DNS BLD2022-0746+Arb Report+6.7.2022_4.13.54_PM+2918205RECEIVED Creative Landscape Solutions 1
8929 220th St SW
December 15, 2021 Jun 13 2022 BLD2022-0746
CITY OF EDMONDS
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Kayla Clark Nichols DEPARTMENT
Project Coordinator
Select Homes, Inc.
206.963.3365
Site: 8929 220th St SW
Edmonds, WA 98029
TPN: 00380300101000
Size of area: 26,745 sq. ft. = .61 acres
Re: RFI dated August 18th, 202; responses to specific questions are located at the end of the
discussion section and have been highlighted in yellow
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 (VTA) 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 2-lot short -plat permit.
In summary:
Tree Retention Calculations
Total number of onsite trees
57
Total number of unhealthy trees
20
Total number of healthy trees
37
Total number of trees removed for site improvements
8
Number of trees required to be retained (57 * .3)
17
Total number of retained trees
29
Retained tree (all site trees) 36/57
63%
Retained trees (healthy trees) 29/37
78%
Mitigation for removed trees
19
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: sprince202(d)aol.com.
Warm regards,
Susan Prince
Creative Landscape Solutions
ISA Certified Arborist: PN #1418A
TRACE Certified Arborist: #418
17518 NE 119th 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 2
8929 220th 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 3
8929 220th 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 4
8929 220th 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
DBH or it may be based on a table of corresponding tree credits, or it may be a % of the
number of trees on site.
13. Mitigation for removed trees as determined by the municipal code
Creative Landscape Solutions
8929 220th St SW
Specific Offsite Tree Observations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Proposed
CRZ/TPZ/LOD
a)
Action
a)
v
Retain
Radius in feet
x
Tree
Species
DBH
Adj.
Drip-
line
Wind-
OK in
v
m
o
#
Tag
ID
(in)
DBH
radius
firm
Grove
Health
Defects/Comments
t
v
T
a)
L
(a
#
(in)
(ft)
T
o
v
�
N
W
E
S
=
C
v
_
s
ro
v
1
721
Douglas
fir
21
21
14
OK
Typical of species
1
14
14
14
14
1
1
1
2
722
Douglas
ir
21
21
14
OK
Typical of species
1
14
14
14
14
1
1
1
3
723
Madrona
8
8
8
Poor
Previous top loss @ 10',
1
8
8
8
8
1
mostly dead
Co -dominant leaders with
Douglas
26
included bark x2 @ root
4
724
fir
10
28
16
OK
crown, previous top loss,
1
16
16
16
16
1
1
1
elongated branches, typical
of species
Calloused wound @ 3'
towards west, asymmetric
5
725
Douglas
27
27
18
OK
canopy towards west, low
1
18
18
18
18
1
1
1
fir
live crown ratio <30%,
previous top loss, elongated
branches, typical of species
Douglas
Low live crown ratio <20%,
6
726
fir
16
16
16
OK
previous top loss, elongated
1
16
16
16
16
1
1
1
branches, typical of species
Suppressed canopy,
7
727
Douglas
14
14
8
Y
Fair
previous top loss, low live
1
8
8
8
8
1
1
1
fir
crown ratio <10%, typical
of species
Free flowing sap,
8
728
Douglas
15
15
10
Y
Fair
suppressed canopy, low live
1
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
fir
crown ratio <10%, typical
of species
Creative Landscape Solutions
8929 220th St SW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Proposed
CRZ/TPZ/LOD
Action
v
Retain
Radius in feet
v
a
Tree
Species
DBH
Adj.
