Loading...
STF20180045 Hazard tree maintenance (2).pdfCITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION "c. 189v October 23, 2018 Julie Backous 18917 Sound View Place Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Hazard Tree Maintenance (STF20180045) Dear Ms. Backous, You contacted the City of Edmonds regarding maintenance of a willow, Douglas fir, and three bitter cherry trees on Mr. Jangaard's property at 18914 Sound View Place. Mr. Jangaard gave his permission to do the work. Critical areas are known to be present on that site including small steep slopes down to Fruitdale Creek. The trees are located on or near the steep slope and within the buffer of Fruitdale Creek. Generally, the removal of trees or vegetation from 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.8. Normal maintenance of vegetation is an exempt activity in critical areas, however. "Normal maintenance of vegetation" is defined as "removal of shrubs/nonwoody vegetation and trees (less than four -inch diameter at breast height) that occurs at least every other year. Maintenance also may include tree topping that has been previously approved by the city in the past five years." In this case, the willow near Sound View Place has been maintained recently pursuant to a critical area review for a project at 18910 Sound View Place (see enclosed 2015 report). As a result, continued trimming of the willow is considered to be normal maintenance of vegetation, which is an exempt activity, as long as it continues to occur at least every other year. According to the report you submitted from certified arborist Jim Folger, the Douglas fir and cherry trees are partially uprooting but are continuing to grow. Proposed work to reduce the hazard on these four trees includes removing some of the upper portions of the trees to keep their root systems from failing. Since the four trees will not be removed but rather trimmed to mitigate their hazards, replanting in accordance with ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv is not required. An exemption for hazard tree maintenance is granted for the Douglas fir and three bitter cherry trees with the following condition: 1. A right-of-way construction permit must be obtained prior to work if tree company vehicles will be staged within the Sound View Place right-of-way as part of the project. If you have any questions, please let me know at either michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov or 425-771-0220. Sincerely, Mike Clugston, AICP Senior Planner Encl: Arborist letter and supporting materials received October 18, 2018 2015 arborist report Cc: Don Jangaard October 18, 2018 Mr. Brad Shipley City of Edmonds Development Services Department Planning Division RE: Proposed Tree Trimming at 18914 Sound View Place Dear Mr. Shipley and City of Edmonds Planning Division, Per your request, I am writing to summarize my desire, along with the property owner and surrounding neighbors, to trim several trees on the north side of the property at 18914 Sound View Place. We understand that the area encompassing the trees for trimming fall within both the City's right of way and critical land designation area due to Fruitdale Creek flowing through it. We have consulted with Eco Tree NW and specifically owner, Jim Folger, who is a Certified Arborist. He is local, basing his business out of Lynnwood and is familiar with the requirements of the City of Edmonds. Our goal is to properly have the trees trimmed for safety and the trees' long-term health and maintenance. As I have stated in the Permit Application, several trees within this area have become an issue. The Willow tree with two separate off -shoots has become unmanageable spilling over the roadside hedge, right of way and ultimately hanging half -way over Sound View Place and also well into property to the north. Trucks often veer into the middle of the street to avoid the hanging branches. This street has constant pedestrian traffic. The location of the Willow is at issue given the very nature of this tree. With a constant water source, it has grown faster than one's ability to manage it. We are proposing that the tree be cut back out of the public right of way and away from the phone/cable lines and a reduction to a more manageable height all while being mindful of its aesthetics. Another concern is the partially fallen Douglas fir tree west of the Willow along with a couple of cherry trees that are uprooting. The plan as proposed by the arborist is to reduce the height of the Douglas fir branch leaning on a cherry tree thus reducing risk of property damage to the north. For the health of the cherry trees, it has also been proposed to reduce the tops of these trees with a proper trimming for the stability of the trees' root systems. Please thoughtfully