are removed from critical areas as an allowed activity must be replaced at a ratio of two -to -one. Replacement trees must be native and indigenous and a minimum of six feet in height from the top of the root ball for evergreen species or one inch in diameter at breast height for deciduous species. Multi -stemmed trees should be a minimum of eight feet in height at installation. It is understood that 2 vine maple will be installed to the west of the house, which would meet the meet the replacement criteria of the referenced above. If you have any questions, please contact me at michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov or 425-771- 0220. Sincerely, Mike Clugston, AICP Associate Planner File: STF20150011 21 Page March 9, 2015 City of Edmonds Planning Dept RE: Tree Permit Starla and Douglas Sage 9112 Olympic View Dr Edmonds, WA 98026 Project: Cut down a large Thuja plicata cedar tree that is affecting the stability the foundation. The tree is located up against the house at the back southwest corner of the residence. The wind is pushing the tree against the house causing cracks in the foundation. A nursery log of 20 feet with a diameter of 3 1/2 feet will remain on the property. The replacement trees will be 2 Acer circinatums, Vine maples. Sincerely, Starla Sage Property owner Attachments: Site plan, Tree Risk Assessment Form, Photos, Plant list TDS PROPERTY SOLUTIONS LLC Tim Selim- Certified Arborist & Tree Risk Assessor 206.755.9126 tim@tdspropertysolutions.com February 23, 2015 R 0 2015 Starla Sage DEVELOPMEN 9 SERVJCt 9112 Olympic View Dr. COUNTER. Edmonds, WA 98026. Dear Starla, As you requested I have evaluated the large Western Red Cedar (Thuja plicata). I understand that you have concerns about the safety of yourself and your property given the size of the tree and its close proximity to your house. As outlined below, I performed an evaluation and risk assessment of the tree. METHODOLOGY To prepare this report I followed the protocol of the International Society of Arbroriculture (ISA) for a visual assessment that includes looking at the overall health of the tree, the site conditions around the tree, and interviewing the property owner about the history of the tree. I also drew upon my 10 years of experience as an arborist as well as my formal education in ecology and environmental science. In examining the tree I look at factors such as the tree's size, density and condition of the foliage, condition of the bark, injuries to the bark or roots, evidence of pests or disease -causing bacteria, fungi, and viruses. I also assess the overall structure of the tree and the presence of cracks, dead wood, broken limbs and disturbances around the base of the tree and the root collar. The most important part of hazard tree assessment is to consider the target. Obviously if there's no target (nothing for the tree to hit and damage should it fail) there's no risk. In this case, however, the target is the house owned and occupied by Starla Sage and her friends and family. The home is occupied both day and night year round. The goal of the visual assessment is to gather information about the tree and use it in the scientific process of tree risk assessment to calculate how likely a tree, or part of a tree, is to fail. While there's no way for anyone to predict with certainty whether or a not a tree will fail, the process does allow arborists to identify how likely a tree is to fail, and then advise the property owner on a course of action that may minimize the likelihood of injury or damage. OBSERVATIONS The tree is located behind the house along the back porch. It is in fact touching the back porch. In the past the porch has been cut to accommodate the growth of the tree but currently there is direct contact between the bark itself and the back porch, which is attached directly to the house. The homeowner reports feeling the house move and hearing it creak when the cedar blows in the wind. The tree is about 36" dbh (diameter at breast height in inches) and has a height of at least 100 feet At about 40', the main trunk has a co -dominant split, with included bark, that divides it into 2 trunks, and those two trunks each have several co- dominant junctions that give the tree 6 or more tops. The base of the tree is growing adjacent to the corner of the foundation of the house, as well as the concrete supports for the porch. 