Drip-
line
Wind-
OK in
v
�
o
#
Tag
ID
(in)
DBH
radius
firm
Grove
Health
Defects/Comments
>
>
21
#
(in)
(ft)
E
m
o
v
N
W
E
S
=
a�
_
�
fu
a
Dominant canopy, previous
9
729
Douglas
24
24
18
Y
Fair
top loss, elongated
1
18
18
18
18
1
1
1
fir
branches, low live crown
ratio <20%
Exposed roots, decay in
Douglas
roots, suppressed canopy,
10
730
fir
14
14
12
Poor
no taper, abnormal bark,
1
12
12
12
12
1
shedding bark, popping
bark
Douglas
Abnormal bark, shedding
11
731
fir
18
18
15
Y
Fair
bark, popping bark, low live
1
15
15
15
15
1
1
1
crown ratio <30%
Douglas
Free flowing sap, dominant
12
732
fir
19
19
16
Y
Fair
canopy, low live crown ratio
1
16
16
16
16
1
1
1
<30%, typical of species
Column of decay @ root
13
733
Madrona
8
8
16
Poor
crown up to 20' towards
1
16
16
16
16
1
south, blight, mostly dead
Douglas
Dead wood, broken
14
734
fir
12
12
14
Y
Fair
branches, low live crown
1
14
14
14
14
1
1
1
ratio <30%
Debris over crown, co -
dominant leaders with
15
735
Madrona
14
14
20
Y
Fair
included bark x2 @ 50',
1
20
20
20
20
1
1
1
dead wood, broken
branches, weak leaders
Suppressed canopy,
16
736
Douglas
8
8
14
OK
asymmetric canopy towards
1
14
14
14
14
1
1
1
fir
west, thin canopy, typical of
species
Creative Landscape Solutions
8929 220th St SW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Proposed
CRZ/TPZ/LOD
Action
v
Retain
Radius in feet
v
a
Tree
Species
DBH
Adj.
Drip-
line
Wind-
OK in
°'
m
v
o
#
Tag
g
ID
(in)
DBH
radius
firm
Grove
Health
Defects Comments
/
o
L
T
L
a
#
(. )
in
(ft)
E
-
.21
)
N
W
E
S
=
a�
_
�
fu
a
Free flowing sap,
17
737
Douglas
8
8
12
Y
Fair
suppressed canopy, ivy @
1
12
12
12
12
1
1
1
fir
root crown up to 15', thin
canopy
18
738
Hemlock
16
16
4
Poor
Dead
1
4
4
4
4
1
Previous top loss, elongated
branches, dead wood,
19
739
Hemlock
13
13
15
Y
Fair
broken branches, dominant
1
15
15
15
15
1
1
1
canopy, low live crown ratio
<20%
Previous top loss,
serpentine trunk,
20
740
Hemlock
16
16
18
Poor
asymmetric canopy towards
1
18
18
18
18
1
east, low live crown ratio
<20%
Co -dominant canopy,
21
741
Douglas
21
21
18
Y
Fair
previous top loss, elongated
1
18
18
18
18
1
1
1
fir
branches, low live crown
ratio <30%
Previous top loss,
22
742
Hemlock
13
13
15
Y
Fair
asymmetric canopy towards
1
15
15
15
15
1
1
1
south, low live crown ratio
<20%
Dominant canopy, dead
23
743
Douglas
14
14
18
Y
Fair
wood, broken branches, no
1
18
18
18
18
1
1
1
fir
taper, previous top loss,
elongated branches
Low live crown ratio <30%,
24
744
Douglas
31
31
18
OK
dominant canopy, typical of
1
18
18
18
18
1
1
1
fir
species, dead wood, broken
branches
Creative Landscape Solutions
8929 220th St SW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Proposed
CRZ/TPZ/LOD
Action
v
Retain
Radius in feet
v
a
Tree
Species
DBH
Adj.
