Approval Letter_wAttCITY OF EDMONDS
121 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
'12c. 18yv
May 3, 2021
Ron Anderson
7124 — 156t" St. SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Hazard Tree Removal
Dear Mr. Anderson,
The City of Edmonds has received a request to remove two western red cedar trees from your property
located at 7124 —156t" St. SW. The two trees are located between the Anderson residence and 72nd Ave
W. The trees is within 50 ft. of a slope that exceeds 25 percent grade, which is considered a critical area
pursuant to Chapter 23.80 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Generally, the
removal of trees, or any vegetation, within a critical area or critical area buffer is not an allowed activity,
unless, pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.8, it involves the removal of invasive species or hazard trees.
Additionally, the tree is also greater than 24 inches at breast height and meets the definition of
"landmark tree." There is a current moratorium on removal of landmark trees unless the tree meets the
definition of hazard tree in ECDC 23.10.020.G or nuisance tree in 23.10.0201.
In order to fall under the hazard tree provisions of ECDC 23.10.040.F, a tree must be determined to be a
high risk by a certified arborist. The request to remove the tree included an ISA Tree Risk Assessment
form completed by certified arborist Shelley Towers who found the trees to have an overall tree risk
rating of "High". Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv each hazard tree removed within a critical area or
critical area buffer must be replaced with new native trees at a ratio of two to one. It has been
indicated that you propose to replace the two western red cedars with four trees from the species list
below:
• Vine maple, acer circinatum
• Bitter Cherry, prunus emarginata
• Pacific Crabapple, malus fasca
An exemption for the tree cutting is granted with the following conditions:
1. This approval only pertains to the two western red cedar trees identified in the attached
materials.
Four trees must be planted to replace the two hazard trees. The replacement trees must be
native and indigenous in accordance with ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv.
The proposed replacement trees listed above are appropriate replacement tree species.
Alternative species must be approved by the City of Edmonds.
3. Replacement trees must be planted within one year of removal of the hazard trees. Please
notify the City once the replacement trees have been replanted for an inspection.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions at Brad.Shiplev@edmondswa.gov, or 425-771-0220.
Sincerely,
v4,�
Brad Shipley
Associate Planner
Encl: Arborist Report
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Form
Photos
Replacement Tree Species email
n'
H DC51Gn
Shelley Towers
Land—au,� D—q,
C,rtlfi.tl Arboilst, 1511, TRAO
435, 9Zj.8375
';om
4.29.2021
To: City of Edmonds,
Planning Dept.
Re: Ron Anderson Residence.
7124 156`' St. S.W.
Edmonds, Wa.
I was asked to assess 2 trees for hazard at the above address. I visited the site on 4.19.21. Please see
attached photos and traq forms.
Overview: This is a large suburban lot with a single family home existing. The lot is slightly sloped.
In the side yard are 2 trees of concern. Both trees are marked on site with pink flagging and a number
which corresponds to this report.
Tree #1, Thuja plicata 76" dbh. 70' tall, canopy spread 70'. This tree was topped in youth and has
regenerated 4 trunks. There is a 2' cavity, 4" wide at the mouth, at the branch union which is soft and
decayed in it's interior and filled with water. The regenerated tops are dominant in the canopy. This tree
is extremely top heavy, and the 4 trunks are pulling apart. The foliage overhangs the Anderson home,
and is up storm track from it.
Tree #2, Thuja plicata, 42" DBH. 70' height, 40' canopy spread. This tree has regenerated 6 tops after
being topped in youth. These tops have included bark and there are nesting/decay cavities at the branch
unions. This tree has an oversized limb that exceeds 25% of the main trunk size. This limb could break
off or unbalance the tree causing it to topple.
New exposure: One of my greatest concerns for these trees is the new exposure to the storm track from
the south west. These trees threaten the Anderson's and the neighbor's home at 7120 156t" St. S.W.
This new exposure is site clearing for new construction. These trees are now dominant in the canopy
and at canopy edge. Because of multiple tops on both trees, these trees are both extremely top heavy.
These trees are both up stormtrack from the two homes.
This increased risk of failure due to the new exposure will last 9 years.
Recommendations: I recommend that both of these trees be removed. The consequences of failure
would be significant if not severe with the size of these tops and their proximity to both homes.
