Loading...
APPROVED TREE-Arborist Reportrow TATTLE TREE TiNf, FACILITATING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TREES AND HUMANS Arborist Report March 21, 2022 Prepared for: Kevin Keck 15722 72nd Ave W Edmonds, Wa Prepared by: Seattle Tree Consulting Douglas Smith (Certified Arborist PN 6116-A/TRAQ) 3907 Aurora Ave N. Seattle, Wa. 98103 (206)457-5706 douggaseattletreeconsulting com RESUB Mar 22 2022 CITY OF EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPROVED DP 5/18/22 3/21 /2022 Discussion Thank you for having me out to assess the condition of the trees on the site. There is an active building permit at this address and there are some trees that need to be removed for the sake of the proposed developments to the lot. Trees that need to be removed from the site that are over 24 inches in diameter must be mitigated with a fee in lieu to the city of Edmonds that is based upon the appraised value of the specimens. A previous arborist had already inventoried the trees at this site and provided a report. My specific task was to come up with an appraised value for trees number 6012, 6013, and 6021. The site visit was conducted at 11 am on Thursday, March I Oth. The process for establishing value of these specimens was taken from the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 1 Oth Edition revised. Published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. The book describes several techniques for arriving at a cost or value for the featured plants. In the case of these Big Leaf Maples, it is more appropriate to be seeking value than it is to be seeking costs, as there are no damages to repair. The 1 Oth edition does detail the Reproduction Method using the Trunk Formula Technique and that is the process that I will be using it to establish a value for these trees. Other than some minor changes to the form, the process is similar to the one described in the 9th edition. That being said, this particular addition makes a strong argument for how a tree's value relates to the overall value of the property on which it resides. I have not done a full market analysis of buildable lots in this area, but I do feel safe in assuming that the value of this property is in its development potential. In this particular case, and according to the arguments described in the book, a strong case can be made that these particular specimens are lowering the value of this property despite being in a healthy condition. In order to compensate for this new angle of emphasis when it comes to tree appraisal, I will still be using the Trunk Formula Technique, but I will be applying a multiplier of 33% in line at number 5 on the form which is for external limitations. Part of doing tree appraisals is establishing a Unit Cost for replacement specimens. When the trees being appraised are exotic specimens, it is often advisable to price similar trees at multiple local nurseries to get an up to the date price comparison. It is actually uncommon to purchase this native tree in large sizes, as it is ubiquitous in the area. After looking at the published figures from the Pacific Northwest Chapter (numbers are from 2007), and the inventory of Big Trees Nursery in Snohomish, and Northwest Nurseries in Redmond, I feel it is appropriate to assume a wholesale cost of $250 for a 3" caliper replacement specimen. Since the replacement trees in this case are theoretical, and are only for the sake of establishing value. I am not adding Tree Installation Costs to the value. The rating scale for this report: 6 = Excellent condition, 5 = Good, 4 = Fair, 3 = Poor, 2 = Very Poor, and 1 = Dying/Dead 2 3/21 /2022 Tree 6012 Tree number 6012 is a Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum) system that is at the northwest corner of a copse of native deciduous trees. This specimen of Big Leaf Maple has a diameter at standard height reading of 30 inches that was taken 4.5 foot above the ground. This tree does bifurcate into two main stems above the point where I took that reading and there is a significant bulge where the tree is putting on wood at the attachment point. There is included bark between the two main stems and a very tight union that extends from the origination of the two stems approximately 5 foot above grade to approximately seven or 8 foot above grade where they eventually separate. While it is not possible for the heartwood between these two stems to be fused, the upper canopy of the tree appears to be in healthy condition and this strikes me as a relatively