Drip-
line
Wind-
OK in
°'
m
v
o
#
Tag
g
ID
(in)
DBH
radius
firm
Grove
Health
Defects Comments
/
o
L
T
L
a
#
(. )
in
(ft)
E
-
.21
)
N
W
E
S
=
a�
_
�
fu
a
Ivy @ root crown up to 15',
25
745
Douglas
10
10
12
Y
Fair
suppressed canopy, dead
1
12
12
12
12
1
1
1
fir
wood, broken branches, low
live crown ratio <5%
Dead wood, broken
Douglas
branches, low live crown
26
746
fir
15
15
14
Y
Fair
ratio <10 /o, previous top
1
14
14
14
14
1
1
1
loss, elongated branches,
co -dominant canopy
Dead wood, broken
27
747
Douglas
18
18
18
OK
branches, asymmetric
1
18
18
18
18
1
1
1
fir
canopy towards southwest,
typical of species
Previous top loss @ 50',
strong leader, dead wood,
28
748
Douglas
17
17
16
OK
broken branches thin
1
16
16
16
16
1
1
1
fir
canopy, typical of species,
asymmetric canopy towards
west
Previous top loss, dominant
Douglas
canopy, asymmetric canopy
29
749
fir
14
14
15
Y
Fair
towards west, dead wood,
1
15
15
15
15
1
1
1
broken branches, elongated
branches
Suppressed canopy,
30
750
Douglas
15
15
18
Y
Fair
previous top loss, elongated
1
18
18
18
18
1
1
1
fir
branches, low live crown
ratio <30%
Creative Landscape Solutions
8929 220th St SW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Proposed
CRZ/TPZ/LOD
Action
v
Retain
Radius in feet
v
a
Tree
Species
DBH
Adj.
Drip-
line
Wind-
OK in
v
�
o
#
Tag
ID
(in)
DBH
radius
firm
Grove
Health
Defects/Comments
>
>
21
#
(in)
(ft)
E
m
o
v
N
W
E
S
=
a�
_
�
fu
a
Dominant canopy, dead
wood, broken branches, low
31
751
Douglas
18
18
12
Y
Fair
live crown ratio <20%,
1
12
12
12
12
1
1
1
fir
asymmetric canopy towards
southwest, typical of
species
32
752
Western
red
10
10
10
OK
Suppressed canopy, thin
1
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
cedar
canopy, typical of species
Dead scaffolds, poor
33
753
Madrona
18
18
18
OK
pruning with decay, blight,
1
18
18
18
18
1
1
1
typical of species
Calloused wound @ root
crown up to 30' towards
Douglas
west, previous top loss,
34
754
fir
24
24
17
OK
elongated branches, low
1
17
17
17
17
1
1
1
live crown ratio <20%,
dead wood, broken
branches, typical of species
Douglas
Previous top loss @ 50',
35
755
fir
12
12
15
Poor
weak leader, low live crown
1
15
15
15
15
1
ratio <20%
Topped @ 3', co -dominant
Elm
10,
leaders with included bark
36
756
clump
8
15
30
Poor
x4 @ 3', lean towards west,
1
30
30
30
30
1
6, 5
asymmetric canopy towards
west
Douglas
15
Previous top loss @ 50',
37
757
fir
14
14
west
Poor
asymmetric canopy towards
1
15
15
15
15
1
only
west, lean towards west
Creative Landscape Solutions 10
8929 220th St SW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Proposed
CRZ/TPZ/LOD
N
Action
v
L
Retain
Radius in feet
v
T
Tree
Adj.
Drip-
EA
#
Tag
Species
DBH
DBH
line
Wind-
OK in
Health
Defects Comments
/
>
T
o
#
ID
(in)
(in)
radius
firm
Grove
@
o�
(ft)
N
W
E
S
=
a�
af6i
fu
_
�
a
9,
9,
Lawson
9,
Co -dominant leaders with
38
758
9,
25.5
10
Poor
included bark x8 @ root
1
10
10
10
10
1
cypress
9,
crown
9,
9,9
Lawson
7,
Co -dominant leaders with
39
759
7,
14
10
Poor
included bark x4 @ root
1
10
10
10
10
1
cypress
7,7
crown
Dead wood, broken
40
760
Douglas
31
31
18
OK
branches, dominant canopy,
1
18
18
18
18
1
1
3
fir
ivy @ root crown up to 20',
typical of species
Douglas
Asymmetric canopy towards
41
761
fir
24
24
18
OK
southwest, thin canopy,
1
18
18
18
18
1
1
3
typical of species
Ivy @ root crown up to 20',
Douglas
asymmetric canopy towards
42
762
fir
26
26
18
OK
southwest, dead wood,
1
18
18
18
18
1
1
3
broken branches, typical of
species
Western
Previous top loss @ 10',
43
763
red
15
15
20
Poor
failing towards west
1
20
20
20
20
1
cedar
Co -dominant leaders with
Western
included bark x3 @ 2',
44
764
red
16,
18.5
18
Poor
supporting tree #763,
1
18
18
18
18
1
cedar
8,4
asymmetric canopy towards
west, thin canopy, typical of
species
Creative Landscape Solutions 11
8929 220th St SW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Proposed
CRZ/TPZ/LOD
N
Action
v
L
Retain
Radius in feet
v
T
Tree
Adj.
