STF20180050 haz tree.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT r PLANNING DIVISION
1),C. 189.
December 3, 2018
Tom George
Evergreen Tree Care
tomgeorge@evergreentic.com
Subject: Hazard Tree Removal (STF20180050)
Tom,
You contacted the City of Edmonds regarding proposed work on a sequoia tree at the
Harden/Smith residence at 9219 Olympic View Drive. Critical areas are known to be present on
the subject site including a steep slope down to the northwest of the house and a small
channelized watercourse southwest of the site driveway. The subject tree is located on the
flatter southern corner of the site by the driveway but it is about 30 feet from the watercourse.
The site driveway may serve to interrupt the stream buffer in the sequoia's location but that
analysis was not undertaken for this project.
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 sequoia is greater than
four inches in diameter and has not been maintained recently so it is subject to the hazard tree
documentation requirements.
According to the submitted information, the sequoia was previously topped and there are now
weak joints on the limbs that have regrown — several limbs have hit the house and a car in the
past year. Crown thinning or pruning would not cure the defect; removing the remaining limbs
above the old topping cut and leaving the tree as a 10-foot wildlife snag is the proposed cure.
Since the tree will not be removed but rather left as a snag, replanting at 2:1 with native species
in accordance with ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv is not required in this case.
An exemption for hazard tree maintenance is granted for the subject sequoia,
If you have any questions, please let me know at either michael.clu stop edmondswa. ov or
425-771-0220.
Sincerely,,
Mike Clugston, AICP
Senior Planner
Encl: Arborist letter and supporting materials received November 26, 2018
November 261", 2018
To; Michael Clugston
Edmonds office of Planning & Development
From: Tom George, Evergreen Tree Care
on behalf of Diane Harden & Marilyn Smith, homeowners
Years ago, someone topped the Sequoia by the driveway and street on the
property at 9219 Olympic View Drive. Last winter, one of the tops came down
and hit the home and deck and fortunately did little damage.
A few weeks ago in an average wind, another top came out and fell on their car
parked in the driveway, doing damage to the hood, roof, & trunk. The remaining
top(s) look like similarly weak attachments and pose a hazard. The family would
like to limit future damages and risk by removing the tree.
If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to call,
Sincerely,
Tom George
Evergreen Tree Care
206-310-2240
Tomgeorge@evergreentic.com
P4 Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client 0 a (),Im . S M 1`'w bate _t f /q'b. NTim_e
Tree Sheet of
Address location ca il " m
Treespecies _ dbh I
Height �3 Crown spread diao
Assessors c, ' Tools used , Time frame
Target Assessment
Target
zone
01
c
e
c
Occupancy
r
a
c
Target description
g P
Target protection
3 .
3 i
3 x
traaee
2—occasional
M W
m
�g,� a
.�
x
pa .,
LID
3-frequent
as
V
LW
4-constant
a £
cc n
2
4
trite Factors
oryoffailuresq m, w, ,& atKv & r��, s °�;: tNU„ 1a*60 n ....... Topography Flat❑ Slop i0 % Aspect
._ � _. f
Site changes None Grade change[] Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts❑ Describe...
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe _.............................................
Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds Ice El Snow Heavy rain Describe,.,,.,
Tree Health and Species Profile_
Vigor Low ❑ Normal)9 High ❑ _ Foliage None (seasonal) � �� None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic ... Necrotic
_.. %cr . � �.
SeeclesfailuremmmrofilemmmBranchis .. Trunk❑ Roots❑ 17estriha.. WW...
p p / f Factors
l— *oh ._------- -- - .......................
_ Load
Wind exposure Protected ❑ PartialX Full ❑ Wind funneling Relativen size ...�... e D
_..__�� ..._._... ❑ .._ mmmm � � crown size 5rdralll Medium ❑ Large ❑
P g X branches Fewl Normal❑ dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑
Crown density Sparse Normal❑ Densell thnterlor
Recent or expected change in load factors
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and
Branches —
Unbalanced crown LCR %
Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/branches 0 %overall Max. dia.,,,,_mm__„, � �
Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia•
Weak attachmentsg� Cavity/Nest hole %circ.
Over -extended branchesd
Previous branch failures �_mmmm, Similar branches present
Pruning history
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised
Conks 0 Heartwood decay ❑
Reduced 0
a 19 Lion -tailed
Responsegrowth,� lob" 1-(g
Flush cuts ❑ Other
m;
Condition (s) of concern -
Part Size Fall Distance ..__
Part Size m Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable[] Possible ❑ Probable Imminent ❑
likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
—Trunk —
—Roots and Root Collar —
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑
Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑
Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑
Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑
ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ.
Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk
Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑
Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑
Lean ° Corrected? ....... .m
Response growth
Response growth
Condition (s) of concern _...... _
Condition(s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance.
Part Size -- Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
��elllood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Passible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
_......-._- . ................
_wm.. .... _ ._ ._ � ........_
Page I of 2
C3
II1
r,
s,
44,
i�� / r it ��d �� « � rw •, �' „ ,, � y/' � � � � � '7""!"'�
Ak
9jr A
r
u
r ,
140
nr
nw
u
.r,�' "�, / rtfG�v, .,". m u , �, I�A'i"7M;�r✓ j r r �;'„
n
�rJ fib" a
a i G,
Ow
IV
m