REVIEWED RESUB1 BLD2021-1686+TRA+4.7.2022_9.32.43_AM+2787818April 6, 2022
Kayla Clark Nichols
Project Coordinator
Select Homes, Inc.
206.963.3365
Site: 7918 203rd St SW
Edmonds, WA 98029
TPN: 27041900112700
Size of area: .51 acres
RESUB
Apr 07 2022
CITY OF EDMONDS
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
' `�-edti�i*tWEP Solutions
BY918 203rd St SW
CITY OF EDMONDS
BLD2021-1686
Re: RFI Dated August 241h, 2021 -changes highlighted in yellow
ii. Provide an updated tree retention and protection plan consistent with ECDC 23.10.060.B.2
and an appraisal for significant trees greater than 24inches that are to be removed
consistent with ECDC 23.10.080.E.3. Any tree cutting proposed on the site that is not
a hazardous situation and/or not necessary as part of the subdivision improvements
will be reviewed at the time of building permit application.
v. Provide a cost estimate to be used to determine the performance tree bond required in
ECDC 23.10.090.
vi. Provide additional documentation showing the advanced decay in Tree #701 to justify its
removal.
RFI Approval subject to: (see update in discussion highlighted in green)
1. Inconsistencies between sheet TP-01 and Sheet L-1 (corrected by RAM Engineering)
2. Submit TRAQ or Level 3 TRA for tree #701 (Tom Hanson)
3. Offsite tree protection inconsistency Tree D (RAM Engineering)
a. Suggested conversation with neighbors (up to discretion of applicant)
4. Tree replacements (miscalculated tree replacements) Updated per ECDC 23.10.080.A
a. 583 tree replacement (2, not 1) 1 is correct
b. 584 (appraisal, not 3) Appraisal provided by Tom Hanson
c. 715 (3, not 2) updated to be corrected
d. 701 (appraisal not 3) The condition of tree 701 did not change, the word changed
to better comply with Edmonds's terminology. The tree should be removed
5. Appraisals for removed trees 24" DBH & Larger (provided by Tom Hanson and shown on
page 15)
6. Proposed site improvements retain 54% of original trees, no fees -in -lieu -of are required
Dear Kayla:
Thank you for requesting my services. On April 5th, 2021, we visited the site located above in
Edmonds, WA to perform a Level 2 Tree Risk Assessment (TRA) for all onsite trees as well as offsite
trees with driplines that extend over the site. The information gathered and included in this report is
necessary to apply for a short -plat permit.
In summary:
Tree Density Calculations
Total number of onsite trees
35
Total number of trees removed for site improvements
13
Total number of tree credits
35
Total number of healthy tree creds
32*1
Total number of required tree credits (35*.3)
11
Total number of retained tree credits
19
Mitigation
24
*1 #701 healthy per City of Edmonds Assessment
I have included a detailed report of my findings. If you have any questions, please call me. I can be
reached on my cell phone: 425.890.3808 or by email: sorince2020)aol.com.
Creative Landscape Solutions 2
7918 203rd St SW
Warm regards,
Susan Prince
Creative Landscape Solutions
ISA Certified Arborist: PN #1418A
TRACE Certified Arborist: #418
17518 NE 119t" Way
Redmond, WA 98052
* Per City of Edmonds 23.10.020(P) Significant Tree - A tree that is at least six (6) inches in diameter at breast
height (DBH) as measured at 4.5 feet from the ground. For trees with multiple leaders at four and one-half (4.5)
feet height, the DBH shall be the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six (6) inches diameter at
four and one-half (4.5) feet above the average grade. If a tree has been removed and only the stump remains that
is below four and one-half (4.5) feet tall, the size of the tree shall be the diameter of the top of the stump.
Creative Landscape Solutions 1 3
7918 203rd St SW
Personal qualifications, scope of work and methodology
My examination was limited to a visual one, and did not involve any root excavation, trunk
or limb coring, or any soil testing. To evaluate the trees and prepare the report, I drew on
my formal college education in botany, preparation and training used to obtain my ISA
certification in addition to my certification as a Tree Risk Assessor. I have worked in the
field of arboriculture since 1996, have been an ISA Certified Arborist for since 1999, and
have been TRACE/TRAQ certified since 2009.
I followed protocol delineated by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for Tree
Risk Assessment (TRA). By doing so, I am examining each tree independently as well as
collectively as groups or stands of trees provide stability and can lower risk of independent
tree failure. This scientific process examines tree health (e.g., size, vigor, insect, and
disease process) as well as site conditions (soil moisture and composition, the quantity of
impervious surfaces surrounding the tree etc.)
Introduction:
Identifying and managing the risks associated with trees is still largely a subjective process.
Since the exact nature of tree failures remains largely unknown, our ability as scientists and
arborists to predict which trees will fail and in what fashion remains limited. As currently
practiced, the science of hazard tree evaluation involves examining a tree for structural
defects, including genetic problems, those caused by the local environmental that the tree
grows in and those attributed to man (pruning etc.).
The assessment process involves evaluating three components: 1) a tree with the potential
to fail, 2) an environment that may contribute to that failure, and 3) a person or object that
would be injured or damaged (the target). A defective tree cannot be considered hazardous
without the presence of a target.
All trees have a finite life -span though it is not pre-programmed internally in the same
manner as annual plantings. As trees age, they are less able to compartmentalize structural
damage following injury from insects, disease or pruning. Trees in urban settings have a
shorter life span than trees grown in an undisturbed habitat.
Each species and variety of tree grows differently. Evergreen trees have a "reputation" of
growing slowly and defensively. These trees allocate a high proportion of their resources to
defending themselves from pathogens, parasites, and wounds. As a rule, trees with this
type of growth tend to be long lived. Though like all other living things, they have a
predictable life span. Examples of this type of tree include the northwest Pseudotsuga
menziesii - Douglas fir, and Thuja piicata - Western red cedar.
