Loading...
CRA LetterCITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION ,tic. 1, August 16, 2021 Bette Glass 7023-1741h St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 SUBJECT: HAZARD TREE REMOVAL AT 7023-174T" ST. SW (CRA2021-0161) Dear Ms. Glass, The City of Edmonds has received a request to remove one dead Douglas -fir tree from your property located at 7023 — 174th St. SW. The tree is located north of the house, in the rear yard, on or near 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. In order to fall under the hazard tree provisions of ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b, a tree must be determined to be a high risk by a certified arborist. The request to remove the hazard tree included a Tree Risk Assessment form completed by an ISA-certified arborist, Katy Bigelow. The arborist recommends leaving the tee as a wildlife snag. 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 2-1 ratio. It has been indicated that you propose to replace the Douglas -fir with two trees —either huckleberry or vine maple. Only the vine maple is approved as a replacement species since huckleberry does not meet the definition of "tree." • Vine maple, Acer circinatum An exemption for the tree cutting is granted with the following conditions: • This approval only pertains to the one Douglas -fir trees identified in the attached materials. • Two trees must be planted to replace the hazard tree. The replacement trees must be native and indigenous in accordance with ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv. The proposed replacement tree listed above is an appropriate replacement tree species. Alternative species must be approved by the City of Edmonds. • 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.Shipley@edmondswa.gov, or 425-771- 0220. Regards, Brad Shipley I Associate Planner Encl: Cover Letter Tree Risk Assessment Replacement species email Page 2 of 2 July 30, 2021 City of Edmonds Planning Division 121 5' Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Brad Shipley Re: Tree Removal Mr. Shipley, As we discussed on the phone I am writing to request approval to have a dead tree removed on my property and to determine if a permit is necessary. Thank you for sending me the property map. I will use it to mark the approximate location of the tree in question. I am enclosing the map, the arborist's report, and a photograph of the tree in question. If you need any additional information, please let me know. My phone number is 425- 745-4065 and my e-mail address is bette.g_lassgeomcast.net Sincerely, Bette J. Glass Enclosures City of Edmonds Map Title Legend ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLINE! call other values> 1 2 5; 4 9;71;7;8 Notes 0 31.57 63.1 Feet 564 47.0 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. 0 City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client Bette Glass Date 7/2/2021 Address/Tree location 7023174th St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Tree no. Tree species Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) dbh— 33 Height ~ 85 Assessor(s) Katy Bigelow Time frametwo months Tools used_ Tareet Assessment Time 9:00 1 Sheet 1 Crown spread dia. 20' binoculars of 2 Target zone `w Occupancy G y = t rate —rare£ $ ,c�X" Nux—constant Target lion a Uf 2-occasional 3-frequent Fc 41 ° E o i Several homes ✓ ✓ ✓ 3 n n z back yards/greenspaces ✓ ✓ ✓ 1 n n 3 4 Site Factors History of failures branches Topography Flat❑ Sloped % Aspect Site changes None ❑ Grade change Site clearing® Changed soil hydrology Root cuts ❑ Describe (off property nearby trunk) Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow ® Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe Prevailing wind direction SW Common weather Strong winds ❑ Ice Snow Heavy rain ❑ Describe PNW normal Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ■ Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests Abiotic Species failure profile Branches ❑ Trunk❑ Roots ❑ Describe Load Factors Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial® Full ❑ Wind funneling ❑ Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium g Large ❑ Crown density Sparse® Normal ❑ Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑ 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 ❑ Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history 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 Main concern(s) Crown recently dead. Tree recently dead Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable El Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent [3 —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — 7Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ ominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ 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 weakness ❑ Lean ° Corrected? Response growth Response growth Main concern(s) Main concern(s) NA NA Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Likeliho�Clb ure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ ImprobaPossible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ P�0. I of 7 Risk Categorization Likelihood E d M Consequences Failure Impact Failure & Impact C v £ (from Matrix 1) Risk + m > Y m c c d _ M c rating c Conditions '8 — �+ `o Target g ii a N f o e7 ; d E a of part (from Uo Tree part of concern 0. LL protection E a° o a > 3 v m= i Y >" a z m in Matrix 2) Branches large dead cercocgoosaccelol low 1 branches breaking off awmajor as 'degracles r,Wn r, 3 4 Matrix i. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impacting Target Very low 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 Tree is recently dead. Mitigation options Create a snag between 30-40' tall. Leave the final trunk cut jagged in appearance NOT flat. Residual risk low Remove all dead limbs from the area. Remove logs UNLESS a few are able to be left unstacked and scattered, Residual risk not stacked on one another. Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ■ Extreme ❑ Work priority 1 ■ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ Overall residual risk Low ® Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval Data N Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations ❑None ❑Visibility ❑Access EVines ❑Root collar buried Describe blackberry This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists - 2013 Page 2 of 2 City of Edmonds Critical Areas Map Lyn iN 7 Z. W.,- "'"awry ITerr,�. Legend = Creeks Seismic Hazard Areas Earth Subsidence and Landslide r— L! Minimum Buffer Adjacent to Hat Wetlands Wetlands Boundary — - Wetland Boundaries Not Completel p Wetland Known Extents Floodplains ® A ® AE ® VE X Contour Lines 2 10:50 100 ❑ Landslide Hazard Area 40% ❑ Severe Erosion Hazard 15%-40% ❑ Erosion Hazard Areas 15%-40% ArcSDE.GIS.STREET CENTERLINE: — <all other values, 1 2 5,4 9:71:7:8 Notes 0 31.57 63.1 Feet 564 47.0 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web _Mercator _Auxiliary -Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION From: BETTE GLASS To: Shipley. Brad Subject: RE: Hazard Tree Removal (CRA2021-0161) Date: Friday, August 13, 2021 5:06:28 PM Brad, I will plant vine maples and wild huckleberries if I can locate them. Bette Glass