minor defect that could be accounted for with a combination of pruning and cabling. This is a fairly young big leaf maple system that would likely tolerate the installation of a bracing rod to strengthen the union between the two stems. A dynamic cabling system in the upper canopy could reduce the movement during high winds and take more pressure off of the compromised union. For the purposes of tree appraisal, its condition should be downgraded slightly because of the included bark union and the way it is affecting the main structure of the system. There is some large deadwood in the upper canopy but nothing out of the ordinary. I consider this tree to be in good condition (5) despite the defect. At this time, the site is undeveloped and the contribution of this particular tree is primarily ecological. I did measure the height of the system that with a hypsometer and got a reading of approximately 95 foot. The tree's drip line extends the farthest to the north and I got a reading of 30 foot with a laser rangefinder. 3 3/21 /2022 Trunk Formula Method Date: 3/ 10/22 Client Name: Keck Address: 15722 72nd Ave W Edmonds, Wa Subject Tree-6012 Species: Acer macrophyllum 1. Trunk Diameter at Standard Height: 30" 2. Trunk Area at Standard Height: 706 sq. Inches 3. Condition Rating: 80% Health: 6 Structure: 4 Form: 5 4. Functional Limitations: None 5. External Limitations: 33% Replacement Tree Species: Acer macrophyllum 6. Trunk Diameter at Standard Height: 3" 7. Trunk Area at Standard Height: 7 sq. inches 8. Replacement Tree Cost/Source: $250 (local) Calculations 9. Unit Tree Cos (8/7): $36/sq. Inch 10. Basic Reproduction Cost (2x9): $25,416.00 11. Depreciated Cost (IOx3x4x5): $6,710.00 Additional Costs Cleanup: 0 Replacement Tree Installation: 0 Aftercare: 0 12. Total Additional Costs: 0 13.Total Reproduction Costs (11+12): $6710.00 14. Rounded: $6,700.00 The rating scale for Health/Structure/Form: 6 = Excellent condition, 5 = Good, 4 = Fair, 3 = Poor, 2 = Very Poor, and 1 = Dying/Dead 4 3/21 /2022 Tree 6013 Tree number 6013 is located to the east of tree number 6012. This is also a co -dominant system with two stems that originate approximately 2 foot above grade. Diameter at standard height readings for the individual stems are 16 inches and 19.5 inches. I am using the industry standard method for adjusting the tree's DSH reading to account for its position in its relative life curve. It is a young tree. This tree's drip line also extends far to the north and I got a reading of 26 foot with a laser rangefinder. With a hypsometer, I measured the height of the specimen at just over 100 foot. This is another forest grown specimen, and for that reason there are not many low scaffold limbs on the system. That being said, this tree does retain natural structure and appears free of defects in the lower and upper canopies. I did not notice any fungal activity or decay at the basal level. At the time of the site visit, this native deciduous specimen struck me as being in excellent condition. 5 3/21 /2022 Trunk Formula Method Date: 3/10/22 Client Name: Keck Address: 15722 72nd Ave W Edmonds, Wa Subject Tree-6013 Species: Acer macrophyllum 1. Trunk Diameter at Standard Height: 16" and 19.5" results in 25" (square root of the sum of the squares of the stem readings) 2. Trunk Area at Standard Height: 491 sq. Inches 3. Condition Rating: 90% Health: 6 Structure: 5 Form: 6 4. Functional Limitations: None 5. External Limitations: 33% Replacement Tree Species: Acer macrophyllum 6. Trunk Diameter at Standard Height: 3" 7. Trunk Area at Standard Height: 7 sq. inches 8. Replacement Tree Cost/Source: $250 (local) Calculations 9. Unit Tree Cos (8/7): $36/sq. Inch 10. Basic Reproduction Cost (2x9): $17,676.00 11. Depreciated Cost (1Ox3x4x5): $5,250.00 Additional Costs Cleanup: 0 Replacement Tree Installation: 0 Aftercare: 0 12. Total Additional Costs: 0 13.Total Reproduction Costs (11+12): $5,250.00 14. Rounded: $5,250.00 The rating scale for Health/Structure/Form: 6 = Excellent condition, 5 = Good, 4 = Fair, 3 = Poor, 2 = Very Poor, and 1 = Dying/Dead 6 3/21 /2022 Tree 6021 Tree number 6021 is to the east of the aforementioned systems. This is another co -dominant tree that has two stems originating approximately 2.5 foot above grade. Diameter at standard height readings for these two stems are 14 inches and 11 inches. This tree's drip line extends far this to towards the southwest and I got a reading of 16 foot with a laser rangefinder. With a hypsometer, I measured the height of