ENG2020-0255OF WAY
MINOR PERMIT
PERMITNUMBER,
City of Edmonds
AveRIGHT
980ENG2020-0255
www.cityofedmonds.gov
Description: ROW TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
ISSUED: 09/11/2020
Address: 777 MAPLE ST EDMONDS WA 98020-3436
EXPIRES: 03/11/2021
Permit Type: RIGHTOF WAY MINOR Permit Subtype: RESIDENTIAL
Parcel Number: 00434208902300
NAME TYPE NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE
APPLICANT PEGGY WEIRAUCH
CONTRACTOR A TOTAL TREE SERVICE
8111 SHOEMAKER RD, TULALIP WA 98271 (425)293-7376
OWNER JOYCE ARNOLD R
21701 98TH AVE W, EDMONDS WA 98020-3924
FEE INFORMATION
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
PAID
CITY TECHNOLOGY FEE CHARGED PER PERMIT
$40.00
$40.00
RIGHT OF WAY MINOR PERMIT FEE
$110.00
$110.00
REQUIREMENTS
REQUIREMENT TYPE NOTES
TRAFFIC CONTROL Traffic control and public safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City
Engineer. Every flagger must be trained as required by WAC 296-155-305 and must have certification
verifying completion of the required training in their posession.
RESTORATION Restoration is to be in accordance with City codes. All street -cut trench work shall be patched with
asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the workday - No Exceptions
WARRANTY The contractor is responsible for workmanship and materials for a period of one year following the final
inspection and acceptance of the work.
INSPECTION SCHEDULING: WWW.MYBUILDING PERMIT.COM
24 HR NOTICE REQUIRED
INDEMNITY
The Applicant has signed an application which states he/she holds the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages or claims of
any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds or any of its departments
or employees, including but not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs and attorney fees by reason of
granting this permit.
THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT VALID UNTIL FEES ARE PAID AND THE CITY ENGINEER OR HIS/HER DEPUTY HAS SIGNED BELOW
NGriggs 9/11 /2020
RELEASED BY DATE
Printed: Friday, September 11, 2020 1:00:48 PM 1 of 2
-■ i • WAY • • PERMIT
IG
Zr
City of Edmonds
�e
www.cityofedmonds.gov
CONDITIONS
CONDITION TYPE
Easement and/or permission from adjacent property owner is required prior to entry or work within
ADJACENT PROPERTY
an adjacent property.
Contractor/Owner shall be responsible for repair/replacement of all damage to utilities and/or
DAMAGE TO FRONTAGE
frontage improvements in city right of way per city standards that is caused by or occurs during the
IMPROVEMENTS
permitted project.
Follow replanting requirements per Planning Department (included in permit). Provide photos of new
trees with tags/markers on them to City of Edmonds (engineeringpermits@edmondswa.gov) following
ENGINEERING OTHER
removal of old trees and replanting of new trees. Photo review and approval required prior to final of
permit.
ESC REQUIRED
Maintain erosion & sediment control per city standards.
Applicant on behalf of his or her spouse heirs assigns and successors in interests, agrees to indemnify
defend and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, employees, and agents from
HOLD HARMLESS
any and all claims for damages of whatever nature, arising directly or indirectly from the issuance of
this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to modify, waive or reduce any requirements
of any City ordinance nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance provision.
Sound/Noise originating from temporary construction sites as a result of construction activity are
exempt from the noise limits of ECC Chapter 5.30 only during the hours of 7:OOam to 6:OOpm on
SOUND OR NOISE
weekdays and 10:OOam to 6:OOpm on Saturdays, excluding Sundays and Federal Holidays. At all other
times the noise originating from construction sites/activities must comply with the noise limits of
Chapter 5.30, unless a variance has been granted pursuant to ECC 5.30.120.
UNDERGROUND UTILITY
Call for locates of underground utilities prior to any excavation.