Drip-
EA
#
Tag
Species
DBH
DBH
line
Wind-
OK in
Health
Defects Comments
/
>
T
o
#
ID
(in)
(in)
radius
firm
Grove
@
o�
(ft)
N
W
E
S
=
a�
af6i
fu
_
�
a
Western
45
765
red
18
18
16
OK
Typical of species
1
16
16
16
16
1
1
3
cedar
12,
Co -dominant leaders with
46
766
R
9iver
16
Poor
included bark x4 @ root
1
16
16
16
16
1
birch
,18.5
9,6
crown, woodpecker activity,
moss and lichen, dead top
47
767
Madrona
8
8
8
OK
Typical of species
1
8
8
8
8
1
1
1
Western
48
768
red
8
8
10
OK
Typical of species
1
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
cedar
49
769
Hemlock
18
18
20
Poor
Coning, topped for power
1
20
20
20
20
1
Lawson
6
Co -dominant leaders with
50
770
cypress
6,6
10.5
6
Poor
included bark x3 @ root
1
6
6
6
6
1
crown
6,
Co -dominant leaders with
51
771
Lawson
7,
11.5
6
Poor
included bark x4 @ root
1
6
6
6
6
1
cypress
6,4
1
1
1 crown, thin canopy
52
772
Lawson
17
17
15
Poor
Failing towards west,
1
15
15
15
15
1
cypress
girdled root
15,
Co -dominant leaders with
Western
18,
included bark x6 @root
53
773
red
18,
33
16
Poor
crown, dead wood, broken
1
16
16
16
16
1
cedar
8,
branches, typical of species
9 8
Asymmetric canopy towards
Western
west, dead wood, broken
54
774
red
8
8
10
Poor
branches, suppressed
1
10
10
10
10
1
cedar
canopy, typical of species
Creative Landscape Solutions 12
8929 220th St SW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Proposed
CRZ/TPZ/LOD
Action
v
Retain
Radius in feet
v
a
Tree
Adj.
Drip-
m
o
#
Tag
Species
DBH
DBH
line
Wind-
OK in
Health
Defects Comments
/
>
T
v
a
#
ID
(in)
�. in )
radius
firm
Grove
L
L
.21
(ft)
FU
)
N
W
E
S
=
a�
fu
_
�
a
16,
16,
Co -dominant leaders with
Western
18,
8,
included bark x8 @ root
55
775
red
35
12
Poor
crown, dead wood, broken
1
12
12
12
12
1
cedar
6,
6,
branches, dead twigs,
10,
typical of species
12
Western
Dead wood, dead twigs,
56
776
red
18
18
12
Y
Fair
asymmetric canopy towards
1
12
12
12
12
1
1
3
cedar
north
Western
Asymmetric canopy towards
57
777
red
12
12
10
OK
west, dead wood, dead
1
10
10
10
10
1
1
2
cedar
twigs, typical of species
*Mitigation 23.10.080.A (1-3) 57 29 7 21 57 37 29 19
Creative Landscape Solutions 13
8929 220th St SW
Offsite Trees:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Proposed
CRZ/TPZ/LOD
Action
Retain
Radius in feet
Tree
Add'
Drip-
#
Tag
Species
DBH
DBH
line
Wind-
OK in
Health
Defects/Comments
#
ID
inches
inches
radius
firm
Grove
v
feet
N
W
E
S
>
c
0
z
Western
Suppressed canopy,
1
A
red
12
12
8
OK
typical of species
1
8
8
8
8
cedar
Western
2
B
red
10
10
8
OK
Typical of species
1
8
8
8
8
cedar
Elongated branch,
3
C
Douglas
21
21
16
OK
typical of species,
1
16
16
16
16
fir
low live crown ratio
<30%
Low live crown ratio
Douglas
<30%, previous top
4
D
fir
12
12
8
OK
loss, calloused
1
8
8
8
8
wound typical of
species
Dominant canopy,
low live crown ratio
5
E
Douglas
22
22
16
OK
<20%, previous top
1
16
16
16
16
fir
loss, elongated
branches, typical of
species
Douglas
Previous top loss,
6
F
fir
10
10
8
