The URL can be used to link to this page

PLN2024-0066 TREE REMOVAL LETTERCITY 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: October 29, 2024 TO: John Mercier FROM: Carmen Smith, Planner carmen.smith(@edmondswa.izov RE: Nuisance Tree Removal (PLN2024-0066) 840 Hindley Ln, Edmonds WA Thank you for applying for a nuisance tree removal at 840 Hindley Lane. Hindley Creek, a type of environmentally critical area pursuant to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.40, runs through the property. Alterations to a critical area and/or its buffer, including nuisance tree removal, constitute an alteration and require a critical area report. A stream report and tree replacement plan were submitted to the City on October 28, 2024. Per the submitted arborist report, the Douglas fir tree is a nuisance tree. Removal of 1 Douglas fir tree, as recommended by your arborist, has been approved with the following conditions from the submitted stream report: 1. This review only applies to the Douglas fir tree identified in the photos and materials. 2. Two shore pine replacement trees must be planted on the south side of the stream, approximately 15-20 feet from the stream channel and at least 10 feet apart from each other and existing trees. 3. The replacement trees must be a minimum of six feet in height as measured from the top of the root ball. 4. The replacement trees must be installed within one year of the removal of the Douglas fir. 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, cwm' WW Carmen Smith, Planner RECEIVED 08/19/2,024 CITY OF EDMONDS MyBuildingPermit.com CITY OF EDMONDS 11IDEVELiOPA/ff< ring and Grading Application #1534200 - Nuisance tree removal Applicant First Name Last Name Company Name John Mercier Number Street Apartment or Suite Number E-mail Address 840 Hindley Lane jmer100@comcast.net City State Zip Phone Number Extension Edmonds WA 98020-2621 (206) 849-7624 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 840 HINDLEY LN City Zip Code County Parcel Number EDMONDS 98020 27032400224000 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 John Randall Mercier Number Street Apartment or Suite Number 840 HINDLEY LN 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: 8/16/2024 Submitted By: John Mercier Page 1 of 2 RECEIVED 08/19/2,024 CITY OF EDMONDS MyBuildingPermit.com CITY OF ECMVONDS P11DEVEL,OPAfff< ring and Grading Application #1534200 - Nuisance tree removal Project Contact Company Name: Name: John Mercier Address: 840 Hindley Lane Edmonds WA 98020-2621 Project Type Single Family Residential Email: jmer100@comcast.net Phone #: (206) 849-7624 Activity Type Scope of Work Hazard Tree Removal Tree Removal Project Name: Nuisance tree removal Description of Work: Remove nuisance tree. Project Details Primary Use Other Tree Information Total number of trees to be removed Description (species, diameter) Location (front yard, back yard, etc.) 1 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menzesii 32" side yard next to northwest lot line Page 2 of 2 R Y VED r 084 MyBuildingPermit.com 1,1- 18.10 CkUgr"(MM(bOB(3ids Pf31j@d' INM66Nuisar ce tree removal R��1Fi RAWT1534:?00 Supplemental Name: Applicant Certification - Planning The applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. The property affected by the application is in the exclusive ownership of the applicant or that the application has been submitted with the consent of all owners of the affected property. I certify, under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on behalf of the owner of the subject property. I do so certify. RECEIVED 08/19/2024A& M1 Tree Service NW, CITY OF EDMOINA Certified Consulting Arborists PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT August 2, 2024 Client: John Mercier Location: 840 Hindley Lane Edmonds, WA 98020 Parcel # 27032400224000 Project Arborist: Anne M Morey ISA Certified Arborist PN-9302A ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Scope of Work: To complete a risk assessment and replacement plan for a Douglas fir that was being removed without a permit to satisfy the code violation given by the City of Edmonds. Personal qualifications and levels of assessment: I have worked in the tree industry for over 20 years and have obtained my ISA Certifications for Arborist and Tree Risk Assessor. I used my experience in the field and preparing reports for municipalities throughout King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties to create this report/letter. Site Observations/Discussion: This is a 0.82-acre lot located in Edmonds Washington, legal description SEC 24 TWP 27 RGE 03LOT 1 OF CITY OF EDM SP NO S95-61 REC AF NO 9701305004 BEING A PTN OF NE1/4 NW1/4. This is an established property originally built in 1964, the landscape is very well kept as is the house. The property is not far from Puget Sound and is bordered by a natural preserve creek that runs east to west on the north side of the dwelling along Hindley Lane. The tree is