1. Tree growing into porch 2. Tree grows adjacent to corner CHIOUse and foundation M 3. Co -dominant main trunk & tops 4. Trunk pushing on the porch's supporting beams S. Trunk further divides into multiple tops 6. Base of trunk growing against brick and concrete foundation DISCUSSION The assessment of this tree was essentially divided into 3 separate parts; the roots, the trunk, and the crown (see attached ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form). This was done because the close proximity of the tree to the house in this case means that basically all the parts of the tree could impact the house simultaneously or separately. 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The crown and the trunk both consist of many co -dominant junctions. Included bark was observed in the co -dominant junction of the main stem. I could not see from the ground if it also exists in the multi -stemmed tops. Trees with co -dominant trunks and tops with included bark are much more likely to experience failures than trees with single stems. In this case given the tree's proximity to the constantly occupied home a failure of one the tops could cause a lot of damage to the house, while a failure of one of the main trunks would cause very significant damage. The risk rating for the trunk and the crown is high. The base of the trunk, the root crown, and the roots are all obviously growing into the foundation of the home. As the tree continues to grow and adds girth to its trunk and roots it will put immense pressure on the house and likely damage it and/or the foundation. In some areas the trunk is already in contact with the concrete foundation and a brick wall on the lower portion of the home. The risk rating for the roots and root crown is currently moderate, but damage to the home is inevitable. Given all the factors stated in this report I recommend that the cedar tree be removed. There is no way to mitigate all the risks the tree poses to the house and the property owner in a way that would leave it a healthy tree with a chance to thrive. While I often recommend that habitat snags be left behind when a tree is removed that is not practical in this case given the tree's proximity to the house. However the stump should be left intact so as to not increase the chance of erosion on the slope. Also, a large portion of the trunk could be left nearby in the adjacent landscape as a nurse log, which provides ecological value. The branches would likely become a fire hazard if they were piled on the property and should be removed from the site, or chipped and then distributed on the site as wood chips. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Thank you, Tim Selim Certified Arborist #: PN5953A Certified Tree Risk Assessor #: CTRA 1358 N ISA BasicTree Risk Assessment Form Client Starla Sage Date 2/23/15 Timalsloon Address/Tree location 9112 Olympic View Dr. Tree no. Sheet — -- of Tree species Western Hed Gear (Thuja plicata) dbh Height 00 —Crown spread dia. 40 — Assessor(s)Eiffjeff:m:E!