LOCATES
• ��
INSPECTION TYPE DATE RESULT NOTES
lip
COMPLETE
X-2 ENGINEERING FINAL**
Printed: Friday, September 11, 2020 1:00:48 PM 2 of 2
C.~I
Of EUMO4,
A�
ANC. 1 S90
ROW PERMIT NO.: ENG
ISSUE DATE:
RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT APPLICATION
PROJECT NAME: 111 #4NIa '5+, 4ft
CONTRACTOR:
Mailing Address: 11
State Lkense #: k •'r
_ Lw_i%iI: 1�61-Q1'1-do 1
City Business License #:
LicQr SQ 4' ToT'A LTS9-LI KR
ADDRESS OR INTERSECTION OF CONSTRUCTION:
CONTACT:Ck Q,f- 6-oOO( `- O ..,J
Phone #: LIDS _ 19 3 - D 3.1 (o
Fax #:
Emall #: A4otvt1+rQQ5QrV1c,Qa Mo I.
LubiUty Insurance Z Bonded
TAS. Cw% spa Qrn ''JQf`�
-7� 1 k4a sk2et� A 11 ctt.,
ROW WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING TYPE OF PROJECT:
Commercial ❑ Subdivision
❑ Muld-Family V Single Family
❑ EUC (PUTD, VERIZON, PSE,
COMCAST, OVWSD):
Is this permit part of a blanket permit?
ANY ASSOCIATED PERMITS?
City Project
❑ Other
❑ Yes 14 No
Traffic Control (Only)
BLD# NO ENG# Np
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK (Be Specific) : _500 atfQIChQ,O( arbpp0�
rcnr# . C1,4- 610- ^ (3) stat;w. PwAr-s Locu'fao( i0l auaift-
n4o
k
WAS STREET OVERLAYED WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS? YES 0 NO 0 Year:
PAVEMENT CUT: If yes, Indicate size of cut: x
If yes, indicate size of cut: x
❑
Yes
No
CONCRETE CUT:
❑
Yes
I No
ER1,GHT-OF-WAVDURATION
:►REA 'rO'rAl.OSI:RE (NUMBER OF MONTHS)
walk 48 Hrs + I.F X JLF
SF�lley 72 Hra + LF X �SF
king 72 Hrs + LF X j SF NIA El
APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN
*Traffic control and public safety shall he in accordanec with City regulations as rcquircd by the City
Enginccr. Every flagger must be trainod as rcquirod by (WAC) 296-155-305 and must have certification
verifying completio.- (::•the required training in their possession.
*Restoration is to be in accordance with City codes and Standards. All strcct-cut trench work shall be
patched «rith asphalt or �'ity approvca matcria, prior to the; end of the workday - NO EXCEPTIONS.
Indemnity: The Applicant has sinned an application which .states heishe hold the City of
Edmonds harmless ►rom injuries, damages or claims of any kind or description
whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds or
any of its departments or employees, including defense costs and attorney fees by reason
of granting this permit.
I have read ve statements and undo •requirements and acknowledge that I must
follow all equircm •s irro cx for the perm1Vie' _
SIGNAT
DATE _-� ` % I - ZO
Contractor or Agent
NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE
RECEIVED 7/30/20
-I 3 (o -144 Da -m St r; QQ t
oaf, st .
►.
R;9►.t of t.Ja,ca
FOLLOW REPLANTING REQUIREMENTS PER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT. ;1
PROVIDE PHOTOS OF NEW TREES WITH
TAGS/MARKERS ON THEM TO CITY OF
EDMONDS FOLLOWING REMOVAL OF OLD
TREES AND REPLANTING OF NEW TREES.
PHOTO REVIEW AND APPROVAL REQUIRED
PRIOR TO FINAL OF PERMIT.
T Poftar T(20 113
Pooar TaQ
ttZ
DQad
-7 S Z
(3) fo?lar 7roQ.�o Io bc, Cut
-II I M Ao Sf-r eo -
GNc-Zozo - ozss
M A 0 1 F -_:>-FREET
�(o
R; q �\t 04 tWa a
3 4
((Di �1i,n� MA�I�-s, (Ac¢� G1rCinA'�NM�
d\A0Ls
'i00 inch
� brQAs+
a
SQGts�n Alo�� 5�"Qa�.