Deciduous trees are trees that annually shed leaves or needles. These trees tend to grow
quickly and try to "outgrow" problems associated with insects, disease and wounds. They
allocate a relatively small portion of their internal resources to defense and rely instead
upon an ability to grow more quickly than the pathogens which infect them. However, as
these trees age, their growth rate declines, and the normal problems associated with decay
begins to catch up and compromise the tree's structural integrity. Examples of this type of
tree include Saiix, Popuius and Ainus.
Knowledge of the growth and failure patterns of individual tree species is critical to effective
hazard analysis. Species vary widely in their rates of failure. The hazard tree evaluation
rating system used by most arborists was developed by the Colorado Urban Forest Council
and recognizes this variation in species failure and includes a species component as part of
the overall hazard evaluation.
Creative Landscape Solutions 1 4
7918 203rd St SW
Methods used to determine tree location and tree health:
Trees were identified previously by numbered aluminum tags attached to the western side
of the tree. All the trees on site were examined using the Matheny and Clark' criteria for
determining the potential hazard of trees in an urban environment as well as the Tree Risk
Assessment in Urban Areas and The Urban/Rural Interface by Julian Dunster2. Tree
diameters were measured at DSH (diameter standard height - 4.5' above ground) using a
logger's tape. Tree driplines were measured using a PRO Laser RangefinderTm-
Spreadsheet Legend:
1. Tree tag #: Numbered aluminum tags attached to the trees in the field*'
2. Species: The Latin and common name five a tree
3. Species: Species ID: Spreadsheet contains common names of trees which correspond to scientific
names as follows:
• Apple: Malus sp.
• American sycamore: Plantanus occidentalis
• Austrian pine: Pinus nigra
• Bigleaf maple: Acer macrophyllum
• Birch: Betula nigra
• Bitter Cherry: Prunus emarginata
• Blue atlas cedar: Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca'
• Cedar: Thuja plicata
• Cherry: Prunus sp.
• Dawn redwood: Chamaecyparis nootkatensis
• Deodora cedar: Cedrus deodara
• Colorado blue spruce: Picea pungens
• Cottonwood: Populus trichocarpa
• Dogwood: Corpus nuttallii
• Douglas fir: Pseudotsuga menziesii
• English laurel: Prunus laurocerasus
• Filbert: Corylus avellana var.
• Grand fir: Abies grandis
• Hemlock: Tsuga hetrophylla
• Holly: Ilex aquifolium
• Japanese maple: Acer palmatum
• Leylandii cypress: Cupressocyparis leylandii
• Lodgepole pine: Pinus contorta
• Mountain ash: Sorbus americans
• Nobel fir: Abies procera
• Pear: Pyrus sp.
• Plum: Prunus
• Red Alder: Alnus rubra
• Red maple: Acer rubrum
• Walnut: Juglans sp.
• Western red cedar: Thuja plicata
• Weeping Alaska cedar: Metasequoia glyptostrobides
• White fir: Abies concolor
• White pine: Pinus strobus4. DBH: Diameter of the tree measured at 42" above grade
5. Adjusted Diameter of the tree: Calculated equivalent for multi -stemmed tree
6. Dripline Radius: Measurement in feet of the tree canopy from tree trunk to outermost branch tip
7.A. Windfirm: Whether the tree as a single retained tree has the trunk taper and buttress roots to
enable it to withstand strong gusts of
7.B. OK in Grove: the tree might not be windfirm as a stand-alone tree, however, it might be able to
be retained if it is located within a retained grove of 3+ trees with touching canopies.
8. Health: A measurement of overall tree vigor and vitality rated as excellent, good, and fair or poor
based on an assessment of crown density, leaf color and size, active callusing, shoot growth
rate, extent of crown dieback, cambium layer health, and tree age
Creative Landscape Solutions 5
7918 203rd St SW
• Excellent: Tree is an ideal specimen for the species with no obvious flaws
• Good: Tree has minimal structural or situational defects
• OK: Tree has minimal structural defects AND minimal environmental concerns
• Fair: Tree has structural or health issues that predispose it to failure if further stressed
• Poor: Tree has significant structural and/or health issues. It is exempt from total tree count.
9. Defects/Concerns: A measure of the tree's structural stability and failure potential and rated as
good, fair or poor based on assessment of specific structural features, e.g.., decay, conks, co -
dominant trunks, included bark, abnormal lean, one-sided canopy, history of failure, prior
construction impact, pruning history, etc.
10. Proposed action:
• Retain
• Remove due to viability
• Remove due to planned development (tree is otherwise healthy)
11. Limits of disturbance: The area surrounding the tree that defines the area that surrounds the
trunk that cannot be encroached upon during construction. This may be a multiple of the trunk
diameter (1 -1.5 times the trunk diameter converted to feet.) or it may be related to the width
of the canopy. It is always determined by tree species and environment and is up to the
discretion of the ISA Certified Arborist to determine.
12. Tree Value: The measure of the tree by the municipality. Value maybe determined by the tree
SBH or it may be based on a table of corresponding tree credits, or it may be a % of the
number of trees on site.
