Hazard tree removal CRA2021-0026CITY OF EDMONDS
121 51" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
,Ile. 189\)
March 11, 2021
Rus Kroshko
City of Lynnwood
19100 441" Avenue W
Lynnwood, WA 98036
rkroshko@lynnwoodwa.gov
Subject: Hazard Tree Removal (CRA2021-0026)
Dear Mr. Kroshko,
You have approached the City of Edmonds regarding the possible removal of a red alder tree on
a City of Lynnwood property adjacent to 16915 Talbot Road. The tree is located near the top of
a steep slope which falls off towards the east. While owned by the City of Lynnwood, the parcel
is under the jurisdiction of the City of Edmonds jurisdiction and pursuant to Chapters 23.40 and
23.80 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), the slope is considered to be a
critical area.
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.8. Normal maintenance of vegetation is an allowed activity in critical areas.
"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 alder is larger than 4" DBH so tree hazard evaluation is
required.
The tree was assessed by certified arborist Stephen DiBiase using the ISA Tree Risk Assessment
Form and the tree was determine to pose an over high risk and thus qualifies as a hazard tree.
The alder must be left as a wildlife snag, if feasible. Because the hazard tree is being removed
from a critical area, replacement with two native trees for every tree removed is required. It
has been indicated that two replacement trees will be planted, but the species has not been
identified.
An exemption for tree cutting is granted with the following conditions:
1. Only the identified alder tree may be cut. It must be left as a snag, if feasible.
2. The downed wood may be left onsite or removed.
3. Prior to planting of replacement trees, the species must be approved by the City of
Edmonds.
If you have any questions, please let me know at either kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov or 425-
771-0220.
Sincerely,
Kernen Lien
Environmental Programs Manager
Encl: Email Request
ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Photos
u: Sui1e; .Dan
bject RE: Tree rertwval
De4: Wednesday, MarcM1 10, 203111:%:14 AM
Alrxbmems:
Hi Kernen,
Please see the attached image for the site plan. I made a visit to the property today and took some measurements to identify the tree that will be taken down.
We will get the replacement trees planted soon, I'm thinking within the next month. They will most likely be deciduous. I will let you know as soon as we pick them out.
Let me know if there is anything else that is needed.
Thank you,
Rus Krashko 1Supem—
PubIll World / Sm— and Smrm Dimaion
19100 — Ave W, Lynnwood, WA 9803
%r: 415-8)0-53311 Ce11: 415-754 59
From: Rus Kroshko
Sent: Monday, March 8, 202110:42 AM
To: Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Gooding, Dan <Dan.Gooding@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: RE: Tree removal
Sorry about that. for some reason it opens for me. I printed and scanned the pdf to myself. It is attached
Rus Kroshko I supemaor
Public Works / 5areea and Smrm DMaion
From: Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lbza@etlmondswa eov>
Sent: Monday, March 8, 20211027 AM
To: Rus Kroshko <rkroshko(aLynnwoodwa eo
Cc: Gooding, Dan <Dan Gnodine a(tedmondsw
Subject: RE: Tree removal
When I open the pdf, none of those bottom boxes are checked:
Overall tree risk rating Low O Moderate O High O Extreme O Work priority 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 O
Overall residual risk Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme O Recommended inspection interval _
Data OFinal 0 Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ONO OYes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations ONone OVisibility OAccess OVines ORoot collar buried Describe
sell.
Zom: Rus Kroshko <rkroshkona Lvnnwor
nt: Monday, March 8, 202110:24 AM
To: Lien, Kernen <Kernen Lend Edm r
Cc: Gooding, Dan <Dan Coodine(aedmn
Subject: RE: Tree removal
Hi Kerner,
As I look over this pdf, I see that the overall risk rating is marked as high. Unless I'm missing this altogether. Can you confirm? I highlighted it in the image below.
III work on getting the site plan for replanting the trees
�0 MMOME
ESON
0��00
- I
Rus Kroshko I Supervisor
Public Work, / Srreer and Swrm DMsion
19100 44rh Ave W, Lynnwood, WA 98036
Ph: 425-670-52321 Cell: 425-754 59
From: Lien, Kernen <Kernen.l ien(detlmandswa eav>
Sent: Friday, March 5, 20214:16 PM
To: Rus Kroshko <rkroshko(d Lvnnwoodwa.aov>
Cc: Gooding, Dan <Dan Good'neldedmondswa eo >
Subject: RE: Tree removal
Hi Rus,
The tree risk assessment form was not filled out all the way, the overall tree risk rating was not identified. The overall risk rating must by high or extreme to be considered a hazard tree. Also please provide a site plan identifying the trees
proposed for removal as well as proposed replacement trees and the location of the replacement trees.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Kernen Lien I Environmental Programs Manager
City of Edmonds — Planning Division
425-771-0220 ext. 1223
From: Rus Kroshko <rkroftmaa Lynnwoodwa any
Sent: Monday, February 22, 202112:53 PM
To: Lien, Kernen < Kernen. Lien P edmondsw
Cc: Gooding, Dan <Dan Good'neraedmondsw
Subject: RE: Tree removal
Hi Lien,
I had our contractor fill out the paperwork and it Is attached.