Y
Fair
low live crown ratio
1
8
8
8
8
<5%
7
G
Madrona
14
14
0
Dead
0
0
0
0
Previous top loss,
elongated
8
H
Douglas
24
24
16
OK
branches, dead
1
16
16
16
16
fir
wood, broken
branches, typical of
species
Creative Landscape Solutions 14
8929 220th St SW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Proposed
CRZ/TPZ/LOD
Action
Retain
Radius in feet
Tree
Add'
Drip-
#
Tag
Species
DBH
DBH
line
Wind-
OK in
Health
Defects/Comments
v
#
ID
inches
inches
radius
firm
Grove
feet
N
W
E
S
>
c
0
z
Previous top loss,
Douglas
low hive crown ratio
9
I
fir
20
20
18
OK
<20 /o, dead wood,
1
18
18
18
18
broken branches,
typical of species
Previous top loss,
elongated
branches, abnormal
Douglas
bark, popping bark,
10
J
fir
24
24
18
Y
Fair
dead wood, broken
1
18
18
18
18
branches, dead
twigs, asymmetric
canopy towards
east
Lean towards west,
11
K
Madrona
14
14
20
Fair
dead wood, broken
1
20
20
20
20
branches, vertical
crack @ 40', blight
12
L
Douglas
18
18
16
OK
Typical of species
1
16
16
16
16
fir
Douglas
Asymmetric canopy
13
M
fir
18
18
16
OK
towards east,
1
16
16
16
16
typical of species
Previous top loss,
14
N
Douglas
14
14
14
OK
typical of species,
1
14
14
14
14
fir
ivy @ root crown
up to 20'
Western
15
0
red
18
18
14
OK
Typical of species
1
14
14
14
14
cedar
Western
16
P
red
12
12
8
OK
Typical of species
1
8
8
8
8
cedar
Aerial View:
. r_
Creative Landscape Solutions 15
8929 220th St SW
Creative Landscape Solutions 1 16
8929 220th St SW 1
Proposed Site Improvements: (For reference only; See Civil plans for specifics)
- .�}�4: '+h]' kit f J✓�+ }I
x+,
x % ,y« • -•r ' � Y�� ExfSTJWC FREES
AU r OF
1 a1YrSION ADO. 3
F' -- aLacw f
— J i -- -_ �' f +� TV4iEE fi40TECTiC4T
] ' F€MDM AS AEON
J277 raj
—�--
CLEA PNdG ANY NCW D
E 5TW 7Rff EMYS— —WIM 7 T04E OR LA11E
—_ TO 5f RfkDkf£+-- J I (7i�) GF nuts 7Z7 K
'� I I L• sa Ff71 Ilk! J1EEl?
76 aE FYALUAT=
II"'n I IPY dA'dMST
r �F � 7711 { fi� • p
f
Creative Landscape Solutions 17
8929 220th St SW
Discussion/Calculations/Conclusion:
Tree Retention Calculations
Total number of onsite trees
57
Total number of unhealthy trees
20
Total number of healthy trees
37
Total number of trees removed for site improvements
8
Number of trees required to be retained (57 * .3)
17
Total number of retained trees
29
Retained tree (all site trees) 36/57
63%
Retained trees (healthy trees) 29/37
78%
Mitigation for removed trees
19
The .61-acre site has fifty-seven (57) onsite trees (which includes one dead tree). Originally the
applicant had proposed to divide the site into three (3) single family residential (SFR) lots. However,
the scope of the short -plat has been reduced to dividing the parcel into two (2) lots. By reducing the
number of lots the applicant is retaining 63% 36/57) of the existing trees regardless of health and
78% (29/37) of the viable site trees. Non -viable trees in the tree tract on the north side of the site will
be retained as habitat trees. This area of the site will not be disturbed.