Creative Landscape Solutions
7918 203rd St SW
Specific Onsite Tree Observations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Proposed
Action
CRZ/TPZ/LOD
v
v
Retain
Remove
Radius in feet
~
a)
v
m
v
+�
�
#
Tree
Tag
Species
DBH
DABIi
Drip-
line
Wind-
OK in
Health
Defects/Comments
�'
v
E
o
#
ID
(in)
(in)
radius
firm
Grove
T
L v
w
c
a
(ft)
+�
u
+�
)
+�
Q
o E
>;
N
W
E
S
c
rn
v
a i
=
Q
a�
j
j
E
w E
'
CY —
1
577
Douglas
14
14
14
OK
Typical of species
1
14
14
14
14
1
2
fir
2
578
Douglas
12
12
12
OK
Co -dominant canopy,
1
12
12
12
12
1
2
fir
typical of species
Asymmetric canopy
3
579
Madrona
6
6
9
OK
towards east, lean
1
9
9
9
9
1
1
towards east, typical
of species
Lean towards east,
4
581
Madrona
8
8
12
OK
asymmetric canopy
1
12
12
12
12
1
1
towards east, typical
of species
Dead top, asymmetric
5
582
Bigleaf
10
10
8
Poor
canopy towards east,
1
8
8
8
8
1
maple
dead wood, broken
branches
Calloused wound @
6
583
Elm
10
10
15
Fair
10' towards west, lean
1
15
15
15
15
1
1
towards west, typical
of species
Western
7
584
red
32
32
21
OK
Typical of species
1
21
21
21
21
1
cedar
Western
Thin canopy,
8
585
red
17
17
12
OK
asymmetric canopy
1
12
12
12
12
1
1
cedar
towards east, typical
of species
Creative Landscape Solutions
7918 203rd St SW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Proposed
Action
CRZ/TPZ/LOD
v
v
Retain
Remove
Radius in feet
~
v
v
°Tree
�
Species
DBH
Adj��'
Drip-
line
Wind-
OK in
H
E
#
Tag
ID
(in)
pBH
radius
firm
Grove
Health
Defects/Comments
v
v
c
o
a
#
(in)
ift)
L
o E
w
—
v
m
v
v
v
>
N
W
E
S
rn
v
2
t
c
s
O 0in
v
>
>
Q
aEi E
Western
9
586
red
9
9
9
OK
Typical of species
1
9
9
9
9
1
1
cedar
Thin canopy, previous
10
587
Douglas
31
31
16
OK
top loss, elongated
1
16
16
16
16
1
1
fir
branches t
typical of
species
Suppressed canopy,
Douglas
asymmetric canopy
11
588
fir
8
8
8
OK
towards west, free
1
8
8
8
8
1
1
flowing sap, typical of
species
Asymmetric canopy
12
589
Douglas
22
22
14
OK
towards south free
1
14
14
14
14
1
1
fir
flowing sap, typical of
species
Asymmetric canopy
Douglas
towards south, low live
13
590
fir
20
20
15
Fair
crown ratio <30 /o,
1
15
15
15
15
1
1
exposed roots, typical
of species
Low live crown ratio
<20%, horizontal
14
591
Douglas
19
19
12
Fair
crack @ 50' towards
1
12
12
12
12
1
1
fir
east, typical of
species, bulge @ 4'
towards north
Western
Co -dominant leaders
15
592
red
14
14
14
Fair
with included bark x2
1
14
14
14
14
1
1
cedar
@ 10', hanger, typical
of species
Creative Landscape Solutions
7918 203rd St SW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Proposed
Action
CRZ/TPZ/LOD
an
Q)
Retain
Remove
Radius in feet
~
a)
a)
+�
#
Tree
Tag
Species
DBH
Adj'
DBH
Drip-
line
Wind-
OK in
Health
Defects/Comments
Q)
H
c
fu
+;
o
a)
E
°;
fu
#
ID
(in)
(in)
radius
firm
Grove
�, _
o
w
fu
v
v
E
a
N
W
E
S
rn
aai
N
2
t
t
> p
fl
j
j
E
Bigleaf
Moss and lichen,
16
701
maple
36
36
22
Poor *1
previous scaffold lost
1
22
22
22
22
1
@ 40' towards east
Asymmetric canopy
Douglas
towards south, dead
17
702
fir
23
23
16
OK
wood, broken
1
16
16
16
16
1
1
branches, typical of
species
Low live crown ratio
Douglas
<30%, asymmetric
18
703
fir
13
13
14
OK
canopy towards
1
14
14
14
14
1
1
southwest, typical of
species
Previous top loss,
19
704
Douglas
24
24
16
OK
elongated branches,
1
16
16
16
16
1
1
fir
thin canopy, typical of
species
Western
Calloused wound @ 4'
20
705
red
16
16
14
OK
towards north, thin
1
14
14
14
14
1
1
cedar
canopy, typical of
species
Western
Suppressed canopy,
21
706
red
10
10
8
OK
typical of species
1
8
8
8
8
1
1
cedar
Western
Thin canopy,
22
707
red
25
25
12
OK
asymmetric canopy
1
12
12
12
12
1
1
cedar
towards south, typical
of species
Previous top loss,
23
708
Douglas
16
16
18
Fair
elongated branches,
1
18
18
18
18
1
1
fir
weak laterals, exposed
roots
Creative Landscape Solutions
7918 203rd St SW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Proposed
Action
CRZ/TPZ/LOD
an
Q)
Retain
Remove
Radius in feet
a
a)
M~
a)
+�
#
Tree
Tag
Species
DBH
Adj'
DBH
Drip-
line
Wind-
OK in
Health
Defects/Comments
Q)
H
c
fu
+;
o
a)
E
°;
fu
#
ID
(in)
(in)
radius
firm
Grove
m _
o
w
fu
v
v
E
a
N
W
E
S
rn
aai
N
2
t
t
> p
fl
j
j
E
Western
Co -dominant canopy,
24
709
red
10
10
14
OK
thin canopy, typical of
1
14
14
14
14
1
1
cedar
species
Girdling roots, cavity
Bigleaf
@ root crown, co-
25
710
maple
32
32
22
OK
dominant leaders with
1
22
22
22
22
1
1
included bark x2 @
25' strong leaders
Column of decay @
Western
root crown up to 8'
26
711
red
22
22
14
OK
towards northeast,
1
14
14
14
14
1
1
cedar
thin canopy, typical of
species
Western
27
712
red
6
6
8
OK
Typical of species
1
8
8
8
8
1
1
cedar
Douglas
Typical of species,
28
713
fir
14
14
12
OK
asymmetric canopy
1
12
12
12
12
1
2
towards west
29
714
Douglas
24
24
18
OK
Typical of species
1
18
18
18
18
1
3
ir
Self -corrected lean
towards north,
Douglas
asymmetric canopy
30
715
fir
16
16
16
OK
towards north, dead
1
16
16
16
16
1
3
wood, broken
branches, dead twigs,
typical of species
Western
31
716
red
21
21
15
OK
Typical of species
1
15
15
15
15
1
3
cedar
Creative Landscape Solutions 10
7918 203rd St SW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Proposed
Action
CRZ/TPZ/LOD
an
Q)
Retain
Remove
Radius in feet
~
a)
a)