I am available for consultation on these trees.
Regards,
ISA, TRAQ
-,Mw-r
�C .. � ^'',�y��^� ; . lam' „�� � �•;`� � � � r * t, .. J\
11 � rr*yye�. T. � ✓ M 1 .:�
III"`
+ l
ry.
yyy''x t i�
s
a r
q �
+
4
I A�F
,J It � y p ��>'� �, �� � '" ✓ r . � � � R:
�� r t�'+. •� S I, i I � i
Y!�
Y I. 101
,ti Y NV
's A
1 -
M
r ' w k,e WO
p
I
d
rY
1
Y'
r
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
ClientAADate 1Y / q -:201, . Time
Address/Tree location Tree no. �t ' of �T
Tree species - [�b(ti ,•- Height —76) Gown spread dia.
Assessor(s) Tools used -1ft - Time frame
T5irh6ek Asoe.+sment
EWWM�031
MI,
0
---_-=
Ste Factors
History of failures 4919 Topography e V' Flat❑ SlopeV' Aspect
Site rade e changes None Gchange❑ Sitedearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cut0 'Describe A26&
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow 0 Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe r
Prevailing winddirectionej& Common weather Strong winds❑ toe❑ Snow❑ Heavy rain Describe '?�.hf.7 Pc9 sr
Tree -Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low ❑ Normald High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chiorotic % Necrotic %
Pests/Biotic Abiatic
Species failure profile Branches❑ Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describes S&jj!Q�J4r:' -rb &t __�°.
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Fu Wind funneling Relative crown sae Small ❑ Medimn 0 Laigr
Crowndensity Sparse❑ Normal❑ Dense hrteriorbranches Few❑ NormaWY'Dense❑ /Moss❑
Recent or expected change in bad factors 1 2 g; ��( 'tiQ L t � "�7'� �, JLJ�tt_� dk!4��
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the U eRhood of Failure
— wrt Croand Branches —
Unbalanced crown LCR —q&% Crad¢ ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/brandhes ❑ %overall Max dia. Codw*wntM'-- Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max dia. 1Mea k atlactxnents; ' Caftftst We %kirk.
Over -extended branches y, Previous branch laRuresAff' Sirrbranches present ❑
Prurrarg hinny
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑J Raised ❑ BbarkQ Caikers/Gallsftirls ❑ SaWood darrhaBe/decay❑
Reduced ❑ Topped ,t7 Lion -tailed ❑ COOks ❑ Heartwood decor►.' ❑
Flush cuts ❑ �Ctther Responsegrow[h
y(s of
Part Size Faii Distance Part Size Fall Distance -
Load on defect WA ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ 9g E Load m dhdect WA ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ *nifkant 9k-
Likelihood offaihse hnprobable❑ Possfle ❑ Probable W k=nirw a ❑ 1.60mod offaiue Wpvbable❑ Posable ❑ Robable Zr hnminem ❑ ,
—Trunk —
Dead/Missing bark Q. Abnormal bark texture/colordY
Codominantstems,iff-7 Included barlied— Crada,�
Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Gais/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑
Lightning damage Heartwooddecay❑ Conks/Mushrooms❑
Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper
Lean Corrected?
