Loading...
APPROVED PLN Tree Removal PLN2024-0069CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION 1nC. I S9� DATE: August 28, 2024 TO: Walter Thompson FROM: Carmen Smith, Planner carmen.smith(@edmondswa.izov RE: Hazard Tree Removal (PLN2024-0069) 720 Spruce St, Edmonds WA Thank you for applying for a hazard tree removal at 720 Spruce St. Shellabarger Creek, a type of environmentally critical area pursuant to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.40, runs through the property. The removal of trees or vegetation within a critical area or critical area buffer is not an allowed activity unless it involves the removal of invasive species or hazard trees pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.8. Per the submitted arborist report and TRAQ form, the Red Maple tree meets hazard criteria. Removal of 1 Red Maple tree, as recommended by your arborist, has been approved per ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8) with the following conditions: 1. This review only applies to the Red Maple tree identified in the photos and materials. 2. A minimum of two replacement trees must be planted in the general vicinity of the Red Maple removed (location shown on site plan and as described in arborist report is sufficient). Replacement trees must be species that are native and a minimum of one to two inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) for deciduous trees and a minimum of six feet in height for evergreen trees as measured from the top of the root ball. 3. The replacement trees must be installed within one year of the removal of the Red Maple. Please provide photos of each of the planted replacement trees to verify installation and let us know when to schedule a follow-up inspection. If you have any questions, please let me know at either carmen.smith@edmondswa.gov or 425-771- 0220 ext. 1278. Feel free to print this memorandum as verification of an approved tree removal request. Sincerely, CO,nn�'w`, c✓�vl/� Carmen Smith, Planner RECEIVED 08/26/20, CITY OF EDMONDS MyBuildingPermit.com CITY OF EDMONDS 11IDEVELiOPA/ff< ring and Grading Application #1537408 - Hazard tree removal Applicant First Name Last Name Company Name walter thompson Number Street Apartment or Suite Number E-mail Address 720 Spruce Street wedell@msn.com City State Zip Phone Number Extension Edmonds WA 98020 (206) 719-3942 Contractor Company Name Contractor Unknown Number Street Apartment or Suite Number City State Zip Phone Number Extension State License Number License Expiration Date UBI # E-mail Address Project Location Number Street Floor Number Suite or Room Number 720 SPRUCE ST City Zip Code County Parcel Number EDMONDS 98020 00484500501000 Associated Building Permit Number Tenant Name Additional Information (i.e. equipment location or special instructions)_ Work Location Property Owner First Name Last Name or Company Name Kari D Thompson Number Street Apartment or Suite Number 720 SPRUCE ST City State Zip EDMONDS WA 98020 Certification Statement - The applicant states: I certify that I am the owner of this property or the owner's authorized agent. If acting as an authorized agent, I further certify that I have full power and authority to file this application and to perform, on behalf of the owner, all acts required to enable the jurisdiction to process and review such application. I have furnished true and correct information. I will comply with all provisions of law and ordinance governing this type of application. If the scope of work requires a licensed contractor to perform the work, the information will be provided prior to permit issuance. Date Submitted: 8/26/2024 Submitted By: Walter thompson Page 1 of 2 RECEIVED 08/26/20, CITY OF EDMONDS MyBuil.dingPermit.com CITY OF EDMONDS P11DEVEL,OPAfff< ring and Grading Application #1537408 - Hazard tree removal Project Contact Company Name: Name: Address: walter thompson 720 Spruce Street Edmonds WA 98020 Project Type Single Family Residential Email: wedell@msn.com Phone #: (206) 719-3942 Activity Type Scope of Work Hazard Tree Removal Tree Removal Project Name: Hazard tree removal Description of Work: Removal of a dying Red Maple tree next to resident. Project Details Primary Use Other Tree Information Total number of trees to be removed Description (species, diameter) Location (front yard, back yard, etc.) 1 Red Maple 12"DBH Back yard next to resident. Page 2 of 2 RECEIVED 08/26/2024 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT City of Edmonds, Development Services Department Hello, my name is Walter Thompson. We live at 720 Spruce Street here in Edmonds. We have lived at this address since 1975. Today I am applying for a permit to remove a 30 year old Red Maple tree on this property. For the last several years I have noticed a sharp decline in the tree's vigor and health. Lots of dead material and not many leaves. The tree is located in a close proximity to our house as well being just several feet from a small creek that runs through our property. One of many branches of Shelleberger Creek. I have contacted an arborist to do a tree risk assessment on this tree. This report and her observations and site drawing are included with this application. I will be replacing with one vine maples (acer circinatum) and the other a larch approximately 5 ft in height on the NE side of the property. Thank you for your kind consideration. Walter Thompson 1 of 1 RECEIVED 8/27/2024 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Katy Bigelow 206.351.1375 arboristkaty@gmail.com Aug 8, 2024 Walter Thompson 720 Spruce St. Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Thompson: Thank you for asking me to provide a memo stating my observations of one tree growing on your property in Edmonds, Washington. To evaluate the tree addressed in this letter I combined my field experience and education with current accepted practices as defined by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). The tools I used to make this assessment were limited to binoculars, diameter tape, compass and laser pointer. A visual tree assessment and other methods are only conclusive for the day of inspection and do not guarantee that conditions will remain the same in the future. I was asked by Mr. Thompson to provide a brief memo with my observations of one tree growing on his property in Edmonds, Washington. I completed a Level 2 tree assessment on August 8, 2024. All levels of assessment are explained in an attachment to this report. The tree I assessed was one red maple (Acer rubrum). Its location is noted on the Man attached to this report. Red maple: — 12" DBH, stands two feet from a deck, four feet away from the home and three feet away from a pond (Photos 1-2). It leans towards the home, over the deck and is within range of numerous very good condition ornamental trees and shrubs. There is a mature Ganoderma sp. conk present at the base of the tree. Near the conk on the trunk is a larger area of sap flow indicating infection by the fungi (Photo 3). This fungi is fast acting in this tree species and is considered to cause extensive base of the trunk rot within a few years causing tree death or the probability of the tree falling over from the base of the trunk. Tree assessment — Thompson 720 Spruce St. 8-2024 The foliage of the tree is dying. Leaves are very small and falling off. The tree is nearly dead. At this point there is no way to improve the vigor or condition of the tree. Tree risk assessment is a qualification that can be obtained through the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture). The TRAQ (Tree Risk Assessment Qualification) methodology has improved risk assessment by teaching assessors to follow a consistent format when examining a tree. Additionally, the TRAQ protocol includes defined terms for tree risk. The four terms under the risk category Likelihood of Failure are Imminent, Probable, Possible and Improbable. Imminent as defined in the TRAQ manual is an infrequent observance that would involve immediate risk mitigation to prevent damage to a nearby target. The majority of trees I and other tree risk assessors observe usually fall into the middle categories of Possible or Probable Likelihood of Failure. Very rarely is a tree rated "Imminent" observed. To assist in visualizing how a tree risk assessor determines risk, the following matrix used as part of the protocols can be referred to below: Matrix I. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Matrix2. Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Negligible Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Keeping this risk rating system in mind during my assessment I found: • There is a probable likelihood of failure from the base of the tree trunk (whole tree) with a high likelihood of impact to multiple targets. Consequences of failure would be significant, especially if the tree failed into the pond area. This tree is rated as a high risk tree. Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC Tree assessment — Thompson 720 Spruce St. 8-2024 The time frame for this assessment is six months. These trees stand close to a stream (see Critical Area Map). According to Edmonds Municipal Code, if a certified arborist determines that a tree is hazardous, poses a threat to public safety, or is an imminent risk of damage to private property, a permit for removal is not required but documentation such as this report is needed. Title 23 Natural Resources Ch. 23.40.220.C.b Environmentally critical areas general provisions i. The applicant submits a report from an ISA- or ASCA-certified arborist or registered landscape architect that documents the hazard and provides a replanting schedule for the replacement trees; (This report suffices for this requirement.) ii. Tree cutting shall be limited to pruning and crown thinning, unless otherwise justified by a qualified professional. Where pruning or crown thinning is not sufficient to address the hazard, trees should be removed or converted to wildlife snags; (It is not advisable to leave a traditional snag (over ten feet tall) standing due to the proximity of the tree and then dying trunk to the home. Leaving a short trunk is ok (below six feet tall). iii. All vegetation cut (tree stems, branches, etc.) shall be left within the critical area or buffer unless removal is warranted due to the potential for disease or pest transmittal to other healthy vegetation or unless removal is warranted to improve slope stability; (I strongly recommend AGAINST leaving any vegetation in the critical areas or otherwise on the property due to extremely limited space being available for laying anything other than one or two small logs. Wood chips generated from chipping up any tree parts can be used in the landscape