Rus Kroshko I supemscr
Public Works / Srreer and Swrm DMsion
19100 44th Ave W. Lynnwood, WA 9801
Ph: 425d 52321 Cell: 425.754 59
From: Lien, Kernen <Kernem Lien(oletlmontlswa eov>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 202111:43 AM
To: Rus Kroshko <rkroshkotaLyn owoodwa eo
Cc: Gooding, Dan <Dan Gooding Oedmondsw
Subject: RE: Tree removal
Hi Rus,
The tree is at the top ofa landslide hazard area and could be removed without a permit pursuant to ECDC234D220.C.8.b is it is documented to be a hazard tree by a certified arborist. Hazard tree removals in critical areas or critical area
buffers are required to be replaced at a ratio of the 2:1 with native and indigenous species. lust email me the hazard tree documentation (we prefer the arborist to fill out the ISA Tree Risk Assessment Form) and identify what the
replacement trees will be. Note that replacement trees must be at least 6 feet in height for evergreen species and 1-1/2" caliper for deciduous species.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Kernen Lien I Environmental Programs Manager
City of Edmonds — Planning Division
425-771-0220 ext. 1223
From: Rus Kroshko <rkrashkoOl-vonwoodwacov>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 7:24 AM
To: Gooding, Dan <Dan Goodingna edmondswa eov>
Subject: Tree removal
Good morning,
I was hoping to get some information on how to proceed with a tree removal. The city of Lynnwood owns some property at to the East of 16915 Talbot Rd property line. This property butts up to the city of Lynnwood treatment plant Please
see image below,
I was looking through the website in hopes of applying for a tree removal but did not have much luck. Can you point me in the right direction?
This Alder tree appears to have a cavity inside of the tree which doesn't look stable. The residents at 16915 Talbot Rd reached out to us to assist in removal.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
Rus Kroshko I Supervior
Public Work, / Street and Smrm Division
19100 44th Ave W. Lynnwood, WA 98036
Ph:425-670-52321 Ce11: 425-7540459
wwwiynn
ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client City of Lynnwood Date Feb. 22,2021 Time 10:30am
Address/Tree location 16915 Talbot Rd., Edmonds WA Tree no.1 Sheet 1 of 1
Tree species Red Alder dbh28" Height 85 feet Crown spread dia. 40'
Assessor(s) Stephen DiBiase ISA PN1818 TRAQ Time frame 3 years Tools usedprobe, tape , Compass
Tararat Accaccmant
Targetzone
Occupancy
�•
c
c
a
E
=
rate
1-rare
y m
c
H c
Target description
3
m
F c
3=
x
2-occasional
y
L u
a
Wn
3-frequent
u
+`• u
4-constant
L E
WU a
1
Residential house, address above
✓
4
no
no
2
3
4
++
ane ractors
History of failures Broken limbs Topography Flat❑ SlopeO 80 % Aspect East
Site changes NOneE Grade change❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume N Saturated ❑ Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe
Prevailing wind direction SW Common weather Strong winds E Ice❑ Snow❑ Heavy rain E Describe Puget Sound, unobstructed
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low ❑ Normal 0 High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) N None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic %
Pests Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches K Trunk E Roots E Describe very Mature Red Alder, Broken limb sites with cavities
Load Factors
Windexposure Protected❑ Partial❑ Fully Windfunneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium❑O Large❑
Crowndensity SparseN Normal❑ Dense❑ Interior branches FewW Normal❑ Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑
Recent or planned 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 ❑ -% overall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Weak attachments ❑
Cavity/Nest hole %circ.
Over -extended branches N
Pruning history
Previous branch failures N Similar branches present 0
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay❑
Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay W
Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth
Main concern(s) Heartwood decay. Interior cavity in base greater than one third of holding wood.
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant W
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable N Imminent ❑
—Trunlc — — 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 N 30 % circ.
Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decayE Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk
Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑
Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness N
Lean " Corrected?
Response growth Yes Response growth Yes, large cavity with response growth
Main concern(s) Load on decayed base. Main concern(s) Cavity. Roots compromised on critical side
Steep slope.
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant f Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant 0
Likelihood of failure A Likelihood of failure
Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable N Imminent ❑ Improbable ❑ Possible N Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Page I of 2
Risk Cateeorization
c
o
v
Tree part
Conditions
of concern
N
v
aL
u
C
y
_�
i
*'
Target
protection
Likelihood
Consequences
Risk
rating
of part
(from
Matrix 2)
Failure
Impact
Failure & Impactcu
(from Matrix 11
w
o
a
e$
a
m
d
°
o
>
>
3
°
m
_
v
Y
3
E
°
?
Y
>
>
a
m
.m
z"
c
m
v
1
base
Large cavity 11 "x
18", open on both
sides in 28" dbh
85'
50'
1
none
moderat
2
3
4
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
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
1 Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Improbable
I Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Mntrix2. Risk rating matrix.
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Negligible
Minor
Significant
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 Large cavity with reaction wood
Growth. Limbs and lean to southeast away from target. More than 1/3 of
base holding wood missing. 28" DBH with 11"x18" cavity plus decayed
Wood in base.
Cavity North
Mitigation options Critical structural support compromised, heavy trunk weight. Could leave a Residual risk
Standing 20 foot"snag" for wildlife habitat. Lean is away from house Residual risk Low
Take down entire tree Residual risk No risk
Residual risk
overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ■ Extreme ❑
overall residual risk Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑
Work priority 10 2❑ 3 E 4❑
Recommended inspection interval
Data N Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed fNo ❑Yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations NNone ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe
'I his dua.heeL eras prOki uccd bi. the ISO Ciet) of ArburiadUire (I SA) and is inLrnded liir use by free Risk Assesnnent QLKIIHied (TRAQ) arburBLS -'_01
Page 2 of 2
�f i
45
lob
r
jk
� � �j••• JIL• ;�ti� ; � .f1�Ls'� t S�r � .ts
two
i .-�• I ��a
+ , Tre -;dip
-
M Jar'
w,.
1 +
►i a �• .41
'� _ � � �` , '�,t�;� 'yam. �r �� ! •' '�CP
%em