consider our Permit Application. We believe it's the right move for both safety and the environment to trim these trees as proposed. Sincerely, . Juli Backous Julie.backous@comcast.net October 13, 2018 To: City of Edmonds, Land Use Department RE: Tree Trimming Authorization I am the owner of property at 18914 Sound View Place, Edmonds. The north section of my property, which spans Fruitdale Creek, has several trees in need of heavy trimming including Willow, a downed Fir and a couple of fruit trees. I hereby authorize my neighbors, Julie Backous and Tina Forster, to proceed with the permit process for this much needed work and ultimately direct the trimming when approved by the City of Edmonds. Thank,you, Don Janga rd 18914 Sound View place Edmonds ecorN W Inc �e www.ecotreeNW.com -'xrert Reitelenticl Tree Services Since / 9 9 / 6416176th ST SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 206-337 2422 Fax 1 -888-623-0091 Email: office@ecotreenw.com October 17, 2018 Mr. Brad Shipley Long Range Planner — Developmental Services Dept. EC I�� Planning Division City of Edmonds OCT 18 2010 DEVELOPMENTNT SERVICES Dear Mr. Shipley, The tree trimming project I proposed to Julie Backous consists of trees located across the street, west of her house, in the neighbor's greenbelt area that contains a stream which these trees are located around. On the street side of this property, we would cut the willow trees back out of the public right of way, and reduce their height so that they can be maintained without requiring a tree service for their next annual trimming. Further back from the street there is a partially uprooted Douglas fir tree and a couple of Bitter cherry trees that are also uprooting. Our plan is to reduce the tops of these trees, thereby stabilizing the root systems, to keep them from falling on the neighbor's house to the north. Lastly, there is another Bitter cherry tree that we would reduce to keep its root system from failing as well. I expect the proposed pruning will not harm the vitality of the trees, and will stabilize the trees that have already started to fail. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, i Jim olger ISA Certified Arborist #PN8175 Name: Address: Email: Notes: G%cotreeNW WWW. ecotreeNW.com ExpetI Me144ent4d 'fraa Setvic@9 -V,nae 19 9 / 6416176th ST SW Lynnwood, Wa 98037 206-337-2422 Fax 1-888-623-0091 officeod ecotreenw.com Julie Backous 18917 Soundview Place Julie.backous@comcast.net Phone: City: Source: 206-931-1109 Edmonds Office Use Only C G T TR CH Date: 10/10/18 Zip: 98020 SERVICES BID ALL TREE REMOVAL PRICES INCLUDE HAULING BRUSH, LEAVING WOOD IN 18" ROUNDS, CUTTING STUMP LOW AS FEASIBLE & CLEAN UP UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED BELOW. Approximately five hours of trimming and reduction to Willow, Fir, and Cherry trees to client's specifications, to be billed at $500 + tax per hour. VISA $V d AP SUB TOTAL: $ TAX: $ TOTAL: $ If stump grinding is bid, all debris are to be left and are the customers responsibility. Full payment is due upon completion of the job. We reserve the right to cancel this agreement at any time. ECO TREE will not be liable for damages to underground utilities and/or sprinkler systems if the customer does not indicate, on this form, their existence in the work area. The customer is responsible for obtaining any permits required by the government. ECO TREE is not responsible for any violation and/or penalty if permits are required and not obtained by customer. It is the customer's responsibility to know the boundaries of their land and to have the authority to have the work performed. Acceptance of proposal — The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be furnished as specified above. Signature: Date: Licensed, Bonded and Insured for Two Million Dollars Contractors License# ECOTRI*822KA ACORD CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE(MMIDD/YYYY) 0410512018 PRODUCER Inc. IOrls, THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION Stark Solutions, Stark of io s, ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR Lynnwood, WA 98036 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Email: kurt@StarkSolutionslnc.com INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # INSURED INSURERA: Nautilus Insurance Co ECOTREENW Inc 6416 -176th St SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 INSURER E: i:i LVF:Rnc�FS THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS DD' ( POLICY NUMBER POLICY EF FECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATIONh= TYPE OF IN 11RANCF DATE jM?JfDDrYYI DATE IMMIDDMO LIMBS GENERAL. LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 DAMAGE TO RENTED PRFM(SES.