�-��: ��Timeframe Tools ued Visual sual As AssessmenT Target Assessment Target zone occupancy Target description 3 - 1,,q-1 C 4 - —1 d. E 4�. I Target lii i !, house & Site Factors History of failures no Topography Flat[] Sloped —% Aspect NW Sitechanges NoneO GradechangeO SiteclearingO Changed soilhydrologyO RootcutsO Describe Soil conditions Limited volume N saturated 13 ShallowO Compacted Pavement over roots 0 --% Describe house is adjacent to trunk Prevailing wind direction SW Common weather StrongwindsE lce0 Snow ffi Heavy rainO Describe_ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low El Normal E High 0 Foliage None (seasonal) 0 None(dead)O Normal % Chlorotic-% Necrotic -% pests None detected Abiotic,_ Spedesbilureproffle BranchesO TrunkO RootsO Describe I., Load Factors Wind exposure ProtectedO Partial ffl FullO Wind funnelingO Relative crown size SmaII0 MediumO Larged Crown density Sparse 0 Normal® Dense E3 Interior branches Few 0 Normal N Dense 0 Vines/mistletoe/moss 0 Recent or planned change in load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches Unbalanced crown 0 LCR 65 % Cracks 0 Lightning damage 0 Dead twigs/branchesO ---%overall Max.dia— Codominant N 2 main stems, plus multiple tops _ Included bark Broken/Hangers Number___ Max.cha­ Weak attachments E Cavity/Nest hole —% circ. Over-extended branches 0 Previous branch MiluresO ? Similar branches present 0 Pruning history Crown cleaned 0 Thinned 0 Raised 0 Dead/Missing bark 0 Cankprs/Galls/BurlsO Sapwood da mage/decay 0 Reduced 0 Topped 0 Lion -tailed 0 Conks 0 Heartwood decay 0 Flush cuts 0 Other_ Responsegrowth Main concern(s) the main trunk has a Go -dominant split about 40' up- each of those trunks additonally divindes into mulitiple tops. there is included bark in the min co -dominant junction suggesting included bark. cannot see other juncfions from9round Load on defect N/A 0 Minor 0 Moderate SignificantE Likelihood of failure ImprobableO PossibleO Probable N imminent 0 —Trunk Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Missing bark 0 Abnormal bark texture/color 0 Collar burled/Not visible 0 Depth Stem girdling 0 , Codominant stems 0 included bark E Cracks 0 Dead 0 Decay 0 Conks/MushroomsO Sapwood damage/decay E3 Cankers/Galls/Buris 0 Sap ooze 0 ooze 0 Cavity 0 % circ. Lightning damage 0 Heartwood decayO Conks/Mushrooms 0 cracks 0 Cut/Damaged roots 0 Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole __% circ, Depth_ Poor taper 0 Root plate lifting 0 Soil weakness 0 Lean —' Corrected? Response growth Response growth Main concern(s) codominant stems as stated above Main concern(s) Part of roots & collar is against foundation of the house- therefore high likelihood of damage house Load on defect N/AO MinorO ModeradeO Significant E Load on defect N/AD MinorO ModerateO Significantlill Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable 1� Imminent ❑ Imprababie❑ Possible ❑ Probable Imminent ❑ F-7 (C IM A R 0 2' DEVELOPMEINJ qr,�r' J, Risk Cateeorization Matrix f. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood Negligible Likelihood of Impacting Target of Failure Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Conditions of concern r t .. • • . /• 'the Ganopy. all are �,. /-dominant and MW � 1.��1irL JW/ jy�,•.r�� it large � • III . i •• i -/`(,n <,y� /�'� `/"�`/��. . and ,fooling foundation of the house --� CM.9l�h.;J,yA�.!rh�.l i=4 120 Matrix f. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood Negligible Likelihood of Impacting Target of Failure Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Mairix2 Risk raune matrix Likelihood of Failure & Impart Negligible Consequences of Failure Minor Significant Severe Very likely Lowe .Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely LOW Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Notes, explanations, descriptions the roots in this case Were rated for the likelihood that they may damage/impact the foundation of the home, not for the likelihood that they may be diseased or compromised and cause a whole tree failure. Mitigation options tree is too close to the home. trunk is damaging the porch currently, homeowner reports Residual risk that when the tree moves in the wind the home creaks from the pressure the tree puts on the structure of house. Residual risk the tree's codominant stem and multiple co -dominant tops make cabling and bracing impractical and ineffective Residual risk The tree needs to be removed. Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low O Moderate O HighN Extreme O Work priority 10 20 3111 4 ❑ Overall residual risk LOW O Moderate O flighE Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval Data EFinal 13 Preliminary Advanced assessment needed NNoOYes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations ONone []Visibility OAccess Ovines []Root collar buried Describe Visaual assessment from ground TW,&rshm—p-d—dbyth r emus i5-iaydA,t—i-rwu (1sn)-1.W-d ii.,—by Te.Rk),A— nrt„t(t uexdi-rKAQ).t,.ekt,-2013 Page 2of2 l�' /� (l"�r, � \ �tiper' •- s \ � (J •• � ✓'"/ ' fir' `� AQ (r�'�t � � °� �! ✓ L'�/ '+ } SCALE ! 1� A N ale ^' At 50.0 W11OL�5. 50. '0 0.00 , f 00 OT _. d I ! fr OOe F• / 3i r - e HOLJ-5y/ uti J V for 4 o} rb a -12600' SF GAR: OG, Sur GK. LINE r g 10 R W C Aga PVE i I '017 j FOR JErF ERY GAOL �.f0 EVERGREEN TREE EVERGRELN THEE TO QE REMOVE0 +rte ThEE Native plants 9112 Olympic View Dr Abies grandis** Lowland Fir 1 Acer circinatum** Vine Maple (r, Achlys triphylla Vanilla Leaf Arbutus menziessi* Madrone 3 Arbutus unedo*N Strawberry Tree I Athyrium filix-femina Lady Fern / 0 Berberis nervosa *Low Oregon Grape a Ceanothus thyrsiflorrus Blue ceanothus Cornus muttalii*N Western Dogwood d Cupressocyparis leylandii Leyland Cypress (Hybrid) .2 Dicentra fornrosa N Bleed Heart Dryopteris Austiaca Shield Fern Fragaria chiloenis Coast Strawberry Gaultheria shallon* Salal 6/ Holodiscus discolor N Ocean Spray Iris douglasiana N Douglas Iris Lupine N j Mahonia nervosa*N Low Oregon Grape Maianthemum dilatum False Lily of the Valley ILI Maianthemum racemosum Large false Solomon Seal Oemleria cerasiformis* Indian Plum /0 Philadelphus Mock Orange l Polystichum muuntim Sword fern 3 0 Ranunculus orthorhynchus buttercup Rhododendron macrophylhun Z Ribes sanguineum*N Red Flowering Currant Rubus parviflorus (Thimbleberry)*N L< 0 L '-� Sambuccus racemosa*N Elderberry Sorbus scopulina Cascade mountain ash �- Star flower L l Thuja plicata * * Western red cedar /5- Trientalis borealis Pacific starflower a- << ` Trillium ovatum Western trillium .2 Tsuga heterophylla ** Western Hemlock / Vaccinum ovatum* Evergreen Huckleberry Vaccinum parvifolium (lots)*N Red Huckleberry % Viola howellii Howell's violet ,a- (1 uw--, Other Plants (not all listed) Acer **, coral bark maple Acuba japonica* Buddleia, several varieties Butterfly bush, yellow, white, purple Camellia sasanqua Cape Fuchia N Carpenteria californica / Chaenomeles japonica Clematis armandii ClerodendrLum trichotomum* Glorybower iP � W �) 3 'l l - i 2"J i') Cornus kousa chinesis* Dogwood Cotoneaster * Digitalis Purpurea Foxglove Enkianthus campanulatus Eucalyptus gunnii Forsythia Foxglove N Fuchsia magellanica*N Hibiscus syriacus Rose of Sharon Hosta Hydrangea Hydrangea anomala petiolaris Climbing Hydrangea Hydrangea Quercifolia (Oak Leaf) Ilex variegata* Variegated Holly Ilex* Holly Ipimedium Bishop's Hat Koelreuteria paniculata Golden Chain Tree Lavetera baby barnsley Leycesteria formosa* Himalayan Honeysuckle Lonicera 2 varieties*N Lonicera alseuosmoides evergreen yellow and pink flowers, on fence Mahonia bealei* Oxydendrum arboreum Sourwood Tree Pachysandra terminalis Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper Photinia fi•aseri* Pieris japonica Lily of the Valley Shrub Polgonatum Solomon's Seal Poppy Prunus laurocerasus* Laurel Mt Vernon Prunus lusitanica Portugal Laurel Rhododendron 12 varieties (native, King George, Cynthia, Azela's shilipenbachii, Exbury, ect.) Rosa* Climbing New Dawn and Golden Showers (drought tolerant) Rosmarinus Rosemary Rubus* Blackberry Sarcococca humilis* Sedums Sorbus aucuparia* Mountain Ash Sorbus scopulina* Spi ea pink Stranvaesia davidiana* Viburnum bodnantese "Dawn" Viburnum davidii* Viburnum opulus Viburnum Carlesii Weigela florida `Variegate *has berries or fruit ** has seeds N nectar