Of the fifty-seven (57) site trees, nineteen (19) of the trees are considered non -viable or not suitable
for retention due to structural, health, or soil conditions. Thirty-eight (38) trees are viable. The
Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC 23.10.060. C.1) requires that 30% of the significant onsite trees be
retained (57 * .3 = 17). The proposed site improvements retain thirty-two (32) significant trees,
exceeding the tree density code by fifteen (15) trees.
Response to RFI: (response highlighted in yellow)
1. Trees: The comments regarding the tree retention with this application are based on the
latest tree regulations adopted under Ordinance No. 4227 (attached) to which this application
is vested.
a. Additional Tree Retention: Generally, it appears the trees in the northern portion of
the property are identified for retention on the tree retention plan (cross -hatched
area). However, it appears several trees within this area are identified for removal
(trees 723, 730, 733, 738, and 740). It appears these trees were identified in 'Poor"
health in the arborist report. The trees are located within the retention area and
should be retained unless they pose a hazard. Please provide justification if these trees
continue to be identified for removal.
The trees are well protected within the grove and will be retained. (Susan Prince)
b. Tree Retention Plan and Arborist Report Discrepancies: Trees 746 and 747 are
located within the identified tree retention area on the tree retention plan, but still
identified for removal on the tree retention plan. The arborist report described these
trees with Fair and Ok health and noted they would be retained. These trees should be
retained are justification provided why these trees must be removed.
Site exhibit has been revised to show those trees as being retained (RAM
Engineering)
c. Appraisals for tree 24 DBH and larger: In accordance with ECDC 23.10.080.E.3
(Ord. 4227), a fee based on an appraisal of the tree value using the trunk formula
Creative Landscape Solutions 18
8929 220th St SW
method of the Guide for Plant Appraisal is require for each significant tree with a 24-
inch DBH that will be removed. There are seven trees that fall into this category (trees
754, 758, 760, 761, 762, 773, and 775). Please provide tree appraisals for these
trees. Additionally, trees 756, 759, 764, and 766 exceed 24 inches DBH when their
DBH is calculated according to ECDC 23.10.020.R (Ord. 4227) for multiple leader
trees. (Tom Hanson)
I know in speaking with Rob Long, it was thought the proposal retained 50% of the
trees and thus would not be subject to any of the fee -in -lieu provisions in ECDC
23.10.080.E. The tree inventory identified 57 trees on the site and 23 trees being
retained, which is on 40% of the significant trees.
The arborist report claims trees identified in "Poor" health are exempt from the total
tree count, but this is not supported by the code in Chapter 23.10 ECDC (Ord. 4227).
To be clear, as the arborist, I did not "CLAIM" anything, I followed the code as it has
been applied in the recent past for similar short plat applications, and because the new
code was not online, I had no idea the CODE or interpretation had changed.
Per the zoom call on August 25th, 2021, that I had with Kernen Lien, he informed me
that the City of Edmonds does not distinguish between trees based on health; and
because of that all trees are to be included if they exist on the site in the total number
of trees by which we are to retain 30%. Included in the spreadsheet showing the
results of the Level 2 Tree Risk Assessment that I performed on all the trees, if a
DEAD tree. In no other municipality can I find any code that requires a dead tree to be
counted as a 'tree". However, as per the request by the City to retain, dead and dying
trees in the tree retention tract, and because they are included in the tree count for
which the applicant needs to retain 30%; it is logical that they also be included in the
count of retained trees. (Susan Prince)
The tree retention requirements in ECDC 23.10.060.0 and the fee -in -lieu exception in
ECDC 23.10.060.G are both tied to the number of significant trees. The arborist report
and the tree retention recognize this as the 30% retention is calculated based on the
57 trees. Since, less than 50% of the significant trees are being retained, the
proposed is subject to the fee -in -lieu requirements and appraisal of the 24-inch DBH
trees (See comment below).