if desired without risk of spreading disease.) iv. The land owner shall replace any trees that are removed with new trees at a ratio of two replacement trees for each tree removed (2:1) within one year in accordance with an approved restoration plan. Replacement trees may be planted at a different, nearby location if it can be determined that planting in the same location would create a new hazard or potentially damage the critical area. Replacement trees shall be species that are native and indigenous to the site and a minimum of one to two inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) for deciduous trees and a minimum of six feet in height for evergreen trees as measured from the top of the root ball; ... in this case, there are VERY limited areas to replant this already densely planted property. Small trees could be accepted on the northeast corner of the property or as understory to the birch trees on the north portion of the Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC Tree assessment — Thompson 720 Spruce St. 8-2024 property as noted on the Man. Only very small or dwarf trees can fit in either of these areas. Replacement trees shall not include any native tree species as there is no room on this site for their young let alone mature growth sizes. Tree species such as dwarf conifers, crepe myrtles, paperbark maples or fringe trees are understory plantings that could work on this site. Planting in the fall months and providing supplemental water for plants for up to one year will help new trees establish. Use mulch or compost to surround the base of new plantings to keep roots cool and moist through summer months. How to submit for a permit: Use the My BuildingPwebsite (do not email application materials to staff). The correct form is found under "Clearing and Grading"/ "Single Family"/ "Hazard Tree Removal". Also submit the TRAQ forms for this tree that are NOT attached to this report but will come via email. If you haven't used MBP before or need assistance with material submission, Development Services/Planning can assist you (425) 771-0220. Once materials are submitted to mbp.com, the request will show up in the queue for review. Thank you very much for calling me for your arboricultural concerns. Katy Bigelow Board Master Certified Arborist PNW ISA member # PN-6039B Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Registered Consulting Arborist® #490 Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 4 Tree assessment — Thompson 720 Spruce St. 8-2024 Levels of Tree Assessment LEVEL 1: The Level 1 assessment is a visual assessment from a specified perspective of an individual tree or a population of trees near specified targets to identify obvious defects or specified conditions. A limited visual assessment typically focuses on identifying trees with an imminent and/or probable likelihood of failure. Limited visual assessments are the fastest but least thorough means of assessment and are intended primarily for large populations of trees. LEVEL 2: This is a basic assessment completing a detailed visual inspection of a tree and surrounding site, and a synthesis of the information collected. This assessment requires that a tree risk assessor walk completely around the tree —looking at the site, buttress roots, trunk, and branches. A basic assessment may include the use of simple tools to gain additional information about the tree or defects. Basic is the standard assessment that is performed by arborists in response to a client's request for tree risk assessment. Simple tools may be used for measuring the tree and acquiring more information about the tree or defects. However, the use of these tools is not mandatory unless specified in the Scope of Work. LEVEL 3: Advanced assessments are performed to provide detailed information about specific tree parts, defects, targets, or site conditions. They are usually conducted in conjunction with or after a basic assessment if the tree risk assessor needs additional information and the client approves the additional service. Specialized equipment, data collection and analysis, and/or expertise are usually required for advanced assessments. These assessments are therefore generally more time intensive and more expensive. Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC Tree assessment — Thompson 720 Spruce St. 8-2024 < I. ��- { X� L� Blldshd••• y�=: L 0 IS 30h Map - tree location near stream (red circle). Replanting areas shown by green circles. 2-2H SPRUCE ST } zMICE ST 7A SMIKE ST i 72 . 41 1IEFJLOCk `:•T 1SW� • Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 6 �r r y iy7. «rig., k,'�+ },', +�• �`� ��rV r„ 4M�'^-�\��'+ 1 :U ��!1�'. ���3�. �}X�•�� Q," 1Ct�����S�ff�S'r;1 ��1 / /I ,f9 'r .. � . ,.e� is ,✓ _ �`,� j.4� k '� ,k�f�/" ky '��p'G �01�*•� 's. { is �' -t ". r Si -Oo^ ,�/� k 1 S'' •}.W �. �{ .v+iFwr'+`'' ,.^ ��' +�. t �r ,Cp"+� x'1'fy. �� - �.a''3� _ .. j lF a a y �c i a Tree assessment — Thompson 720 Spruce St. 8-2024 Photo 3: One of the Ganoderma conks and other infected areas of the base of the trunk. Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 9 Tree assessment — Thompson 720 Spruce St. 8-2024 Assumptions, Limiting Conditions and General Waiver I, Katy Bigelow, certify that: I have personally inspected the tree(s) and or the property referred to in this report; I have no current or prospective financial or other interest in the vegetation or the property which is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias in favor of or against any of the involved parties or their respective position(s), if any; The analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are the product of my independent professional judgment and based on current scientific procedures and facts, and the foregoing report was prepared according to commercially reasonable and generally accepted arboricultural standards and practices for the Pacific Northwest and Puget Sound areas; The information included in this report covers only those trees that were examined and reflects the condition of the trees as of the time and date of inspection; This report and the opinions expressed herein are not intended, nor should they be construed, as any type of warranty or guarantee regarding the condition of the subject trees in the future; Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions ("CC&Rs") may restrict the number, type and height of vegetation on the subject property, and I have made no investigation regarding whether the property is subject to such CC&Rs; and To the best of my knowledge and belief, all statements and information in this report are true and correct and information provided by others is assumed to be true and correct. I am not an attorney or engineer. This report does not cover these areas of expertise and represents advice only of arboricultural nature. Without limiting the generality of the preceding sentence, it is specifically understood that nothing contained in this report is intended as legal advice, or advice or opinions regarding soil stability or zoning laws, and this report should not be relied upon to take the place of such advice. Katy Bigelow Board Master Certified Arborist PNW ISA member # PN-6039B Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Registered Consulting Arborist® #490 Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 10 RFC �JYAD Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form CITY OF ED MONDS ISA PLANNINGBD EVELOPMENTI y U �lddfNT Dateir U 2 Time V Address/iree'locabjo�i Tree no. i Sheet of Tree species dbh Height J Crown ad di . Assessors) Time frame Tools used v Target Assessment Target zone Occupancy J2 E a) i i X t :" rate 1-rare r ,°', — c o E a x z-occasional ��m F Target description 3—frequent u > y Vu 3 F `•• 4-constant a E � C. 1 AV 2 7 3 -' 4 site Factors History of failures Topography Flat❑ Slope❑ % Aspect Site changes Non rited Grade change [I Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts El Describe Soil conditions Li volume' Saturated ❑ Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong windsOIce ❑ Snow El Heavy rain ❑ Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor LowliNormal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests Abiotic Species failure profile Branches ❑ Trunk Roots ❑ Describe / -i Load Factors Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Full ❑ Wi d funneling ❑ Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium ❑ Large ❑ Crown density Sparse ❑ Normal ❑ Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑ Normal ❑ Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent or planned change in load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches ❑ %overall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Weak attach Cavity/Nest hole /o circ. Over -extended branches ❑ P ' us branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raise ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ n-tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth Main concern(s) Load onsiefect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze PP ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ. Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms i� Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots istance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ oil weakness ❑ Lean ' Corrected? Response growth Response gro Main concern(s) Main con n(s) Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Si nificant ❑ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Page I of 2 Risk Categorization ... �.�'.Risk . .Target rating of part -..Matrix I NCEo��CCC���9`C1 ow0■ 1a•NECON ccNII •l•�• 0 M 0 Ice oo cccccc• col c • o c E91- WERE mmm� KNOW NCO CC KEW W WWWO M �. ���� �c�c�ccccc�n�c • a • �, MMM�XXW NNCO CO ERNNO CC Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impacting Target Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable I Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Matrix2. Risk rating matrix Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Negligible Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low ILow Notes, explanations, descriptions North x t Mitigation options c�L / 'f + Residual risk 2 Z' 4 W Q Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Overall residual risk Residual risk Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High -Extreme ❑ Work priority V13 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ Low/M:; Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme q Yj,,yam) Recommended inspection interval Data} nal ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed I�AIo ❑Yes-Type/Reason � f Inspection limitations one ❑Visibility ❑Access []Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists — 2013 Page 2 of 2