ShAdQ to Sjr2A�^.
RECEIVED 7/30/20
15Z
1pt tom S-i'Qpt
((o) 9Qgl0Ac prn Qr--t- TrgpS
-I-,-, ki tic
EN CT-10-Lo- 0255
RECEIVED 8/4/20
I.
ISABasic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client ! Y C. Date Time
Address/Tree location Tree no. Sheet _L_ of
Tree species A 1^ dbh Height Crown stead dia.
Assessor(s) Tools used Time frame
Target Assessment
Target zone
(Q►�,�.�..�,.�.y,
____panic
M1
w
w
_C
C
C
T+n�
TagetP
2-orc anal
r
u ai
Fs�-CO`6t'"t
.9
awe a
1
/I/
r
5
2-:2',j]TkFl
3
4
Site Factors
History of failures 4 Topography FlatO Slop(p !!• j I 1"-),-% Aspect
Site changes Nonel5F�G_rade change❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil drology❑ Root cuts❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume MrSaturated 0 Shallow❑ CompactedO Pavement over roots[] % Describe_
Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong windM Ice[] Snow Heavy rain El Describe
Tree Heatth and Species Profile
Vigor Low ❑ Normal 13' High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal)[] None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic %
Pests/Biotic Abiotic
failureprofile Branches❑ Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describe
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Full E� Wind funneling❑ Relative crown sine Small ❑ Medium ❑ Large ❑
Crowndensity Sparse❑ Normal[] Densel[�12 Intedorbranches Few[] Normal0 Dense❑ Vhv!s/Mistletoe/Moss❑
Recent or expected change in load factors
Tree Defects and CorM'itions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and Branches —
Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR %
Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/branches ❑ %overall Max. dia.
Codor inant O Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia.
Cavity/Nestcirc.
Weak allachments ❑ hole %
Over-exoended brandies ❑
Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
g history
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood daniage/decay ❑
Crown ❑ Thinned ❑ _ J,-, Raised ❑
7f 'on
finks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped L owyv_ -tailed ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other
Response growth
Conditions)
of oDricem
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect WA ❑ Misr ❑ Moderate❑ Sigificant p0
Lead on I Ieed WA ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Lrlkeihoodoffaikue Improbable❑ Possible Probable ❑ lrivi*ierit❑
Ulkellwodoffaiure knprobable❑ Possible❑ Probable ❑ Imminent❑
—Trunk —
— Roots and Root Collar —
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑
Collar buried/Not visible 0 DepthStem girdling ❑
Codominant stems 0 Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑
Dead 0 Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers,/Galls,/Buris ❑ Sap ooze ❑
pie ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ.
Lightning damage❑ Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushroonis ❑
Cracks O Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk
Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑
Root plate lifting 0 Soil weakness ❑
Lean ' Corrected?
Response growth
Response growth __
Condition(s) of concern
Condition(s) of concern /-f r-fWE, -toL
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on deba WA ❑ Minor O Moderate O 5grificint ❑
Load on defect WA ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Sigrrfxant ❑
Likelihood of FAx Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable `)II Immirent ❑
W*Wwod offa& a Mprobable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Page I of 2
✓ice � , � .2 1��► r�r c �,
Skir Catpooritatinn
�
�-_iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Matrix 1. Ukeli ix)d matrix
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of knimt
Very low
Low
Medium
Hiigh
Imminent
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Very likely
Probable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Possible
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Improbable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Mntriv 7 Riclr r tint/ rn2rrix.
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
consequencesof FWkKe
amble
Minor
Significant
Severe
VM ilaely
Low
Moderate
High
Extreme
Likely
Low
Moderate
High
High
Somewhat likely
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Unlikely
Low
I Low
I Low
I Low
Notes, explanations, descriptions
-e
Mitigation options v
2.
3.
Residual risk_
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
a.