the system to be approximately 85 foot tall. There are two places on the southern side of the pedestal region of the tree where there was some apparent mechanical damage. I sounded this region of the tree with a nylon hammer and did not detect decay. The union between the two main stems is ideal. This tree's live crown ratio is approximately 50%. The lack of low branches on the tree is because of the forest grown nature of the specimen. This tree does retain natural structure and the upper canopy has the expected amount of vigor and is largely free of deadwood. Despite the moderate mechanical damage on the southern side of the pedestal, this tree strikes me as being in excellent condition. Its DSH will also be calculated to reflect the age of the tree. 7 3/21 /2022 Trunk Formula Method Date: 3/ 10/22 Client Name: Keck Address: 15722 72nd Ave W Edmonds, Wa Subject Tree-6021 Species: Acer macrophyllum 1. Trunk Diameter at Standard Height: 14" and 11" results in 18" (square root of the sum of the squares of the stem readings) 2. Trunk Area at Standard Height: 254 sq. Inches 3. Condition Rating: 90% Health: 6 Structure: 5 Form: 5 4. Functional Limitations: None 5. External Limitations: 33% Replacement Tree Species: Acer macrophyllum 6. Trunk Diameter at Standard Height: 3" 7. Trunk Area at Standard Height: 7 sq. inches 8. Replacement Tree Cost/Source: $250 (local) Calculations 9. Unit Tree Cos (8/7): $36/sq. Inch 10. Basic Reproduction Cost (2x9): $9,144.00 11. Depreciated Cost (IOx3x4x5): $2,716.00 Additional Costs Cleanup: 0 Replacement Tree Installation: 0 Aftercare: 0 12. Total Additional Costs: 0 13.Total Reproduction Costs (11+12): $2,716.00 14. Rounded: $2,720.00 The rating scale for Health/Structure/Form: 6 = Excellent condition, 5 = Good, 4 = Fair, 3 = Poor, 2 = Very Poor, and 1 = Dying/Dead 8 3/21 /2022 Summary The combined value for trees 6012, 6013, and 6021 is $14,670.00. Since the total is less than $15,000.00, it rounds to the nearest ten, and there is no change. The ultimate value of the trees was depreciated to account for the trees' relationship with the site's ability to be developed. Please let me know if you have questions. Photos of the Trees 9 3/21 /2022 10 3/21 /2022 41: r _1� I ]• i�� .fir l 'ref':- •` ,. - d ^;,i ! ,� :!e ..:41 r N-.u: • `... i4'•• r oF,�.' 4r�.- •'.-:� '� g s" fir' i r ..���1+ � .r � ..,�. . . : ��::� f-';-�Pi:- � �' r�r �:;�!rS' I��; ',��� d�]k, :r ^f��L�:':�n6 r;•. �] , � .�.�,r;' � ,— - , . -.ry.i. .. �.sr"'.'�"_.� � �'fR';t 1{� � �1� lt• �a � ".�drai �. •.; ,Nt�,�. ` a.3f.� 1,�. •. •r , � z;.r: i. `a i '� ` idi; �1. �y,* ' ��..I �::1r •:�' �� t��;", 5i�i �y> I�-•7= 6fl-�'��,- - 1' .`y ��ri �_ �'1. 'nCd �S��i Y ��R.. ��� � , .l:' - 1 {_ u �3'r, 1. �1 V# f •� d =" � .�.` '"� r�]� +_. �.,i .$ :.'�� �4� � �# '�i''�� •s '��+y-'lj Vie'". ,�'. ,. ,�.f... .. •. .� -•.F`' _ .. � v..• ti.... e� tsar. a- .ate F T'4 • � Yf ... : 51'"S. � � ]]]}}} -°';. �-. �.. ��; ".per.. •� +I. � P � tea, .r ,.�, 6 _ . .. � . ��,:•�' � �• - � ..- - ' ji .� , y� ��I:. - -�h�. � - i:\•: ��jla •' .:�•�. ryu:'-�.i- •-�• ���s•��.: s; '. ,f r.t; S',: � .. � . fy� 'I°Y� �� � '!'f- '�•1: Tea i� -i:. 14 3/21 /2022 . y'•�.- :fog F;•., .!� 1" i'.}�. fy P.� 41 art Ar r r A w �' � �.•' - . y' - _ - - .,' 1, T I i l[. ' I '�,. r �• P � ^i.� jC. 7_ .i�� �� a 'r _ %� � r . ;' � r, - .�'. i•: re- • - j•' tw - ,fir..+•' .. lk"�i. - '�. IT AL dt q y •:t ^ , - i . ((__ •:�.y �� ��,�r � '�A. ��,�. 1 , . � "jam -..'f;�r 7.7 20 3/21 /2022 <:417 VII 401\ J}• ,..� _°i,.�'a.�, _ -',r` �" .�y�. .. --- �� .. ;. : ;r Rom' r Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters of legal character. Any and all property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other government regulations. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified so far as possible, however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payments of additional fees for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract engagement. Loss or alteration of any of this report invalidates the entire report. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any person other than to whom it is addressed, without prior written consent of the consultant/appraiser. Neither all nor any part of the content in this 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 consent of the consultant/appraiser--particularly as to value conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initialed designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualification. 23 3/21 /2022