+�
Tree
Species
DBH
Add'
Drip-
line
Wind-
OK in
°�
H
c
+;
o
E
°;
#
Tag
ID
(in)
DBH
radius
firm
Grove
Health
Defects/Comments
�, _
fu
a)
S
fu
#
(in)
o E
w
fu
aai
v
v
a
>
N
W
E
S
rn
N
_
t
t
p
a
Ln
E
N E
7
Western
Topped @ 12', strong
32
717
red
16
16
14
OK
leader, typical of
1
14
14
14
14
1
3
cedar
species
Western
33
718
red
18
18
16
OK
Typical of species
1
16
16
16
16
1
3
cedar
34
719
Bitter
10
10
18
Poor
Failing towards
1
18
18
18
18
1
cherry
northwest
Moss and lichen, dead
wood, broken
orway
Nmaple
branches, cavity @
35
720
14
14
10
Poor
root crown up to 2'
1
10
10
10
10
1
towards south,
horizontal crack @ 5'
towards south
*1 Healthy per City of Edmonds assessment
Offsite Trees:
- 0 3 _ 19 24
Creative Landscape Solutions 11
7918 203rd St SW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Proposed
CRZ/TPZ/LOD
Action
Retain
Radius in feet
Tree
Drip-
#
Tag
Species
DBH
DBH
line
Wind-
OK in
Health
Defects/Comments
#
ID
inches
inches
radius
firm
Grove
feet
v
N
W
E
S
a)
1
A
White
20
20
20
OK
Typical of species
1
20
8
20
20
2
B
Douglas
18
18
15
OK
Previous top loss, coning,
1
15
8
15
15
fir
typical of species
6
Previous top loss,
3
C
Hemlock
14
14
over
Poor
asymmetric canopy towards
1
6
6
6
6
fence
west
Western
15
4
D
red
20
20
over
OK
Typical of species
1
15
15
10
15
cedar
fence
Douglas
12
5
E
fir
22
22
over
OK
Typical of species
1
12
12
7
12
fence
Creative Landscape Solutions 12
7918 203rd St SW
Aerial View:
Creative Landscape Solutions 1 13
7918 203rd St SW
1
Proposed Site Improvements: (For reference only; See Civil plans for specifics)
-- --46— — — —
-
•
J.
i
PARQL7I9rY'
k�kk '
J L
I � JJRLJ
As *Lott
sa
t
i
x�
I
W
—
t I
' r�
r
i
I
k � I
M!t Am
RI
M1I
i
A
k drr
To
Creative Landscape Solutions 14
7918 203rd St SW
Discussion/Calculations/Conclusion:
Tree Density Calculations
Total number of onsite trees
35
Total number of trees removed for site improvements
13
Total number of tree credits
35
Total number of healthy tree creds
32*1
Total number of required tree credits (35*.3)
11
Total number of retained tree credits
19
Mitigation
24
*1 #701 healthy per City of Edmonds Assessment
The .51-acre site has thirty-five (35) onsite trees. The applicant proposes to divide the site into two
(2) single family residential (SFR) lots. The south side of the property is a dedicated tree retention
area.
Of the thirty-five (35) site trees, I assessed four (4) of the trees as being non -healthy or not suitable
for retention due to structural, health, or soil conditions, however, per the City of Edmonds
assessment that tree #701 is healthy, I have shown the tree as healthy to be removed. The inclusion
of tree # 701 as healthy changes the number of healthy trees to thirty-two (32.)
The Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC 23.10.060. C.1) requires that 30% of the significant onsite trees
be retained (35 * .3 = 11). The proposed site improvements retain nineteen (19) significant trees,
exceeding the tree density code by eight (8) trees.
Required replacement trees per ECDC 23.10.080.A. is twenty-seven (27) trees.
Specific responses to RFI: (responses are highlighted in yellow)
Trees: The following comments are based on compliance with tree Ordinance No. 4227:
a. Additional Tree Retention: The arborist report notes that utility lines will be installed
within the driplines of trees 577 — 584 and so they are proposed to be removed from the
eastern property line area. Tree 582 is in poor health, but the others are OK or Fair. Could the
healthy trees be retained by shifting the utility easement slightly to the west and/or avoiding
trenching within the driplines? In any event, the proposed work appears to be nearly outside
or just inside the critical root zone of tree 584. This idea was considered and rejected by RAM
Engineering and me, there is not enough space between the proposed home and the property
line to make a difference in tree retention. The trees will be shown to be removed.
At the same time, trees 701 and 708 are shown to be removed from within the proposed tree
protection area. While they are described as being in Poor health, they should be retained
unless they pose a hazard. Please provide additional justification for removing these two trees.
Tree # 708 is now shown to be retained, it does not present a high risk to the area, however,
tree # 701 was considered to be at high risk of failure by both Tom Hanson (ISA Certified
arborist) and myself. It can be cut to habitat height, but it cannot be retained as is filled with
advanced decay.
b. Off -site trees: Tree C is off -site but proposed to be removed; provide confirmation that
the tree's owner approves of the proposed removal. Trees A, B, D, and E would also appear to
be impacted by proposed construction of utility lines or paving within their critical root zones.
The City strongly encourages you to contact those neighbors about the proposed development
and potential impacts to those boundary trees. Tree "C" was unintentionally shown to be
Creative Landscape Solutions 15
7918 203rd St SW
removed, I have revised the headings column of the offsite trees to show that the tree is not
healthy, however, it is not shown to be removed.