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High IV Extreme ❑
Overall residual risk None T Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Reaonvnended inspection interval
Data nal ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes Type/Reason
InspeEtion limitations one ❑Visibility ❑Access Mines Moot collar buried Describe
This daiasheet was produced by the lnternatioml Society of Ari iculture (iSA) — 2017 Page 2 of 2
1 �A Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client ! I Date '74) Time
Address/Tree location 7 Weeno. 1, Sheet of
Tree species doh Height Crown spread die.
frame
Assessor(s) Tools used Time
Tareet Assessment
Target zone
C
C
C
�
u�
1-rare
Y Y
w ii
C
.0 'm
'c
Target description
Target protection
%
2-occasiaal
v
V u
a+
��
er
~
3-frequent
�
ri` �iQ
w-mrutart
n E
a
1
2
3
4
te
History of failurese-e I S e� , jg � _ �po1RaPM Flat❑ Slope❑ % Aspect
Site changes None❑ Grade change❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soi hydrology Root cuts❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume❑ Saturated❑ Shallow[] Compacted❑ Pavement over roots❑ % Describe
Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds ElIce ElSnow ❑ Heavy rain ❑ Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
vigor Low ❑ Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal %
Pests/Biotic Abiotic
Speciesfailureprofile Branches❑ Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describe
Load Factors
wndezposure Protected❑ Partial❑ Full❑ wind funneling❑ Relativecrownsize Small❑ Medium❑ Large❑
Crowndensity Sparse❑ Normal❑ Dense❑ Inted"brandtes Few[] Normal❑ Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑
Chlorotic % Necrotic %
Recent or expected change in load factors
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and
Branches —
Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR %
Oacks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/branches $b %overall Max dia.
Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max da•
Vkakattachments ❑ Cavity/Nesthole %circ.
Over-ext nded branches ❑
Previous branch failures ❑ Similar brandies present ❑
Pruning AM
Dead/Missing bark ❑ CankiWGalls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑
Conks O Heartwood decay ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑
Flush cuts ❑ her
Response growth
Condition (s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defed N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate O Sigrrfirant ❑
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Wa Ntoodoffailum Improbable Possible Probable ❑ imminent
Lilgelliloodoffaillre 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/Buds ❑ 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 we ess ❑
Lean ' Corrected?
Response growth
Response growth
Condition(s) of concern�
r
Condition (s) of concern
Part Size Fal istan e —
Part Size Fall Distance
Load an defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ -V ifxant ❑
toad an defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate O Significant ❑
Lireilaootl offarNre Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable O Mminent ❑
liteliaood of faikre knprobable ❑ Passible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
'2- : ?- v�je rraAA c),
0
on
MEMO
EMMMM
0002000MMMONONNN
MINE
MENMENOMMMENOMEN
MINE
-_MOSEEMONOOMMOOME
MINE
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
%Wy low
Low
Medium
High
Imminent
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Very likely
Probable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Possible
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Improbable
Unlikel
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Mnf.iv 7 RieL r-Mina rrnrriv
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequencesof Failure
amble
Minor
Sigra Cwd
severe
Very likely
Low
Moderate
High
Extreme
Likely
Low
Moderate
High
High
Somewhat likely
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Unlikely
Low
Low
Low
Low
Notes, explanations, descriptions
e
Mitigation options
2.
3.
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High O Extreme ❑
overall residual risk None�a Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recoomnended inspection interval
Data final ❑ Preliminary //Advanced assessment needed ❑No Ones-Type/Reason
spe In ction limitations 9"ne ❑Visibility OAccess ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe
This datasheet was produced by the Internationd Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 Page 2 of 2
Client _
Address/Tree
Tree species_
Assessor(s) _
Basic Tree Risk Assessment form
Date I 16 7V- Time
Tree no._ Sheet of
dbh Height Crown spread dia.