The spreadsheet columns of the arborist report have been updated to show retained
trees and their health more easily. The applicant has revised the number of retained
trees to meet the 50% retention and avoid the in -lieu -of fees. The new updated
proposal is retaining 32 trees or more than 50% (57 trees X50%= 28.5 rounded to 29
trees). Collectively the City has on multiple occasions discussed the issue and
presented it as the following: The applicant must retain 50% of the site trees to avoid
paying a fee. In a discussion with you (Kernen Lien) on August 25t" Zoom call, my
understanding from the conversation we had, was that the code requiring the tree
appraisal was applicable to an approximate 6-week window (when this project was
submitted). The portion of the code was rescinded, and no longer applicable, so as we
discussed, it would lessen the financial burden of the in -lieu -of fee to resubmit under
the current code. Which we have done, and we would appreciate affirmation that this
is correct. (Susan Prince)
d. DBH Calculation: According to the definition of significant tree in ECDC
23.10.020.R, the DBH of multiple leader trees shall be the combined cumulative total
of branches greater than 6 inches diameter at 4.5 feet. It appears some other method
Creative Landscape Solutions 19
8929 220th St SW
was used to establish the diameter of the multi -leader trees on the site. Please
updated the diameters of the multi -leader trees consistent with ECDC 23.10.020.R
As discussed by both Tom Hanon and I, this is not the accepted method of
determining the single trunk equivalent of a multi -stemmed tree, however, I have
updated my spreadsheet to reflect the current code. (Susan Prince)
e. Replacement: Tree replacement at the ratios identified in ECDC 23.10.080.A (Ord.
4227) are slightly different than the replacement ratios in the online code. It does not
appear that all the trees identified for removal have identified the required
replacement ratios (the mitigation column on the tree inventory. 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. I
would agree that trees that have been identified as Poor health fall into this category
and do not require replacement. However, any tree that has a health identified as at
least Fair must be replaced according to the replacement ratios in ECDC 23.10.080.A
(Ord. 4227). Note that trees with a 24-inch DBH or larger do not require the
replacement trees as a fee based on their value is required to be paid into the tree
fund if they are removed (Comment 5.e above).
I have updated the arborist report to reflect that the tree replacement is assigned to
the removed trees in all health categories except "Poor". (Susan Prince)
The arborist report submitted with the current application changed a number of trees
(730, 470, 755, 759, 764, 766, 769, 770, 771, 772, 773, 774, and 775) from 'Fair"
health to "Poor" from the previous report submitted with the withdrawn application
under file number PLN2021-0024.
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 and there does appear to be any justification for changing the
conditions of these trees.
On the August 25th zoom call as well as in the report itself I discussed with the planner
(Kernen Lien) the fact that the tree risk status of trees is intricately linked to the
environment; the area soil composition, and in this case whether the tree will continue
to be protected in a "grove". A tree that is declining in health and has no reasonable
expectation to recover (by Edmonds' code) would be considered a tree in "poor"
condition.
However, as stated and discussed, there may be many more years of life in the tree,
especially if it is protected within a grove. If the surrounding area is developed, and
the tree protection is removed, it has a higher likelihood of wind failure. During the
conversation with the City on August 25th, 2021, I was instructed that the Level 2 TRA
should be done to all trees without consideration of future development. For the
record, this is contrary to the instructions for implementing the ISA Level 2 TRA.
To avoid the appearance of impropriety, I UPGRADED the tree health and showed
trees to be removed as viable rather than non -viable trees.
f. Fee -in -lieu: For every replacement tree required by ECDC 23.10.080.A (Ord. 4220)
required but not replanted a fee -in -lieu payment is required at $1,000 per tree. ECDC
23.10.080.E.2 notes that this must be paid prior to the issuance of a tree removal
permit or associated development permit. For subdivisions, it makes sense that the
fee will be required at issuance of civils since that's when the trees will be removed.
Creative Landscape Solutions 20
8929 220th St SW
There is also an option to phase the tree review (ECDC 23.10.030.B.3). This would be
something like we had previously done were only trees which are required to be
removed for subdivision improvements may be removed at subdivision phase and the
remainder reviewed with building permit submittal. The fee -in -lieu in the phased
review would then be split between the subdivision and building permit reviews.