C. Appraisals for tree 24 DBH and larger: For each significant tree with a 24-inch DBH
that will be removed, a fee based on an appraisal of the tree value using the trunk formula
method of the Guide for Plant Appraisal is required per ECDC 23.10.080.E.3. There are three
of these trees (584, 701, and 714). If they are still proposed to be removed (see Comment A
for tree 584 and 701), please provide tree appraisals for these trees. Information provided by
Tom Hanson. (shown on page 16 of this report)
d. Replacement: ECDC 23.10.080.B.1 notes that no replacement is required for trees
that are hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable
assurance of regaining vigor (trees in Poor health fall into this category and do not require
replacement). At the same time, removal of trees with a 24-inch DBH or larger do not require
replacement trees since a fee based on their value is required to be paid into the tree fund if
they are removed (if tree 584 is still to be removed — see Comment A).Updated the tree
replacement calculations.
The arborist report submitted with the current application changed several trees (701, 708,
and 720) from Fair health to Poor compared to the previous report submitted with the
withdrawn application under file number PLN2021-0023. The condition of the tree was not
changed, rather it was noted that the change was made "to better comply with the verbiage of
the City of Edmonds Tree Protection Code." Fair is one of the general health conditions
referenced in ECDC 23.10.060.B.2.iv. It is uncertain why trees 701 and 708 were changed
since they are in grove marked for retention (see Comment A). Please clarify. Tree # 708 is
now shown to be retained. Tree # 701: advanced decay was found by Tom Hanson (ISA
Certified arborist) confirming the decay in the dead scaffold continued into the trunk and put it
at high risk of failure.
e. Fee -in -lieu: Since more than 50% of the significant trees on the site are being
retained (18 out of 35), a fee -in -lieu is not required per ECDC 23.10.060.G. Noted.
f. Replacement tree plan: The preliminary submittal did not include a plan showing
where replacement trees required by ECDC 23.10.080.A are proposed to be planted. This can
either be provided during civil review or with building permits if a phased review is used. The
final tree replacement plan is being provided with civil review and is included in the
resubmittal materials.
5. Tree Protection (Specific)/Location of Fencing: As a condition for approval of the short plat (1.a.iv)
all trees that are to be retained on the subject property and those to be protected on adjacent
properties shall be protected from potentially damaging activities per standards in ECDC 23.10.070.
there appears to be inconsistent information related to specific tree protection for this phase of
development. applicant is no longer pursuing a "phased review". The arborist report spreadsheet and
ow consistent. Regarding:
WO ff tree protection fencing was shown at the property line; the
existing rock retaining wall was proposed to be removed as well as the existing asphalt
driveway: the sewer line was proposed to be trenched approximately 6' from the trees.
Because the roots currently have an existing roadway access over the roots, there is likely to
be significant compaction in this portion of the CRZ, and I do not anticipate there will be a lot
of roots in the area, however, the current submittal is revised to show:
o Tree protection fencing shown west of the rock retaining wall
o The rock retaining wall to be retained
o Existing asphalt to be removed with a toothless bucket of an excavator to avoid
tearing roots.
Creative Landscape Solutions 16
7918 203rd St SW
o Tree Protection Fencing moved 8' west of the -
o Sewer moved to 8.5' west of property line
o All work done in the CRZ of these trees to
ensure that any encountered roots are cut cleanly.
• Offsite Trees D and E:
o Tree Protection Fencing has been moved from the prope
easement
o The detention tract is located 7' fro
each tree. The trench is proposed to be a 4' cut which both species (Western red ceda�
and Douglas fir) are tolerant of. Once the trench is established, it will be covered by
an access drive. The fill necessary to bring the trench to grade wil
the trees once their roots have been cud
o All work in the CRZ of these trees shou
7. Tree #701 (discussed above)
8. Neighboring trees (discussed above)
9. Applicant is no longer pursuing a Phased Review, so trees are shown removed per building
permit application
10. Applicant is no longer pursuing a Phased Review, so trees are shown removed per building
permit application
Response to the conditions of approval RFI:
Tree appraisal performed by Tom Hanson, tom.hanson@arborinfo.com 206.300.9711; please note the
description of and appraisal for tree # 701, considered by Mr. Hanson to be at "high risk of failure".
So high, that he made the effort to notify me personally via email of his concern about the tree.
Creative Landscape Solutions 17
7918 203rd St SW
Appraisal Summary Sheet
7918-203rd St. SW, Edmonds July 5, 2021
Tree Number
594
701
714
Species
W.red cedar
Bigleafmaple
Dou&sfr
Trunk Diameter (#1 13.14)
34 in
38 in
29 in
Trunk Area (#2' 14 x 3.14)
902.1 in
1151.5 in
642.1 in
Unit Tree Cost
$85 f sq in
S85 / sq in
$851 sq in
Basic Tree Cast (#5 . #6 + It7)
$76,681.04
$97,87824
554,578.38
Health (0-100Y)
70%
24%
70%
Structure (0-1009G)
7DY
104a
70%
Form 10-100%)
7D%
101Y.
70%
Condition Reting(combine 9")
MY.
13Y.
70%
Functional limitations
8D%
501Y.
W%
External Limitations
801Y.
BOY.
90%
Depreciated Cast (115 x #9 x #10 x #11 x #12)
$34,353.10
$5,220.17
$24,451.11
Additional Casts
Total Cast
$34,353.10
$5,220.17
524,451.11
Assignment Result {round #29)
$34,400.00
$5,200.00
$24,500.00
Super adeq uate, hol law, decayed,
Comments Typical high risk hazard Typical
Creative Landscape Solutions 18
7918 203rd St SW
Mitigations: Per ECDC 23.10.080.A (1-3)
A. Replacement required. Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits required by this
chapter and/or for tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC
23.10.060.A. Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced as follows:
1. For each significant tree between 6 inches and 10 inches DBH removed, one (1)
replacement tree is required.