(FaflccurenceL_ $ rA x _ _COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY NN886934 0110112018 01/01/2079 MED EXP fAnv one personl $ CLAIMS MADE LX OCCUR PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000 GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2.000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $2,000,000 POLICY PRO- LOC AUTOMOBILE l LIABILITY ANY AUTO COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Ea accident) $ BODILY INJURY (Per person) ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS $ BODILY INJURY (Per accident) HIRED AUTOS NON -OWNED AUTOS $ PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per accident) $ -- ---------- -- -- GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY -EA ACCIDENT $ OTHER THAN EA ACC ANY AUTO $ $ AUTO ONLY: AGG EXCESSlUMBRELLA LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $_ _ OCCUR CLAIMS MADE AGGREGATE $ $ DEDUCTIBLE $ RETENTION 5 WORKERS COMPENSATION AND I ARY I M ITiL I FIR E. I. EACH ACCIDENT $ EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETORIPARTNERIEXECUTIVE _ E L DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE _ $ OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? E.L. DISEASE -POLICY LIMB If yea, dBSCnbo urdor SPECIAL PR VISION$ below 5 OTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES / EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT I SPECIAL PROVISIONS Verification of insurance CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION State of WA/ Dept of L&I Contractor Registration PO Box 44450 Olympia, WA 98504 Ar:nRn 25 12nn7/nBl SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND. UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. _ AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE _ R <KS> RATION 1988 41 r 0, 44 4 71� - -TIT, 40 AN 4 Af Awl s`-/ ��i •'�,��'' r _ _,' ����` � ., a4 r 01 ;s 2� ♦ Via. + I ' ! ham• � �� f. /�!� - !' / � - JI•. � _ kW _ 1� .� � ' 1�� • 11 r 1 A IX it RZ -No ✓o \ ' ^.ram• � ' � f � `�l. J n' ' i' - - # 47 y x } r •ai:1'i1n.S:r •..a _ �..t v_R, .y. �,.. } 7 Il' 7 � 1\ e•t .11, '•i:�� • , I ' r 1 City of Edmonds Map Title Creeks Seismic Hazard Areas Earth Subsidence and Landslide Minimum Buffer Adjacent to Hat Wetlands Wetlands Boundary — - Wetland Boundaries Not Complete) Wetland Known Extents Landslide Hazard Area 40% Severe Erosion Hazard 15%-40% ] Erosion Hazard Areas 15%-40% ArcSDE.GIS.STREET-CENTERLINE — all other values, 1:564 /\ —1 `J Notes 0 23.51 47.0 Feet This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise rebable, © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUC--ION Arborist Identification & Evaluation at: 18910 Sound View Place Edmonds, WA 98020 Prepared For: Jeffrey Lewis 18910 Sound View Place Edmonds, WA 98020 July 29, 2015 Prepared By: Ryan Ringe Certified Arborist # PN 5892-A Certified Tree Risk Assessor # CRTA 699 rRBOR OPTIONS Arbor Options, LLC Tree Consultants Ryan Ringe, Principal (206) 755-5826 Email: ryan(a arboroptionsxom Certified Arborist # PN 5892-A Certified Tree Risk Assessor # CRTA 699 Table of Contents Summary.......................................................... I Introduction....................................................... I Background and History ........................................ 1 Assignment..................................................... I Limits of Assignment ........................................ 2 Methodology................................................. 2 Observations/Discussion........................................ 2 Mitigation Plan Discussion ...................................... 8 Glossary........................................................... 9 Bibliography...................................................... 10 Appendix A — Site/ Tree Location Map ......................... 11 Appendix B- Photographs ....................................... 12 Appendix C — Assumptions and Limiting Conditions....... 18 Appendix D — Waiver of Liability .............................. 19 Arbor Options Consulting Arborists Lewis Tree Evaluation July 29, 2014 Summary Jeffrey Lewis contacted me prepare an arborist report for tree removals and pruning that occurred on the property at 18910 Sound View Place in Edmonds, WA. The City of Edmonds requested this information because of a possible code violation for tree removal and pruning within a critical area. I met with Jeffrey Lewis and Steve Schlecht (owner of Edmonds Tree Service, who performed the work) at the site and they described the work that was performed. I then evaluated the removed trees and the remaining trees on the site. This report documents my findings. I do recommend additional pruning for health of Tree #14 (Douglas Fir tree), and that 2 Vine Maples are planted in the vicinity of Tree #13 in addition to the 17 shrubs, 3 trees, and 32 herbs already approved in the Mitigation Plan. Introduction Background & History Jeffrey Lewis owns the property at 18910 Sound View Place in Edmonds. He is currently remodeling an existing single family residence at the property, and had a Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan prepared by Wetlands and Wildlife Environmental Consulting. The approved plan detailed removal of all existing, non- native, invasive vegetation in approved mitigation areas, and replacement with approved native species. Jeffrey contracted Edmonds Tree Service to perform tree work on the property, according to the approved Mitigation Plan. The tree work took place on the south portion of the property, which is located within a riparian critical area adjacent to a stream. Five trees were removed and eight trees were pruned in the area. Four of the removals were approved in the Mitigation Plan (Holly Trees #9-12), and one of the removals was located on the adjacent south property (Bigleaf Maple Tree #13). Six of the trees pruned (Willow Tree #1, Leyland Cypress Trees #2-5, and English Laurel trees #15) were located on the subject property, and two of the trees pruned (Douglas Fir trees #8 and 14) were located on the adjacent south property. Assignment After discussing the scenario with Jeffrey Lewis, we agreed that my assignment was to: Prepare an arborist report detailing the extent of the cutting activities that took place at 18910 Sound View Place in Edmonds containing the following: Arbor Options Consulting Arborists Lewis Tree Evaluation July 29, 2014 1. Site plan identifying the location of all cutting activities 2. Species and diameter of all trees and vegetation that were cut/ pruned 3. Assessment of the health of the trees that were cut/ pruned 4. Likelihood of survivability of the trees that were cut/ pruned 5. Discussion of site impact and mitigations Limits of Assignment Unless stated otherwise, 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 the inspection is limited to visual examination of the subject trees without dissection, excavation, probing, climbing, 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. Additional Assumptions and limiting conditions can be found in Appendix C. Methodology To evaluate the trees and to prepare the report, I drew upon my 15+ years of experience in the field of forestry, site management, and arboriculture and my formal education in plant biology, plant identification, and plant physiology. I also followed the protocol of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) that includes looking at the overall health of the tree as well as the site conditions. This is a scientifically based process to look at the entire site, surrounding landscape and soil, as well as a complete look at the trees themselves. In examining the trees, I looked at such factors as: size, vigor, canopy and foliage condition, density of leaves, injury, insect activity, root damage and root collar health, crown health, evidence of disease -causing bacteria, fungi or virus, dead wood and hanging limbs. Observations/ Discussion Tree Descriptions Note: Refer to Tree Location Map, Appendix A on pg. 11 for locations of trees 91-1 S. Refer to Photographs, Appendix B on pg. 12-1 7for photographs of individual trees. "All removed/pruned vegetation from the subject property and adjacent south property has been removed from the site prior to my site visit. 2 Arbor Options Consulting Arborists Lewis Tree Evaluation July 29, 2014 Tree #1: 7.0" DBH (Diameter -at -Breast -Height) Weeping Willow tree, Salix babylonica, 20 ft. tall, good condition. Tree 41 is located 6 ft. south of the subject property at the top of the slope. Extent of Cutting ActivitX: The Willow tree's lower fringe was raised by 3 ft. on the north side of the tree by cutting small branchlets. The cuts were all 1/4" diameter or less, except for one cut that was'/2" diameter overhanging the subject property. Likelihood of Survivability: The pruning had no negative consequences, and the tree has a very high likelihood of long term survivability. Impact to Site: The pruning of Tree 41 had no negative impact to the tree, the slope stability, or the surrounding vegetation/ stream. Trees #2-5: 5.1", 5.9", 6.0", and 6.9" DBH (respectively) Leyland Cypress tree, Cupressus X leylandii. Trees #2-5 are now approximately 10 ft. tall after pruning, and are in Good/ Fair condition. They are located on the south side of the subject property on the top of the slope. Extent of Cutting ActivitX: Trees 42-5 were topped at a 10 ft. level, and the main stem cuts were 1-2" diameter, (vertical branch cuts of 1/2" to I"). The trees were side trimmed as well, with branch cuts < 1/2". Steve Schlect of Edmonds Tree Service told me that the trees were reduced in height by 3-5 ft., and side trimmed back by 3-4 ft. Likelihood of Survivability: Leyland Cypress