The URL can be used to link to this page

DNS BLD2023-0292+TREE RETENTION+3.7.2023_3.36.40_PM+3407226Creative Landscape Solutions 1 8929 220th St SW December 15, 2021 Kayla Clark Nichols 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: sprince2020baol.com. Warm regards, J 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 Rangefinderrm- 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: Cornus 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 americana • 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 Action Retain Radius in feet En aa) >. * Tree Species DBH Adj. Drip- line Wind- OK in En v I_y v o # Ta ID (in) DBH radius firm Grove Health Defects/Comments t > o #g (in) .21(ft) N W E S = c _ Z v 1 721 Douglas 21 21 14 OK Typical of species 1 14 14 14 14 1 1 1 2 722 Douglas 21 21 14 OK Typical of species 1 14 14 14 14 1 1 1 fir 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 v Action Retain Radius in feet a) a) Tree Species DBH Adj. Drip- line Wind- OK in H 2 # Ta g ID (in) DBH radius firm Grove Health Defects/Comments t fu rn �.� M o ou1pi a) N W E S = S v s 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 v Action v Retain Radius in feet m Tree Species DBH Adj. Drip- line Wind- OK in m H 2 # T g ID (in) DBH radius firm Grove Health Defects/Comments s o, (.) (ft) o 6 u1pi N W E S = S v _ s � ro v 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 Food, 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 v Action v Retain Radius in feet m Tree Species DBH Adj. Drip- line Wind- OK in m H 2 # T g ID (in) DBH radius firm Grove Health Defects/Comments s o, (.) (ft) o 6 u1pi N W E S = S v _ s � ro v 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 v Action Retain Radius in feet a) a) Tree Species DBH Adj. Drip- line Wind- OK in H 2 # Ta g ID (in) DBH radius firm Grove Health Defects/Comments t fu rn �.� M o ou1pi a) N W E S = S v s 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 Western Suppressed canopy, thin 32 752 red 10 10 10 OK canopy, typical of species 1 10 10 10 10 1 1 1 cedar 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 10, leaders with included bark 36 756 clulmp 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 v Action Retain Radius in feet a) a) Tree Species DBH Adj. Drip- line Wind- OK in H 2 # Ta g ID (in) DBH radius firm Grove Health Defects/Comments t fu rn (.� (ft) o ou1pi a) N W E S = S v s 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 ical 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 v Action v Retain Radius in feet m Tree Species DBH Adj. Drip- line Wind- OK in m H 2 # T g ID (in) DBH radius firm Grove Health Defects/Comments s o, (.) (ft) o 6 u1pi N W E S = S v _ s � ro v 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 River 9 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 Lawson 6, Co -dominant leaders with 51 771 7, 11.5 6 Poor included bark x4 @ root 1 6 6 6 6 1 cypress 6,4 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 Western Asymmetric canopy towards 54 774 red 8 8 10 Poor west, dead wood, broken 1 10 10 10 10 1 cedar branches, suppressed 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 v Action v Retain Radius in feet m Tree Species DBH Adj. Drip- line Wind- OK in m H 2 # T g ID (in) DBH radius firm Grove Health Defects/Comments s o, (.) (ft) o 6 u1pi N W E S = S v _ s � ro v 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 2 # ID inches inches radius firm Grove v feet @ ? N W E S > 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 s ecies 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 # ID inches inches radius firm Grove feet E ? N W E S > c 0 z Previous top loss, Douglas low love 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 1 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: 1 Creative Landscape Solutions 15 8929 220th St SW Creative Landscape Solutions 16 8929 220th St SW Proposed Site Improvements: (For reference only; See Civil plans for specifics) AREA l EX67WG TREES TO REMAW (TVR) PLAT OF AURORA HEIGHTS DIVISION NO. J BLOCK 1 TREF PROTECTION FEAADVG A.S REOb ANT WOW DOW WT)" THE "LAE GK TREES 7D BE SA/ED ORL DEED TD BE EVALUATED BY AR CKMT 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 (Kernan Lien) on August 25th 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 23.10.080.13.1 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.