2. For each significant tree between 10.1 inches and 14 inches in DBH removed, two (2)
replacement trees are required.
3. For each significant tree greater than 14 inches in DBH removed, three (3) replacement
trees are required.
Replacement Specifications:
1. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be:
a. one -and -one -half -inch caliper for deciduous trees;
b. Six feet in height for evergreen trees.
2. The director may consider smaller -sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that
smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the purposes of this section,
and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this section.
3. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species.
Creative Landscape Solutions 19
7918 203rd St SW
Tree Protection Fencing:
23.10.070 Tree protection measures during development.
Prior to development activity or initiating tree removal on the site, vegetated areas, individual trees,
and soil to be preserved in accordance with ECDC 23.10.060(B) shall be protected from potentially
damaging activities pursuant to the following standards:
A. Preconstruction Meeting Required. Prior to the commencement of any permitted clearing and
grading activity, a preconstruction meeting shall be held on site with the permittee and
appropriate city staff. The project site shall be marked in the field as follows:
1. The extent of clearing and grading to occur;
2. Delineation and protection of any critical areas and critical area buffers with clearing limit
fencing.
3. Flagging of trees to be removed and tags on trees to be retained; and
4. Property lines.
B. Placing Materials Near Trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any
tree designated to remain, including, but not limited to, operating, or parking equipment,
placing solvents, storing building material or stockpiling any materials, or dumping concrete
washout or other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to any tree
designated for protection.
C. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, grading, filling or any land alteration, the
applicant shall:
1. Erect and maintain readily visible temporary protective tree fencing along the limits of
disturbance which completely surrounds the protected area of all retained trees, groups of
trees, vegetation and native soil. Tree protective fencing shall be a minimum height of three
feet, visible and of durable construction; orange polyethylene laminar fencing is acceptable.
2. Install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet apart along the entirety of the
protective tree fencing. Said sign must be approved by the director and shall state, at a
minimum, "Tree and Soil Protection Area, Entrance Prohibited," and provide the city phone
number for code enforcement to report violations.
3. Prohibit excavation or compaction of soil or other potentially damaging activities within the
barriers; provided, that the director may allow such activities approved by a qualified
professional and under the supervision of a qualified professional retained and paid for by the
applicant.
4. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until the director
authorizes their removal.
5. Ensure that any approved landscaping done in the protected zone after the removal of the
barriers shall be accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand.
6. Limit the time period that the critical root zone is covered by mulch, plywood, steel plates
or similar materials, or by light soils, to protect the tree's critical root zone.
7. In addition to the above, the director may require the following:
Creative Landscape Solutions 20
7918 203rd St SW
a. If equipment is authorized to operate within the protected zone, the soil and critical
root zone of a tree must be covered with mulch to a depth of at least six inches or
with plywood, steel plates or similar material in order to protect roots and soil from
damage caused by heavy equipment.
b. Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a two -foot -deep trench, at edge of
critical root zone, to cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. Never rip or shred
roots with heavy equipment.
c. Corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from
machinery or building activity.
d. Maintenance of trees throughout construction period by watering and fertilizing.
D. Grade.
1. The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within the critical root zone of trees to be
preserved without the director's authorization based on recommendations from a qualified
professional. The director may allow coverage of up to one-half of the area of the tree's critical
root zone with light soils (no clay) to the minimum depth necessary to carry out grading or
landscaping plans, if it will not imperil the survival of the tree. Aeration devices may be
required to ensure the tree's survival.
2. If the grade adjacent to a preserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode into
the tree's critical root zone, it shall be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and
suffocation of the roots.
3. The applicant shall not install an impervious surface within the critical root zone of any tree
to be retained without the authorization of the director. The director may require specific
construction methods and/or use of aeration devices to ensure the tree's survival and to
minimize the potential for root -induced damage to the impervious surface.
4. To the greatest extent practical, utility trenches shall be located outside of the critical root
zone of trees to be retained. The director may require that utilities be tunneled under the
roots of trees to be retained if the director determines that trenching would significantly
reduce the chances of the tree's survival.
5. Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and
sedimentation. Clearing operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical
area of soil to erosion for the least possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that
shrubs, ground cover and stumps be maintained on the individual lots, where feasible.
6. The director may approve the use of alternative tree protection techniques if those
techniques provide an equal or greater degree of protection than the techniques listed in this
subsection.
Creative Landscape Solutions 1 21
7918 203rd St SW
Glossary:
ANSI A300: American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for tree care
Chlorotic: discoloration caused by lack of chlorophyll in the foliage
Conifer: A tree that bears cones and has evergreen needles or scales
Crown: the above ground portion of the tree comprised of branches and their foliage
Crown raise pruning: a pruning technique where the lower branches are removed, thus
raising the overall height of the crown from the ground
DBH or DSH: diameter at breast or standard height; the diameter of the trunk measured 54
inches (4.5 feet) above grade
Deciduous: tree or other plant that loses its leaves annually and remains leafless generally
during the cold season
Epicormic: arising from latent or adventitious buds
Evergreen: tree or plant that keeps its needles or leaves year-round; this means for more
than one growing season
Increment: the amount of new wood fiber added to a tree in a given period, normally one
yea r.
ISA: International Society of Arboriculture
Landscape function: the environmental, aesthetic, or architectural functions that a plant can
have
Lateral: secondary or subordinate branch
Limits of disturbance: The boundary of minimum protection around a tree, the area that
cannot be encroached upon without possible permanent damage to the tree. It is a
distance determined by a qualified professional and is based on the age of the tree,
its health, the tree species tolerance to disruption and the type of disturbance. It
also considers soil and environmental condition and previous impacts. It is unique to
each tree in its location.