trees are highly tolerant of pruning, and Trees 42-5 have a high likelihood of long term survivability. Impact to Site: The pruning (topping/ side -trimming) performed on the Leyland Cypress hedge had no negative impact to the slope stability, or the surrounding vegetation/ stream. Leyland Cypress trees are extensively used for hedges in the Pacific Northwest because of their rapid growth, resistance to disease, and high tolerance of pruning/ topping. It is Arbor Options Consulting Arborists Lewis Tree Evaluation July 29, 2014 generally considered good practice to top and side trim Leyland Cypress trees into hedge form when they are located near a residence or structure. As they grow larger, closely spaced Leyland Cypress trees can become problematic. Tree Stump #6: Old Alder stump cut down 3+ years ago judging from cracked/ oxidized condition of stump. The stump is 3-4 ft. tall with 3 stems of 13", 10", and 7" diameter. The stump is located near the top of slope, south of the subject property. Extent of Cutting Activity It appears that one of the stems of the stump (7" diameter) was reduced in height by approximately 6 in., and several small water sprouts were cut as well. The stem was obviously dead already when cut, judging from the extensive cracks present. Likelihood of Survivability: Several water sprouts continue to grow from stump and will do so until nutrients in roots has been depleted. Impact to Site: None Tree #7: 13.0" Wild Cherry tree, Prunus avium, located south of the subject property near mid slope. The tree is leaning toward the east at a 45 degree angle, and has a large bow in the lower stem with 4-5 ft. of horizontal growth. Several stems grow vertically from the horizontal stem. A leaning Douglas Fir tree stem (Tree 48) is leaning on the horizontally growing portion, and Tree #7 provides full support for the leaning tree. Extent of Cutting Activity No cutting activity took place on Tree #7; it is included in this report as an explanation of Tree #8's physical characteristics and pruning, as Tree #7 is supporting the weight of Tree #8. Likelihood of Survivability: N/A Impact to Site: N/A Tree #8: Approximately 14" DBH (tree trunk is located on the far side of the creek in a dense tangle of ivy/ blackberry, which was left undisturbed because of ECA) Douglas Fir tree, Pseudotsuga menziesii. Tree #8 fell over years ago, and rested on Tree #7 (described above). Its roots remained partially intact, and the tree continued to grow. It currently has two vertical stems growing from the horizontal stem near the point where it is leaning on Tree 47 (approximately 25 ft. tall stems). 0 Arbor Options Consulting Arborists Lewis Tree Evaluation July 29, 2014 Extent of Cutting Activity The top of the tree, growing horizontally toward the hill side, was cut at a diameter of 10 in. near the point of lean/ support on Tree #7. The cut was made at the proper point back to a 10 in. vertically growing lateral branch. Likelihood of Survivability: Steve Schlect of Edmonds Tree Service explained that his reasoning for removing the end of the tree: to prevent Tree 47 and 8 from failing as the end weight of Tree 48 grew larger. There was a very heavy load on Cherry tree #7 from the horizontally growing Fir tree #8, and as the Fir tree grew, the Cherry tree would eventually fail because of the increased load. Most likely, the Douglas Fir tree would fail as well because its support would be gone. The heading cut was made at the proper point, giving the Fir tree the ability to grow callous tissue over the wound in the future. In my opinion, the pruning actions taken have increased the likelihood of survivability of both Tree #7 and Tree #8. Impact to Site: In my opinion, the pruning positively impacted the site by reducing the chance of tree failure of Tree #7 and Tree #8, preventing possible erosion issues. Toppled trees may trigger localized slope failures. Trees #9-12: Four English Holly trees (Ilex aquifolium) located near the south edge of the subject property near the top of slope were removed, as per the approved Mitigation Plan. The diameters of their stumps at the cut height of 1 ft. were (Tree #9) 9", 6", and 5" stems attached at ground level, (Tree #10) 11" stump, (Tree 411) 12" stump, and (Tree 912) 14" stump. After looking at pictures taken before pruning (provided by Jeffrey Lewis), I determined that the Holly trees had been previously topped as well (see Appendix -A, Photographs on page 15). Extent of Cutting Activity (See above explanation) Likelihood of Survivability: Holly trees grow extensive stump sprouts upon removal of the tree. Stump sprouts should be removed upon annual monitoring, as per the Mitigation Plan. Impact to Site: English Holly is a non-native, invasive species, and was approved for removal and replacement with