Tools used rV10 Time frame
T�rmi Aee�cennwnt
History of failures ibpography Flat❑ Slope❑ % Aspect
Site changes None�7 Grade change❑ Site clean ❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts❑ Describe
Sod conditions Limited volume Saturated❑ ShallowO Compacted[] Pavement over roots❑ % Describe
Preva' ng wind dWection Common weather Strong winds O Ice ❑ Snow O Heavy rain El Describe
Tree HeaRh and Spedes Prolfile
V r Low ❑ Normal ElHigh ❑ Foliage None (seasonal)❑ None (dead)❑ Normal _% Chlorotic % Necrotic %
/Biotic Abotic
failureprofile Branches❑ Trunk❑ Roots[] Describe
Load Factors
wind exposure Protected O Partial O Full ❑ wind funneling❑ Relative crown sine Small ❑ Medium ❑ Large ❑
Crown density Sparse ❑ Normal[] Dense[] Interior brandies Few[] Normal[] Dense ❑ Vines/Mhdetoe/Moss ❑
Recent or expected change in load factors
Tree Defects and Condlitwons Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and Benches —
Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Dead tw4p/branches ❑ %overall Max. ilia. corbnwnant ❑ Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Maxdra. VWak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nesthole %circ.
Over -attended brandies ❑ Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
Pruning history Dead/MWrg bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped Q�j Lion -tailed ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other /` Response growth
Condition (s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance
Wad an defect WA ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Srgnifirant);b Load on defect WA ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
likeihoodoffa"e improbable Possible❑ Probable ❑ knnwrent ❑ Lidiroodoffarillm knprobable❑ Possible Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
—Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar —
Dead/hAissing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑
Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead O Decay O Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers,/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze O Cavity ❑ % circ.
Lightning damage[] Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk
Cavity/Nest We % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑
Lean " Corrected? Response growth
Response growth Conditions) of concern
Condition (s) of concern w '
Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance
Wad on defect WA ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ SigrwficaMt Wad on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
IiceihoodoFfadure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable imminent❑ lireihoodoffailure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable ❑ knminent ❑
�arvic I - [ . 2
fire& r=feOnfi72hM.
Likelihood
of Failure
I
mood of kupad
Yery low
Low
Mr dwn
High
knminent
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Wry likely
Probable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Possible
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
somewhat likely
Improbable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Negligible
Minn
Significant
severe
Very likely
Low
Moderate
High
Extreme
Likely
LOW
Moderate
High
High
Somewhat Mmly
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Unlikely
Low
Low
Low
Low
Notes, explanations, descriptions
Mitigation options
Residual risk
Residual risk
2.
Residual risk
3.
Residual risk
overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ HigrE] Extreme ❑
overall residual risk None W L.ow ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data CP'inal ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No E]yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations 9wne Olftsibility ❑Access Nines Moot collar buried Describe
This datasheet was produced by the )ntmanional Society of Arboriculture QSA) — 2017 Page 2 of 2
Katy Bigelow
206.351.1375
arboristkaty@gmail.com
June 19, 2020
Peggy Weirauch
777 Maple St.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear Mrs. Weirauch:
Thank you for asking me to assess trees on property you own in Edmonds, Washington. To
evaluate the trees addressed in this letter I combined my field experience and education with
current accepted practices as defined by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and
the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA).
The tools I used to make an assessment are limited to a rubber mallet, binoculars, compass, laser
pointer, diameter tape and hand trowel unless otherwise noted_ A visual tree assessment and
other methods are only conclusive for the day of inspection and do not guarantee that conditions
will remain the same in the future.
I was asked by Mr. Weirauch to assess a number of trees on her property including a row of trees
growing in an alley bordering the north property line. On June 15, 2020 I completed a Level 2
tree assessment. All levels of tree assessment are explained in an attachment to this report.
A row of Italian poplar (Populus nigra `Italica') trees originally planted in a line running east to
west make up most of the vegetation that populates the alley (Photo 1). Soils in which their
critical root zones are growing ranges from drier to very saturated. At the west edge of the row,
due to saturated soil conditions, one of the more mature trees had a total root zone failure and fell
towards the north.
The entire row of poplars has been historically topped, several times. All of the main tree trunks
have various sizes of open wounds at topping wounds with varying degrees of internal trunk rot
in those areas. As usual for this species, the trees have grown vigorously in response to the last
topping and new leading trunks are poorly attached to rotting areas of main trunks.