Noted. (RAM Engineering)
g. Replacement trees: The submittal does provide a plan indicating 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 you proceed with a
phased review. Note that planting trees will reduce the fee -in -lieu payments.
Mitigation will be shown during the building permit phase of the project. (Susan
Prince)
h. Protected to Notice on Title: In accordance with ECDC 20.75.048, properties which
include trees that are identified for retention and protection in association with design
flexibility approved under this section must record a notice on title consistent with
ECDC 23.10.085. This will be required to be recorded at final and additional notice on
titles may be required for subsequent lots depending on if replacement trees are
planted on the new lots.
Noted. (Applicant & RAM)
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 21
8929 220th St SW
Tree Protection Fencing: Tree Protection fencing should be erected prior to any site grading
First, protect roots that lie in the path of construction. Approximately 90 to 95 percent of a tree's root
system is in the top three feet of soil, and more than half is in the top one foot. Construction activities
should be avoided in this area. Protect as much of the area beyond the tree's dripline as possible.
Some healthy trees survive after losing half of their roots. However, other species are extremely
sensitive to root damage even outside the dripline.
Do not disturb the Critical Root Zone (CRZ). The CRZ is defined by its "critical root radius." Cde
requirements vary. In some municipalities the CRZ is the trees dripline, in other cities it is a function
of the DBH. To calculate critical root radius, measure the tree's diameter (DBH) in inches, 4.5 feet
above the ground. For each inch, allow for 1 to 1.5 feet of critical root radius. If a tree's DBH is ten
inches, its critical root radius is 10 to 15 feet. In practical field work, the arborist may extend or
reduce the trees CRZ measure based on site growing conditions, tree species, and tree shape for
example having an asymmetric canopy.
In addition to the CRZ, it is important to determine the Limits of Disturbance (LOD) for preserved
trees. Generally, this approximates the CRZ however in previously excavated areas around the dripline
the LOD may be smaller, or in the case of a tree situated on a slope the LOD may be larger. The
determination of LOD is also subject to the tree species. Some tree species do better than others after
root disturbance.
Tree protection is advised throughout the duration of any construction activities whenever the critical
root zone or leaf canopy many be encroached upon by such activities.
The Critical Root Zone (CRZ) or LOD should be protected with fencing adequate to hinder access to
people vehicles and equipment. Fencing detail is provided. It should consist of continuous 4 ft. high
temporary chain -link fencing with posts sec at 10' on center or polyethylene laminar safety fencing or
similar. The fencing must contain fencing signage detailing that the tree protection area cannot be
trespassed on.
Soil compaction is one of the most common killers of urban trees. Stockpiled materials, heavy
machinery and excessive foot traffic damage soil structure and reduce soil pore space. The effected
tree roots suffocate. When construction takes place close to the protected CRZ, cover the site with 4
inches of bark to reduce soil compaction
Tree Protection fencing must be erected prior to soil excavation, boring, grading or fill operations. It
is erected at the LOD. If it is necessary to run utilities within the LOD, the utilities should be combined
into one cut, as practical. Trenching is not allowed in the LOD. In these areas, boring or tunneling
techniques should be used. If roots greater than 1" diameter near the LOD are damaged or torn, it is
necessary to hand trim them to a clean cut. Any roots that are exposed during construction should be
covered with soil as soon as possible.
During drought conditions, trees must be adequately watered. Site should be visited regularly by a
qualified ISA Certified Arborist to ensure the health of the trees. Tree protection fencing is the last
item to be removed from the site after construction is completed.
After construction, has been completed, evaluate the remaining trees. Look for signs and symptoms of
damage or stress. It may take several years for severe problems to appear.
If fencing around portions of the CRZ of a tree to be retained are not practical to erect due to
construction or obstacles, tree protection fencing should be placed three feet laterally from the
obstruction (ex. three feet back of a curb, building, or other existing or planned permanent
infrastructure.
Creative Landscape Solutions 22
8929 220th 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 23
8929 220th 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 24
8929 220th 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 25
8929 220th 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.