approved native species in the Mitigation Plan. As long as the Mitigation Plan is followed, there will be no negative impact to the site and surroundings. Arbor Options Consulting Arborists Lewis Tree Evaluation July 29, 2014 Tree #13: Bigleaf Maple tree, Acer macrophyllum; the tree was located near mid slope, south of the subject property, and was removed to a 1.5 ft. high stump. The tree had two stems attached at the ground, with diameters of 8.5" and 4.3" at the stump height of 1.5 ft. The stems appeared to have a significant lean to the east. Property owner Jeffrey Lewis told me that he was afraid that the leaning tree would fail in the future because of similar recent failures of two similar leaning Bigleaf Maple trees located in different areas near the stream adjacent to his property. I was unable to analyze the trees for hazardous status because of their removal. Extent of Cutting Activity: (See above explanation) Likelihood of Survivability: The tree has been removed, but Bigleaf Maples grow extensive stump sprouts upon removal of tree. Stump sprouts should be allowed to regrow, and should be pruned for selective stem growth (retaining sprouts with good attachment for future stem structural stability, and removing sprouts with poor attachment) during annual monitoring, as per the Mitigation Plan. hnpact to Site: The smaller Bigleaf Maple has extensive roots helping to stabilize the hill side and prevent erosion. As long as stump sprouts are allowed to re -grow, long-term slope stability should be maintained. I do recommend that two additional Vine Maples be planted in the area to help maintain slope stability (See Mitigation Plan Discussion below). Tree #14: Approximately 12" DBH (tree trunk is located on the far side of the creek in a dense tangle of ivy/ blackberry, which was left undisturbed because of ECA) Douglas Fir tree, Pseudotsuga menziesii. The tree has an approximate 30 degree lean to the north east, and was cut at a 30 ft. height level. Owner Jeffrey Lewis and Steve Schlect of Edmonds Tree Service told me that the tree top had an irregular shaped crown, with a long, heavy, horizontally growing branch (extending toward the northwest) at the tree top (see Appendix -A, Photographs, on pg. 15). They were worried that the top could fail in a wind storm and possibly strike the house. Steve Schlect told me that the tree was topped to an old topping point approximately 10-15 ft. below the tree top. Extent of Cutting Activity: The tree was topped at a level approximately 30 ft. in height, at an approximate 5 in. diameter, to a small 1-2 in. diameter branch. Arbor Options Consulting Arborists Lewis Tree Evaluation July 29, 2014 Likelihood of Survivability: From looking at the photographs of the tree before it was cut, I do agree that the top branch had a potential to fail during a windstorm. I cannot give an opinion as to whether the topping was the best course of action, as I did not inspect the tree before. A topped Douglas Fir tree has an increased risk of decay at the point of attachment, and of root decay. It is possible that if the top had broken out of the tree due to its irregular crown, it would have the same increased risk. If the top has a correct cut with good lateral branches, it has a much better chance of long-term survival. The topped portion of the Douglas Fir tree has a 12 in. long vertical crack in the stem, and has only one branch nearby. I do recommend lowering the top by cutting another 2 ft. from the tree to 3-4 larger scaffold branches. If the tree is properly cut to the proper area, it will have a medium to high chance of long term survival. Impact to Site: The short term impact to the surrounding site is increased sunlight penetration to the adjacent area. As the tree is located in the bottom of the slope, the tree roots are not as vital to slope stability as a tree located mid to high slope, but they still contribute to slope stability. The long term impact to slope stability depends upon the long term health of the tree. Trees #15: Several English Laurel trees/ shrubs are located on the south portion of the subject property as well on the adjacent south property. The trees/ shrubs have been repeatedly topped through the years and have multiple stems. Extent of Cutting Activity The Laurel trees/ shrubs were reduced in height by approximately 3-6 ft. Cuts differed in diameter from'/2" to 1". Likelihood of Survivability: English Laurel trees are extensively used for hedges in the Pacific Northwest because of their rapid growth, resistance to disease, and high tolerance of pruning/ topping. The small amount of pruning will not affect the trees/ shrubs, and they have a very high likelihood of survivability. Impact to Site: None 7 Arbor Options Consulting Arborists Lewis Tree Evaluation July 29, 2014 