Hazard tree removal CRA2021-0021CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5tn Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
"ne. I STJ
March 4, 2021
Gunnar Ildhuso
23122 100th Ave. W
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Hazard Tree Removal (CRA2021-0021)
Dear Mr. Ildhuso,
You recently contacted the City of Edmonds about the removal of a Hemlock tree from your
parcel. The tree is located west of the existing building near the toe of a steep slope that rises
up to the west. The slope is a critical area pursuant to Chapters 23.40 and 23.80 of the
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC).
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 hemlock is larger than 4" DBH so tree hazard evaluation is
required.
The report provided from certified arborist John Lewis indicates that the hemlock has a
combination of heartwood decay, lean, and an undermined root system. The recommended
method to mitigate the hazard is removal.
An exemption for tree cutting is granted with the following conditions:
1. Only the noted Hemlock tree may be cut. It should be left as a wildlife snag
approximately 15 feet in height unless complete removal is warranted.
2. If the hemlock is completely removed, two replacement trees of a species native to the
area must be installed near the removed tree within one year of the tree cutting
activity. Evergreen species must be a minimum of 6-feet in height while deciduous
species must be a minimum of one to two inches diameter at breast height (DBH)
consistent with ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv.
3. If replacement trees are installed, provide staff with photos of the installed trees or call
for an inspection.
4. The downed wood may be left in place or removed from the site.
5. Should it be necessary to stage any equipment in the City right-of-way, the contractor
must obtain a right -of way construction permit from the Engineering Division prior to
doing the work. A traffic control plan is required with the right-of-way permit
application.
If you have any questions, please let me know at either michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov.
Sincerely,
vlla"Ivl�_
Mike Clugston, AICP
Senior Planner
Enclosure
Assessor I SCOPI
https: //scopi.snoco. orglHtrnl5 Vi ewerllndex.html?configBase=https: //scopi. snoco.orgIGeocor...
Parcel ID Search
Address Search Select Parcels
Neighborhood Search City Bookmarks Previous Extent
Print Resource Links
Layers
❑ Map Labels
❑ House Number Labels
Parcel Number Labels
1Q, �@gtLabels
Sd01ALIdS 1Nd WdO-1d]ADG
SONOWad AO A110
I-ZCLZ £i®eJgV*s, Water Labels
arcels
❑ Recent Sales
Recent Sales 2020
L-i Recent Sales 2019
Recent Sales 2018
❑ Appraisal Neighborhoods
❑ Parcel Map Page Index
Q City Boundaries, Streets, Water
Parks, City Areas, National Forest
[J Aerial Imagery
n 2018 Aerial
Layers Parcels (1)
0 30 60ft
County Homepagg Assessor Homepage Contact Us
of 1
3/2/2021, 7:46 PM
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client ^; —Date,—"), 7 - 2 Time %.2 •00 PM
Address/Tree location be ,,4aAlceTree no. 2 6 Sheet 1 of 2
- Tree species dbh Height P,S Crown spread dia.
Assessor(s) i A Time frame Tools used
Target Assessment
Target zone
Occupancy
w
c
r
x
c
r
rateap
g v
c
° E
~ c
Target description
3
c
3=
x
1-rare
2-occasional
m°
� a
• a
m
c
m u,
3- frequent
>
u
3
4-constant
a` E
cc¢
1
J4
A)
2
3
4
site Factors
History of failures Topography Flat❑ Slope _�.�_% Aspect
Site changes None Grade change Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow lye Compacte��
d❑ Pave mentEl roots —De% Describe
Prevailing winddirection1i Common weather Strong winds12Ice❑ Snow B Heavy rain Ed scribe_
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low Normal ❑� High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal 7C% Chlorotic % Necrotic e-%
Pests /Vic vniZ�, i lD ec�✓c✓ Abiotic _
Species failure profile Branches ❑ Trunk Roots Describe_ 2 e
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected❑ PartialbFull❑ Wind funneling❑L
Relative crown size Smmall10 Medium arge❑
Crown density Sparse❑ Normal 01/ Dense❑ Interior branches FewlY Normal❑ Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss lld
Recent or planned change in load factors
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and Branches —
r
Unbalanced crown 2' / LC %
Dead twigs/branches 2 %overall Max. dia. 3
Cracks ❑ _ Lightning damage ❑
J-0
Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia.
_ _ _
---- -
Over -extended branches ❑
Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest: hole %circ.
Pruning history
Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
—
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑
Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other
Response growth P.,0
Main concern(s) A A)
t1kide V�J ,^
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate
Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable
_❑
02 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 13K Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/ urls El�
Sap ooze ❑
Ooze ❑ Cavity % circ.
Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance—froom trunk
Cavity/Nest hole ___ %circ. Depth ___ Poor taper ❑
Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness Lk
Lean -/-D° Corrected? _k)Q_
Response growth Popr
Response growth 100yf'
Main concern(s) �ek✓/, .�0d 4Ct,. 7L
Main concern(s) )l le(,.e SIB JP,, ,4 e-
(/) �M
/
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant OK
Likelihood of failure
❑ ❑
Likelihood of failure /
Improbable Possible Probable I/ Imminent ❑
Improbable ❑ )ossible El Probable Imminent ❑
Page I of 2
Risk Cateeorization
101CC
EelCGC'C�C7C7101CGW�
MMM�
CCCC
CC
CC
1119100
MC
I
�
M
M
M
C191
XCCCCCC�C'.C70
Eel
Xj
XC�
N
N
M
X
1*1
X
XCCCWCC7W
WOCCC�
M
M
M
WCCC1101C
Eel
CC��OaCco
C�
N
W
W�CCOCC10:
X
X
101ODco
OC�OC��
I■
MWM�c00]oo10B01co
nooINIooCOM
M
N
M
CCCCCCCCCCa7C�.ICOWCM
M
M
M
CWCCCCC�XC❑C�XNC��iC�
�■
M
M
M
C�CCCC�iINCC:
W�XCC�W
�
M
M
M
CC101
WC�iCOro:CaOCCXC�
Matrix I. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impacting Target
Very lowT
Low
Medium
High
Imminent
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Very likely
Probable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Possible
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Improbable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Matrix2. 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
North
Mitigation options We -I^ +/ ( Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High Extreme ❑ Work priority 1 t2 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑
Overall residual risk Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data 5 Final ❑ Prelim Advanced Advanced assessment needed []No ❑Yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations L�None ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (I SA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists — 2013
Page 2 of 2