Although all of the poplar trees pose varying and mainly low degrees of risk to the subject
property, three trees should be removed to reduce risk to off property targets. Although it is
likely that more work will need to occur in the future only three trees should be worked on at this
time. The Maps show the approximate locations of three trees discussed below. To the best of
my knowledge all three trees are standing in the alley.
Tree assessment — Weirauch
777 Maple St., Edmonds, WA
6/19/20
Tree 1 (25" Diameter at Breast Height, DBH) is growing in the middle of the row of trees (Photo
2). It was previously topped at approximately 18' and ivy grows up its trunk to this height.
Based on sounding the lower trunk has significant internal trunk rot. The possibility of leading
trunks breaking off at the topping wound is high and the possibility of the trunks hitting off
property targets to the north is high. Failure could be likely within one year.
Tree 2 is dead (10" DBH). It has already failed in its low trunk and leans into Tree 3 (Photo 3).
Based on sounding, Tree 3 (18" DBH) has significant internal lower trunk rot. The tree is
already leaning to the north, towards off property targets (Photo 3). Its new leading trunks are
not well attached to the previous topping wounds and there is a high probability of damage if tree
or tree part failure occurs. Failure could be likely within one year.
• All three trees should be removed to the ground.
• If at all possible, I strongly recommend all three stumps be ground out so re -growth does
not occur.
• All tree parts excluding a few lengths of logs should be removed from the site. The
trees have too much debris to be left on site or even to be left and slashed in place. There
will be too many logs to leave on site even if several are scattered around — most should
be removed.
The remaining poplars in the row should be carefully monitored after tree removal is completed.
Specifically, watch for any unusual leaning of trunks or, any unusual leaning in the upper
canopies suggesting that leading trunks have failed. A re -assessment is recommended within
two years.
According to a memo titled Procedures for Obtaining Permitting and Approval for Tree Removal
or Trimming within City of Edmonds Rights -of -Way, replanting is required to mitigate the
removal of trees according to Matrix 1.
Matrix 1
§5 — Tree Replanting and Replacement Schedule:
Caliper4 of Tree Removed
Replacement Recommendation
6" — 8"
1 tree
8" —12"
2 trees
12" —18"
3 trees
18" — 24"
4 trees
24" +
5 trees
Although the matrix suggests replacement recommendations using caliper, the definition of
caliper is incorrect in the explanation of the word in the memo. The states that "caliper" is
measured at four feet above grade while the nursery trade finds caliper for trees
Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 2 of 10
Tree assessment — Weirauch
777 Maple St., Edmonds, WA
6/19/20
with calipers four inches and under to be measured six inches from the soil, and trees
with calipers over four inches to be measured 12 inches above the soil.
In the field I used the most standard protocol for my profession of measuring a tree which is
using Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) — a diameter measurement taken at 4.5 feet above grade.
Using this method, the combined diameters of the two live trees recommended for removal
equals 43". It is my opinion that installing five (or more) trees will adequately re-create the
functions the trees slated for removal currently provide to the property.
Installing new trees near the northwestern portion of the property would be beneficial in
improving the function and habitat values provided by the existing vegetation. Currently these
values include bird and wildlife perches and nesting areas, and ground water update. Mrs.
Weirauch has already planting many saplings with these goals in mind.
To continue to replace functions and fulfill permitting requirements, native tree species including
vine maple (Acer circinatum) or Western red cedar (Thuja plicata — small cultivars only) are
good choices for this site and several smaller diameter trees can be added although replanting
areas are limited (see Map 2). A range of native willow species as whips or small saplings can
also be planted in abundance if desired. If planted near each other, leave at least ten feet between
each new tree or between a new tree and an existing tree. Planting in the fall months and
surrounding the base of new plants with a few inches of mulch (arborist chips, not bark only
products) can help new trees establish. Provide deep watering to newly planted trees for up to
one year after installment.
Finally, before work is completed, this report must be submitted with Right -of -Way Permit
Application. Please share this report with your working arborist to confirm work specifications.
I recommend all work specified below be completed within six months of this report.