Miscellaneous Vegetation Removal Various portions of the site had groundcover/ shrubs removed from the area. Steve Schlect told me that Blackberry, English Ivy vines, English Holly shrubs, and Laurel shrubs were removed. I am not certain if any native vegetation, such as some Snowberry shrubds present on the site, were removed in the process. Mitigation Plan Discussion I have reviewed the Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan for the property at 18910 Sound View Place. The plan proposes to plant 12 shrubs and 32 herbs among Buffer Enhancement Area A, and to plant 3 trees and 5 shrubs among Buffer Enhancement Area B. After reviewing the situation and Edmonds Community Development Code ECDC 23.40.240.C., I believe that in addition to the approved plantings in the Mitigation Plan, 2 Vine Maples should be planted in the vicinity of removed Bigleaf Maple tree #13 to help maintain slope stability. The same monitoring and maintenance duration and schedule found in the Mitigation Plan should apply. Arbor Options Consulting Arborists Lewis Tree Evaluation July 29, 2014 Glossary Arborist ................Professional who possesses the technical competence gained through experience and related training to provide for or supervise the management of trees and other woody plants in residential, commercial, and public landscapes. D.B.H.....................Diameter-at-Breast-Height. This is the standard measurement of trees (Diameter At taken at 4.5 feet above the average ground level of the tree base. Breast Height) Canopy..................The part of the crown composed of leaves and small twigs. Callus Tissue .......... Undifferentiated tissue formed by the cambium, usually as a result of wounding L.C.R....................The size of the canopy of coniferous trees relative to their overall (Live Crown Ratio) height Root Collar...............Area where the main roots join the plant stem, above and below the ground level. Woundwood............ Woody tissue that develops from callus, or healing tissue associated with wounds. I Arbor Options Consulting Arborists Lewis Tree Evaluation July 29, 2014 Bibliography Dirr, Michael A. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants (6th ed). Champaign, IL. Stipes Publishing L.L.C. 2009. Don Minore and John C.Zasada. Bigleaf Maple USDA Forest Service. www.na.fs.fed.us/pubs/silvics manual/volume_2/acer/macrophyllum.htm Edmonds Community Development Code: Critical Areas, Title 23. City of Edmonds, Washington Matheny, Nelda P. and Clark, James R. Evaluation of Hazard Trees (2nd ed). Savoy: The International Society of Arboriculture Press, 1994 10 Arbor Options Consulting Arborists Lewis Tree Evaluation July 29, 2014 Appendix A — Tree Location Map or FF- .uLS Trees #15 (English Laurels) pruned O f C: -.SI-E STIE-Vo. � 1 � I ,aF�� Ri0 [VO7K - � E`Ef. � �•lrl. i �� I \ . 1 1 mgx)r.ED DUX0*4 i JY. 1 1 141r?]•'kl'i Jlt£ti i IF �;Nl�ru, lsfrl4t ! ,` • MI D-i K Tree 414 +� (Douglas Fir) oaa i."• `\\ ' \ pruned IT •�n� 7IV Tree #13 s (Bigleaf iYl.^.V::4'��•11 � �R111Nf1'.N Maple) :,Ir.�D r•.�r a r:.+r;c removed '�0i UtFldk w�t,oror, Ewn a- r W F=R 1 I Trees #9-12 Tree #S Old stump (Hollies) (Douglas #6 removed Fir) pruned Tree #7 (Cherry) No actions performed 11 I --- BUILDING SMACK LITHE o zo -- — TOP OF SIFT SLOPE Pk0?0SED VYFEP. ! %Jr !SIKA14CEk'E4T AffA A X. rI n,IIuNK -1I4C.1 s :� 'RCa75FD EUFFFR �'f2s Z!,i4MCENE-�7 AREA 0 PROPOSED AD?MM TO ~ -RLVVrII A Z / 4J /' /• i NOTE:rLE4XALSO REFENENCE'THE AESOCIRTE CA3.0• At-JCAa.X7AS!0:Vk-R / Y,1i}ITiIirKOJELTPROMAL. ALI.17WENSA .N(NL:�1'IION LLIWONCNIL hPVk7JE:IT Yr C1-'I UI / O.V4111",E•JV I. at INn tBCNitll PURUJOI It i i' � \ INGLSTtr STtKR?Rlx Awp r nR rRY>Q'r]URr.4: Tree 91 (Willow) pruned Trees #2-5 (Leyland Cypress) pruned Arbor Options Consulting Arborists Lewis Tree Evaluation July 29, 2014 Appendix B — Photographs Trees 92-5 (Leyland Cypress, looking west) Before Pruning Leyland Cypress trees #2-5, before pruning Tree #1 (Willow) 1/2 inch diameter branch removed Trees 92-5 (Leyland Cypress, looking south) After Pruning 12 Arbor Options Consulting Arborists Lewis Tree Evaluation July 29, 2014 Appendix B — Photographs (Continued) Stump #6 (bird's eye view) Tree #7 & 8 (Wild Cherry & Douglas Fir, looking south) Lrr v' Tree #7, Wild Cherry vertical stems 13 Tree #7, Wild Cherry stem Tree #8, Douglas Fir vertical stems Tree #8, Douglas Fir stem cut Arbor Options Consulting Arborists Lewis Tree Evaluation July 29, 2014 Appendix B — Photographs (Continued) Tree #7 & 8 (Wild Cherry & Douglas Fir, looking southeast) Tree 47, Wild Cherry stem Blue line denotes horizontal , supporting Tree leaning stem of Tree #8, Douglas #8 Fir 14 Arbor Options Consulting Arborists Lewis Tree Evaluation July 29, 2014 Appendix B — Photographs (Continued) Tree #7 & 8 Upper Canopy (Wild Cherry & Douglas Fir, looking south) Trees 9-12, 14 (Holly, Douglas Fir, looking south) Before Pruning Tree #14, Douglas Fir Before Pruning, long asymmetrical top branch Trees #9-12, Holly Trees Before Pruning 15 Arbor Options Consulting Arborists Lewis Tree Evaluation July 29, 2014 Appendix B — Photographs (Continued) Tree 14 (Douglas Fir, looking south) Before pruning Close -Up Arbor Options Consulting Arborists Lewis Tree Evaluation July 29, 2014 Appendix B — Photographs (Continued) Tree14 (Douglas Fir, looking south) After pruning 17 Arbor Options Consulting Arborists Lewis Tree Evaluation July 29, 2014 Appendix C - Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1. 