Limited visual assessment: a visual assessment from a specified perspective such as foot,
vehicle, or aerial (airborne) patrol of an individual tree or a population of trees near
specified targets to identify specified conditions or obvious defects (ISA 2013)
Live crown ratio: the percentage of living tissue in the canopy versus the tree's height. It is
a good indicator of overall tree health and the trees growing conditions. Trees with
less than a 30% Crown ratio often lack the necessary quantity of photosynthetic
material necessary to sustain the roots; consequently, the tree may exhibit low vigor
and poor health.
Monitoring: keeping a close watch; performing regular checks or inspections
Owner/manager: the person or entity responsible for tree management or the controlling
authority that regulates tree management
Creative Landscape Solutions 1 22
7918 203rd St SW
Pathogen: causal agent of disease
Phototropic growth: growth toward light source or stimulant
ROW: Right-of-way; generally referring to a tree that is located offsite on a city easement
Reaction wood: Specialized secondary xylem which develops in response to a lean or similar
mechanical stress, it serves to help restore the stem to a vertical position
Self -corrected lean: a tree whose trunk is at an angle to the grade but whose trunk and
canopy changes to become upright/vertical
Significant tree: a tree measuring a specific diameter determined by the municipality the
tree grows in. Some municipalities deem that only healthy trees can be significant,
other municipalities consider both healthy and unhealthy trees of a determined
diameter to be significant
Snag: a tree left partially standing for the primary purpose of providing habitat for wildlife
Soil structure: the size of particles and their arrangement; considers the soil, water, and air
space
Sounding: process of striking a tree with a mallet or other appropriate tool and listening for
tones that indicate dead bark, a thin layer of wood outside a cavity, or cracks in
wood
Structural defects: flaws, decay, or other faults in the trunk, branches, or root collar of a
tree, which may lead to failure; may be genetic, or environmental
Tree credit: A number assigned to a tree by a municipality that may be equal to the
diameter of the tree or a numerical count of the tree, or related to diameter by a
factor conveyed in a table of the municipal code
Trunk area: the cross -sectional area of the trunk based upon measurement at 54 inches
(4.5 ft.) above grade
Visual Tree Assessment (VTA): method of evaluating structural defects and stability in trees
by noting the pattern of growth. Developed by Claus Mattheck (Harris, et al 1999)
detailed visual inspection of a tree and surrounding site that may include the use of
simple tools. It requires that a tree risk assessor walk completely around the tree
trunk looking at the site, aboveground roots, trunk, and branches (ISA 2013)
Creative Landscape Solutions 1 23
7918 203rd St SW
References
Dirr, Michael A. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants, Their Identification, Ornamental
Characteristics, Culture, Propagation, and Uses. Champaign: Stipes Publishing
Company, 1990.
Dunster & Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd. Assessing Trees in Urban Areas and
the Urban -Rural Interface. US Release 1.0. Silverton: Pacific Northwest Chapter ISA,
2006.
Dunster, J. A. 2003. Preliminary Species Profiles for Tree Failure Assessment. Bowen Island:
Dunster & Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd.
Dunster, Julian A., E. Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny and Sharon Lilly. Tree Risk
Assessment Manual. Champaign, Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture,
2013.
Harris, Richard W, James Clark, and Nelda Matheny. Arboriculture, Integrated Management
of Landscape Trees, Shrubs, and Vines. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall,
2004.
Lilly, Sharon. Arborists' Certification Study Guide. Champaign, IL: The International Society
of Arboriculture, 2001.
Matheny, Nelda and Clark, James R. A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of
Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. Second Edition. Champaign, IL: The International
Society of Arboriculture, 1994.
Matheny, Nelda and Clark, James R. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to
Preservation of Trees During Land Development. Champaign, IL: The
International Society of Arboriculture, 1998.
Mattheck, Claus and Breloer, Helge. The Body Language of Trees: A Handbook for Failure
Analysis. London: HMSO, 1994
Schwarze, Francis W.M.R. Diagnosis and Prognosis of the Development of Wood Decay in
Urban Trees. Australia: ENSPEC Pty Ltd. 2008
Sinclair, Wayne A., Lyon, Howard H., and Johnson, Warren T. Diseases of Trees and Shrubs.
Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1987.
Smiley, E. Thomas, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly, Tree Risk Assessment Best
Management Practices, ANSI A300 Part 9: Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant
Management —Standard Practices (Tree Risk Assessment: Tree Structure
Assessment). The International Society of Arboriculture Press. Champaign. IL. 2011.
Thies, Walter G. and Sturrock, Rona N. Laminated root rot in Western North American.
United States Department of Agriculture. Pacific Northwest. Resource Bulletin PNW-
GTR-349. April 1995.
Creative Landscape Solutions 24
7918 203rd St SW
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
1. Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any titles
and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is
assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised or evaluated as thou
free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management.
2. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes
or other governmental regulations.
3. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified
insofar as possible; however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be
responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others.
4. The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason
of the report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made including payment of an
additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement.
5. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.
6. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any
purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed
written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser.
7. Neither all nor any part of the contents of the report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by
anyone, including the client to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or
other media, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser
- particularly as to value conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to
any professional society or instate or to any initialed designation conferred upon the
consultant/appraiser as stated in her qualification.
8. The report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser,
and the consultant's/appraiser's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified
value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be
reported.
9. Sketches, diagrams, graphs and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aid, are
not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or
survey.
10. Unless expressed otherwise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those items
that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection; and 2:
the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection,
excavation, probing or coring. There is not warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that
problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future.