located on Mr. Mercier's property near the natural area on the northwest property line. The neighboring property, parcel #27032400222100 owned by Kathy & Carol Junglov is very close to the tree in this report. Page 1 of 8 19712 147t" Ave SE, Renton, WA 98058 Office: 425-867-2307 Cell: 425-260-4293 Lic# MTREEMT870DO RECEIVED 08/19/2024A&'M Tree Service NW.. CITY OF EDMC PLANNING DEVELOPME Above map shows location of property to Puget Sound, below shows natural area where "creek" is Page 2 of 8 19712 147t" Ave SE, Renton, WA 98058 Office: 425-867-2307 Cell: 425-260-4293 Lic# MTREEMT870DO RECEIVED 08/19/2024A& M, Tree Service NW, CITY OF EDMC PLANNING DEVELOPME Above is the critical area map from Edmonds GIS Map online. The red dot showing where the tree is located. The tree in question is a 32" Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menzesii. It was topped a long time ago and developed two new stems that extend approximately 90 feet. The union where the stems split is horseshoe shape from what I can see it has good wound wood with the exception of one area on the Northen most stem. Shown in pictures below. Page 3 of 8 19712 147t" Ave SE, Renton, WA 98058 Office: 425-867-2307 Cell: 425-260-4293 Lic# MTREEMT870DO RECEIVED 08/19/2024A& M1 Tree Service NW, CITY OF EDMOJJyA Certified Consulting Arborists PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT The tree was in process of removal when the climber was stopped leaving only 25% of the canopy on one of the remaining stems. I completed a risk assessment on the tree resulting as moderate. The stem that remains with the canopy is on the stem with compromised union. Reducing limbs on the remaining stem will only eliminate risk temporarily and the tree will ultimately die. During my inspection the neighbors informed me of ongoing issues with the trees' roots causing damage to the water and sewer lines from the house to the front of the property. Shown in pictures below. The damage had resulted in expensive repairs. r tis+- �� This was one of the main reasons for removal. There were 6 new deciduous trees (kousa dogwood I think) already planted along the property line near the base of this tree. I suggested to also install a root barrier to help with the root system of the new trees as well. With the state the tree is in now I would expect the root system to be stimulated and try to grow rapidly to adjust to all the trimming and loss of canopy. There will be more movement in the tree as well which could cause further damage to the driveway, water and sewer again. There is no mitigation that will retain this tree safely. ECDC 23.10.040.F.1 Exemptions 1. Nuisance tree with documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been attempted to rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant's qualified tree professional explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance. ECDC 23.40.220.c.8 Tree Replacement 2 conifer trees shall replace the 1 32" Douglas fir that was removed. ECDC 23.10.080.D 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. Page 4 of 8 19712 147t" Ave SE, Renton, WA 98058 Office: 425-867-2307 Cell: 425-260-4293 Lic# MTREEMT870DO RECEIVED 08/19/2024A& M1 Tree Service NW, CITY OF EDMOI NA Certified Consulting Arborists PLANNING The director may consider smaller -sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that smaller DEVELOPME y ipP . p t 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. 4. Replacement trees must be planted within the city of Edmonds or its urban growth area. ANSI A300 Standard practices for planting shall be followed. Conclusion/Recommendation: As the tree removal without permit was in violation of Edmonds tree removal code this letter is meant to satisfy those requirements. The trees' roots and impact to the neighboring water and sewer system fall under the nuisance tree description noted in ECDC 23.10.040.17.1 and should be allowed removal with this documentation, however, due to the natural buffer critical area nearby and to comply with ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 replacement trees of a 2:1 ratio for this tree shall be planted. Thank you for the opportunity to help with your trees, please contact me if you have any further questions on this letter. A & M Tree Service NW, Inc. President/Owner ISA Certified Arborist #PN-9302A ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Office Voice Mail: 425-867-2307 Cell: 425-260-4293 Member of PNW and Western Chapters ISA Page 5 of 8 19712 147t" Ave SE, Renton, WA 98058 Office: 425-867-2307 Cell: 425-260-4293 Lic# MTREEMT870DO RECEIVED 08/19/2024A&!M Tree Service NW, CITY OF EDMOjVA Certified Consulting Arborists PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1) Any legal description provided to the A & M Tree Service NW, Inc. 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 though 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, unless otherwise stated. 3) Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, A & M Tree Service NW, Inc. can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information. 4) A & M Tree Service NW, Inc. shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this 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 invalidated 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 A & M Tree Service NW, Inc. 7) Neither all or any part of the contents of 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 or verbal consent of A & M Tree Service NW, Inc. -- particularly as to value conclusions, identity of A & M Tree Service NW, Inc., or any reference to any professional society or to any initialed designation conferred upon A & M Tree Service NW, Inc. as stated in its qualifications. 8) This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of A & M Tree Service NW, Inc., and the fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence neither of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding in to reported. 9) Sketches, diagrams, graphs, and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. 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 no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the tree or other plant or property in question may not arise in the future. Note. Even healthy trees can fail under normal or storm conditions. The only way to eliminate all risk is to remove all trees within reach of all targets. Annual monitoring by an ISA Certified Arborist or Certified Forester will reduce the potential of tree failures. It is impossible to predict with certainty that a tree will stand or fail, or the timing of the failure. It is considered an 'Act of God' when a tree fails, unless it is directly felled or pushed over by man's actions. Page 6 of 8 19712 1471h Ave SE, Renton, WA 98058 Office: 425-867-2307 Cell: 425-260-4293 Lic# MTREEMT870DO RECEIVED 08/19/2024A&!M Tree Service NW, CITY OF EDMOJVA Certified Consulting Arborists PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Methods Measuring We measured the diameter of each tree at 54 inches above grade, diameter at standard height (DSH). If a tree had multiple stems. We measured each stem individually at standard height and determined a single -stem equivalent diameter by using the method outlined in the city of Seattle Director's Rule 16- 2008 or the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition Second Printing published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. A tree is regulated based on this single -stem equivalent diameter value. Evaluating We evaluated tree health and structure utilizing visual tree assessment (VTA) methods. The basis behind VTA is the identification of symptoms, which the tree produces in reaction to a weak spot or area of mechanical stress. A tree reacts to mechanical and physiological stresses by growing more vigorously to re -enforce weak areas, while depriving less stressed parts. An understanding of the uniform stress allows the arborist to make informed judgments about the condition of a tree. Rating When rating tree health, we took into consideration crown indicators such as foliar density, size, color, stem and shoot extensions. When rating tree structure, we evaluated the tree for form and structural defects, including past damage and decay. A & M Tree Service NW, Inc. has adapted our ratings based on the Purdue University Extension formula values for health condition (Purdue University Extension bulletin FNR- 473-W - Tree Appraisal). These values are a general representation used to assist arborists in assigning ratings. Excellent - Perfect specimen with excellent form and vigor, well-balanced crown. Normal to exceeding shoot length on new growth. Leaf size and color normal. Trunk is sound and solid. Root zone undisturbed. No apparent pest problems. Long safe useful life expectancy for the species. Good - Imperfect canopy density in few parts of the tree, up to 10% of the canopy. Normal to less than 3/4 typical growth rate of shoots and minor deficiency in typical leaf development. Few pest issues or damage, and if they exist, they are controllable, or tree is reacting appropriately. Normal branch and stem development with healthy growth. Safe useful life expectancy typical for the species. Fair - Crown decline and dieback up to 30% of the canopy. Leaf color is somewhat chlorotic/necrotic with smaller leaves and "off' coloration. Shoot extensions indicate some stunting and stressed growing conditions. Stress cone crop clearly visible. Obvious signs of pest problems contributing to lesser condition, control might be possible. Some decay areas found in main stem and branches. Below average safe useful life expectancy Poor - Lacking full crown, more than 50% decline and dieback, especially affecting larger branches. Stunting of shoots is obvious with little evidence of growth on smaller stems. Leaf size and color reveals overall stress in the plant. Insect or disease infestation may be severe and uncontrollable. Extensive decay or hollows in branches and trunk. Short safe useful life expectancy Page 7 of 8 19712 1471h Ave SE, Renton, WA 98058 Office: 425-867-2307 Cell: 425-260-4293 Lic# MTREEMT870DO RECEIVED 08/19/2024A&!M Tree Service NW, CITY OF EDMOJVA Certified Consulting Arborists PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Tree Protection Fencing: First, protect the roots that lie in the path of construction. Approximately 90-95% of a trees root systems lie in the top three feet of soil and more than Y/2 of them are in the top 1'. 