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. Consultant assumes that the property and its use do not violate applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or regulations. 2. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 3. Unless otherwise required by law, possession of any report by the consultant 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 expressed written consent of the consultant. 4. This report and any values or opinions expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and the consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event or upon any finding to be reported. 5. 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 unless expressed otherwise. The reproduction of any information generated by architects, engineers or other consultants and any sketches, drawings or photographs is for the expressed purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of said information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by the consultant as to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. 6. 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 accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, climbing, 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. 7. Loss or alteration of any part of this Agreement invalidates the entire report. Arbor Options Consulting Arborists Lewis Tree Evaluation July 29, 2014 Appendix D — Waiver of Liability There are many conditions affecting a tree's health and stability, which may be present and cannot be ascertained, such as, root rot, previous or unexposed construction damage, internal cracks, stem rot and more which may be hidden. Changes in circumstances and conditions can also cause a rapid deterioration of a tree's health and stability. Adverse weather conditions can dramatically affect the health and safety of a tree in a very short amount of time. While I have used every reasonable means to examine these trees, this evaluation represents my opinion of the tree health at this point in time. These findings do not guarantee future safety nor are they predictions of future events. The tree evaluation consists of an external visual inspection of an individual tree's root flare, trunk, and canopy from the ground only unless otherwise specified. The inspection may also consist of taking trunk or root soundings for sound comparisons to aid the evaluator in determining the possible extent of decay within a tree. Soundings are only an aid to the evaluation process and do not replace the use of other more sophisticated diagnostic tools for determining the extent of decay within a tree. As conditions change, it is the responsibility of the property owners to schedule additional site visits by the necessary professionals to ensure that the long-term success of the project is ensured. It is the responsibility of the property owner to obtain all required permits from city, county, state, or federal agencies. It is the responsibility of the property owner to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and permit conditions. If there is a homeowners association, it is the responsibility of the property owner to comply with all Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) that apply to tree pruning and tree removal. This tree evaluation is to be used to inform and guide the client in the management of their trees. This in no way implies that the evaluator is responsible for performing recommended actions or using other methods or tools to further determine the extent of internal tree problems without written authorization from the client. Furthermore, the evaluator in no way holds that the opinions and recommendations are the only actions required to insure that the tree will not fail. A second opinion is recommended. The client shall hold the evaluator harmless for any and all injuries or damages incurred if the tree examined fails for any reason or if the evaluator's recommendations are not followed or for acts of nature beyond the evaluator's reasonable expectations, such as severe winds, excessive rains, heavy snow loads, etc. 19