ADDENDUM
April 5, 2022
Site: 7918 203rd St SW
Re: RE Dated January 12t1, 2022, from Deb Powers
1. Updated Tree Retention Plan: As a condition to short plat approval (l.a.ii) and as a phased
development review, civil plan permit submittal should include updated tree retention and
protection plans consistent with the requirements in ECDC 23.10.060.B.2 (arborist report, site
plan and inventory).
a. Arborist report - The submitted arborist report (stamped received December 14,
2021) does not respond to the conditions for short plat approval, contains outdated
information that pertained to prior permit submittals and is not consistent with the information
shown on the site plans submitted for civil improvements. Please provide the requested
information under items 2, 5, 6 and 7 below in an addendum to previously submitted arborist
reports. Or, show the information in response to items 2, 5, 6 and 7 on a revised, consolidated
tree retention/protection site plan.
2. Appraisal: As a condition to short plat approval (1.a.ii), please submit an appraisal for significant
trees greater than 24 inches that are to be removed consistent with ECDC 20.10.080.E.3.
Appraisal provided by Tom Hanson, ArborInfo:
Appraisal Summary Sheet
7918.203rd St. SW. Edmonds July 5, 2021
Tree Number
584
701
714
Species
W. red cedar
BOW rnaplt
odigla,,h
O DWnew (xI 13.141
Min
38 in
29 n
nnk Area C2= 4 x 3.14)
902.1 In
1151.5 in
642.1 in
tIW Tree Cass
$85 i sa in
$BS sa in
$951 sq in
Bask Tree Cost aS • 96•
$76.691.04
$97,87824
S54,579M
Kea" (0.10M.)
70%
2mo
70%
Smxture I.0.100Y:}
701Y.
10%
70
Form (0-30D%)
70%
10%
70 .
Condition Wine [combine 964t81
7M.
13%
70%
FunciionW UmPULIMs
80%
50%
80%
External Limitanoms
W%
80Y.
80%.
Deprec iaied Cost 195 x 09 x a10 x qll x 812J
534,353.10
55,220.27
SI4,451.11
Addnkonal Costs
mal Cost
$34,353.10
S5.220.17
524,451.11
R-A [round 4MI
S m".00
55,200.00
$24,500.00
Super adequate, hallow, decayed
Comments Typical high nsk hazard Typical
5. Tree Protection (Specific)/Location of Fencing: As a condition for approval of the short plat (1.a.iv),
all trees that are to be retained on the subject property and those to be protected on adjacent
properties shall be protected from potentially damaging activities per the standards in ECDC
23.10.070. There appears to be inconsistent information related to specific tree protection for
this phase of development, as discussed in item 1 a-c above. For example:
• The applicant's arborist established 20- and 15-foot radius limits of disturbance for
Offsite Trees A and B. However, sewer line trenching is proposed approximately 6 feet
from these trees (based on the proposed location of tree protection fence). Updated
• An access road appears to be proposed well within the recommended limits of
disturbance for Offsite Tree D. Updated
• Sheets TP-01 and TR-01 do not show tree protection fence for many trees on Lot 2
that, regardless of anticipated removal with subsequent permit submittal, shall be
protected as a phased development review. No longer submitting a phased review.
Offsite Trees A & B: Originally, the tree protection fencing was shown at the property line; the
existing rock retaining wall was proposed to be removed as well as the existing asphalt
driveway: the sewer line was proposed to be trenched approximately 6' from the trees.
Because the roots currently have an existing roadway access over the roots, there is likely to
be significant compaction in this portion of the CRZ, and I do not anticipate there will be a lot
of roots in the area, however, the current submittal is revised to show:
o Tree protection fencing shown west of the rock retaining wall
o The rock retaining wall to be retained
o Existing asphalt to be removed with a toothless bucket of an excavator to avoid
tearing roots.
o Tree Protection Fencing moved 8' west of the property line.
o Sewer moved to 8.5' west of property line
o All work done in the CRZ of these trees to be supervised by an ISA Certified arborist to
ensure that any encountered roots are cut cleanly.
Offsite Trees D and E:
o Tree Protection Fencing has been moved from the property line to the property
easement
o The detention tract is located 7' from tree D and 10' from tree E. outside the iCRZ, for
each tree. The trench is proposed to be a 4' cut which both species (Western red cedar
and Douglas fir) are tolerant of. Once the trench is established, it will be covered by
an access drive. The fill necessary to bring the trench to grade will not be relevant to
the trees once their roots have been cut.
o All work in the CRZ of these trees should be supervised by an ISA certified arborist.
Per ECDC 23.10.B.2.c.iii, please provide callouts with any special instructions specifically
outlining any work proposed within the limits of the disturbance protection area (i.e., hand -
digging, tunneling, root pruning, etc., rather than cite general code provisions on site plans.
Pursuant to ECDC 23.10.070.D.4, ...utility trenches shall be located outside of the critical root
zone of trees to be retained... [the City] may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots
of trees to be retained if determined that trenching would significantly reduce the chances of
the tree's survival. For work in the critical root zone of offsite retained trees:
1. All work completed in the CRZ of offsite trees should be supervised by an ISA Certified
arborist
2. Demo work to remove existing driveway to be done with a toothless bucket
3. Heavy equipment required for excavation work in the CRZ should be located outside of
the CRZ (to the west of trees A & B; and to the east of trees D & E)
4. All exposed roots should be cut cleanly at the surface of the soil
6. Cost Estimate: Condition 1.a.v. Provide a cost estimate to be used to determine
the performance tree bond required in ECDC 23.10.090. Information provided by
Landscape Architect
7. Tree #701: Condition 1.a.vi. Tree #701 is still depicted as ghosted out, indicating its
removal on Sheet TP-01, yet no documentation on the advanced decay has been provided to
justify its removal. Further, the "poor" health assessment in the inventory appears to be
unwarranted compared to site findings and the relative insignificance of the defects listed in the
inventory (moss, lichen and a prior branch failure). Please show Tree #701 as retained with
sufficient tree protection. Or, provide documentation of the advanced decay in Tree
#701 in an addendum to the arborist report to justify its removal. Documentation may
include findings from a Level 3 assessment, completed TRAQ form, photos, etc. Updated to show
Tree #701 as a healthy tree proposed to be removed.