Thank you very much for calling me for your arboricultural concerns.
Katy Bigelow
Board Master Certified Arborist
PNW ISA member # PN-6039B
Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Registered Consulting Arborist® #490
Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 3 of 10
Tree assessment — Weirauch
777 Maple St., Edmonds, WA
6/19/20
Levels of Tree Assessment
LEVEL 1: The Level 1 assessment is a visual assessment from a specified perspective of an individual
tree or a population of trees near specified targets to identify obvious defects or specified conditions. A
limited visual assessment typically focuses on identifying trees with an imminent and/or probable
likelihood of failure.
Limited visual assessments are the fastest but least thorough means of assessment and are intended
primarily for large populations of trees.
LEVEL 2: This is a basic assessment completing a detailed visual inspection of a tree and surrounding
site, and a synthesis of the information collected. This assessment requires that a tree risk assessor walk
completely around the tree —looking at the site, buttress roots, trunk, and branches.
A basic assessment may include the use of simple tools to gain additional information about the tree or
defects. Basic is the standard assessment that is performed by arborists in response to a client's request
for tree risk assessment. Simple tools may be used for measuring the tree and acquiring more information
about the tree or defects. However, the use of these tools is not mandatory unless specified in the Scope of
Work.
LEVEL 3: Advanced assessments are performed to provide detailed information about specific tree
parts, defects, targets, or site conditions. They are usually conducted in conjunction with or after a basic
assessment if the tree risk assessor needs additional information and the client approves the additional
service. Specialized equipment, data collection and analysis, and/or expertise are usually required for
advanced assessments. These assessments are therefore generally more time intensive and more
expensive.
' t' Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 4 of 10
Tree assessment — Weirauch
777 Maple St., Edmonds, WA
6/19/20
Maps
�777 Maple Street
14 n n dnve nomo
8 Nt
Map 1: Subject property showing the alley north of the property, in which the trees grow.
' t' Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 5 of 10
Tree assessment — Weirauch
777 Maple St., Edmonds, WA
6/19/20
Map 2: Approximate tree locations.
43P Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 6 of 10
Tree assessment — Weirauch
777 Maple St., Edmonds, WA
6/19/20
Photos
Photo 1: Looking east with the row of poplar trees on the left hand side of the photo (north
property line).
' t' Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 7 of 10
Tree assessment — Weirauch
777 Maple St., Edmonds, WA
6/19/20
Photo 3: Bases of Trees 2 and 3.
' t' Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 9 of 10
Tree assessment — Weirauch
777 Maple St., Edmonds, WA
6/19/20
Assumptions, Limiting Conditions and General Waiver
I, Katy Bigelow, certify that:
I have personally inspected the tree(s) and or the property referred to in this report;
I have no current or prospective financial or other interest in the vegetation or the property which
is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias in favor of or against any of the
involved parties or their respective position(s), if any;
The analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are the product of my independent
professional judgment and based on current scientific procedures and facts, and the foregoing
report was prepared according to commercially reasonable and generally accepted arboricultural
standards and practices for the Pacific Northwest and Puget Sound areas;
The information included in this report covers only those trees that were examined and reflects
the condition of the trees as of the time and date of inspection;
This report and the opinions expressed herein are not intended, nor should they be construed, as
any type of warranty or guarantee regarding the condition of the subject trees in the future;
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions ("CC&Rs") may restrict the number, type and height of
vegetation on the subject property, and I have made no investigation regarding whether the
property is subject to such CC&Rs; and
To the best of my knowledge and belief, all statements and information in this report are true and
correct and information provided by others is assumed to be true and correct.
I am not an attorney or engineer. This report does not cover these areas of expertise and
represents advice only of arboricultural nature. Without limiting the generality of the preceding
sentence, it is specifically understood that nothing contained in this report is intended as legal
advice, or advice or opinions regarding soil stability or zoning laws, and this report should not be
relied upon to take the place of such advice.
Katy Bigelow
Board Master Certified Arborist
PNW ISA member # PN-6039B
Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Registered Consulting Arborist® #490
Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 10 of 10