Response growth
Condition (s) of concern
ofRt I 7' ►�j
Part Size `J Fall Distance
Load an defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate *J�
— Roots and Root Collar -
Collar buried/Not visiblpd' DepthStem girdling ❑
Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms n
Ooze ❑ Cavity❑ %arc
Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk
Root plate fifting ❑ Sal weakness ❑
Response growth
Conditi.nr
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect WA ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate
s
6
0
d
F
_
f
oil
L
.�
■■■■e■■■■■■ems
._
■■■■■e■■eee■®
eee■■■e■■■■■®
a
Ba is Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client Date y f :IzA Time
Address/Tree logation 7 !2 ItaiT9 pe%z Tree no. Sheet l of
Tree species gbh - H ' t -Crown spread dia. 41)
Assessors) Ltld�w.s Tools used Time frame
TairWAsestment
Tweet zone
raft
A
I I
� �Flei-In-
1-
TxPcdasalptlohr
ArgetpraroeeUorh
-oaa9onal
2
4-muhrt
n E
og a
1
a
3
4
s
Site factors
History of failures y 9 /.A Topography Flat❑�Sloope % As ect
Site changes N charge ❑ Site clearing ❑ soil hydrology ❑ Root outs ❑ Desrribe,�(� y F ".�L ` Lt)•
Soil conditions limited volums0 Saturated Shallow❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots❑ % Describe
Prevailing wind clkmtior%�/,.)Common weather Strong winds❑ lce❑ Snow❑ Heavy rain[] Describe, z�T—
Tnee Heakh and Species Profile
Vigor low ❑ Normal High ❑ Folage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal l,&o Chlorotic % Necrotic %
Pests/Biotic Abiotic
Species failure profile BranchesOIrrunk0lRoots❑ Descri
Load Factors
{0141, Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Full Wind funneling ❑ Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium ❑ LargeF ,' —
'p000tufty Sparse❑ Normal❑ Dense$- kaniorbranches Few❑ NormaHTDenseO lflttes e/HAoss❑
� rrt or expected change in bad factors i , 4AM& i7 -- =C
CL-
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Muffi'hood of Failure
— Crown and Branches —
Unbalanced crown LCR f7 % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Dead WAwbranc hes ❑ %overall Max. dia. Codorr -m Included bark ❑
Broloen/Hangers Number Max dia. Weals attadxnentAT Cavdy/Nest hole _%circ.
Over-exUnded branches ❑
Prek occs branch failures ❑ SirmLx branches present ❑
Pruning fi"Y
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ bark Q Can/ ❑ Sapwood decay ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped Xr Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other Responsegrowth
Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Mfnor ❑ Moderate❑ SI@Acar*2" load on detect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ SigwkanrCt'
tkl &mod of Mure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable,Rri rriihere ❑ Mil hood of faint Wvmbabke ❑ Possible ❑ Probable B�IrxnineM ❑
—Trunk —
Dead/Missing bark EL Abnormal bark texture/colorRr
Codominant Included bark.0— Cradcr[1
Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/GaBs/Burls ❑ Sap ooze Q
Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decaVEY" Conksf Aftd oorns Cj
Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Q,' Poor taper Ur
Lean " Corrected? _
Condition (s) of concern ,f�e
Part Size
Load on dekd NIA ❑
Fall Distance —14 &
Mbar ❑ Moderawm qrm aro
— RootsandRoot Collar —
Coliar buded/Not vises Doh Stern girang ❑
Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conia/Mushrooms ❑
Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % arc.
Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk
Root plate lifting ❑
Response growth
Condition (s) of s'
Part Sh�
load on detect NIA 0
Soil weakness ❑
Pau vuwna.c --�--
Minor . 0 Mgderoef7,Si®nNicanR.B
Risk categorization
' -
�■�■
■■■�■■�■
■■�■
■■i■
■■■Gdoom
■■om
OF
mmimm
_ -
■■■■■■■NEIA■■
Noun
FIF
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
■
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Moir 1. Likelihood matrix
Likelihood
of FaL%we
Li"hood of knead
Very low
Law
Medmrm
High
Irroninerrt
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
likely
Very lilaiy
Probable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Possible
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
improbable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Matra 2 Risk rating matrDL
Lik elilrood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Negligbie
Minor
SWricant
Sege
Very likely
Low
Moderate
High
Extreme
LHtely
Low
Moderate
Him
High
Somewhat likely
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Unlikely
Low
Low
Low
Low
a
Mitigation options +
1. JC%(��.ltd>� `_. Residual
Z Residual risk
3. Residual risk
a. Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ Higluld Extreme ❑
Overall residual risk Noovu Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Reoomrrtended inspection interval
Data ❑ Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No Oyes-Type/Reason
�..«......:..., r:�.ta...:....� rIhI--- Mr/ .r,:1 — rlA..-- rTr T'7o....s ....��.,� I,...:..a n...-.+:�...
From: Matthew Allard
To: Shipley, Brad
Subject: Re: Arborist Report for 2 hazard trees
Date: Monday, May 24, 2021 8:26:44 AM
Hello,
The 4 trees for 7124 156th St SW- Ronald Anderson are:
Acer Circinatum - vine maple, Prunus Emarginata - Bitter Cherry and 2 Malus Fasca - Pacific
crabapple
For your records the tree removal is planned for June 7 and 8. The trees are being harvested
for timber as a renewable resource.
Cordially,
Matt Allard