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 ih 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. It is more accurate than the dripline for determining the CRZ of trees growing in forests or that have narrow growth habits. To calculate the critical root radius, measure the trees diameter (DBH) 4.5' above the ground. For each inch, allow for 1- 1.5' of critical root radius. If a tree's DBH is 10", its critical root radius is 10-15'. 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 the 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 may be encroached upon by such activities. The CRZ or LOD should be protected with fencing adequate to hinder access to people, vehicles and equipment. Fencing detail should be provided. It should consist of continuous 4' high temporary chain -link fencing with post sections @ 10' on center, polyethylene laminar safety fencing or similar materials. 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 by reducing pore space. The effected tree roots suffocate. When construction takes place close to the protected CRZ, cover the site with 4" 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 should not be done in the LOD. 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, please contact an ISA Certified arborist to evaluate the remaining trees looking 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 3' laterally from the obstruction (ex. 3' back of a curb, building, or other existing or planned permanent infrastructure.) Page 8 of 8 19712 1471h Ave SE, Renton, WA 98058 Office: 425-867-2307 Cell: 425-260-4293 Lic# MTREEMT870DO RECEIVED 08/19/2024 CITY OF &EDMONDSL PLANNINGNING DEVELOPMENT rJL&M'* Tree Service NW, ISA Certified Arborists and Qualified Tree Risk Assessors Thanks for considering A & M Tree Service NW for your Tree Care needs. As each project varies, below is a brief summary of service items and list of fees for our services. Date: -� - i S " 2- ,( Client: / ' ' L-772- l i:-: ... Address: 'lL/ 0 ! r /'�C_ L j/ There are three (3) levels of tree risk assessment Level 1: Visual Assessment; distant assessment of 1 or a group of trees to determine any obvious hazards and determine if other levels of assessment are necessary. Level 2: Basic Assessment; detailed visual inspection of a tree and its surrounding site using simple tools to acquire more information about the tree and any potential defects. Level 3: Advanced Assessment; these assessments are used to provide more detailed I information about specific tree parts, defects, targets, or site conditions. 1) Level 1: Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) ISA Certified Arborist/TRAQ $200.00 (Includes a follow up email of the findings) 2) Level 2: Basic Risk Assessment a. $350 for standard letter, b. $75 per completed ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form up to 10 trees / c. $50 per completed ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form for 11+ trees d. $750 for formal hazard report with risk assessment (first form free) , 3) Level 3: Advanced Assessment TB (Need Level 1 assessment to help determine exactly what type of inspection is needed) 4) Hourly Rate for Arborist includes research and/or correspondence with municipalities/LA's/Builders l Minimum $480.00 for site visits Q $160.00 per hour billed in 15-minute increments Anne Marie Morey PN9302A * ISA Certified Arborist * Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Mike Morey Jr. PIS-6934A x ISA Certified Arborist * Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Members of ISA, PNW and Western CHAPTER ISA. and ASCA Celebrating 2G+- years of Service Fe Ins RECEIVED 08/19/2024 CITY OF EDMONDS lk&M* PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Tree Service NW ISA Certified Arborists and Qualified Tree Risk Assessors 5) Mapped Inventories Level 1: a. $50 per tree inventoried up to 30 trees $30 per tree inventoried 31— 50 trees $26.50 per tree i ( ntoried 51— 74 trees $20 per tree jnventoried 75 —100 trees $15 per trea inventoried 101- 200 tre b. $1500 r new development/AD demo/tree protection/retention report c. $7 00 for municipal or tree replacement/mitigation report d. 250 for ye review/monitor visits that include written follow up letter �. f e. $550 inventory re only (does not include any risk forms) ' No charge for yearly review/monitor if no write up is needed 7) Legal Retainer (covers upjo5hours, $300 per hour after) $1500.00 *Legal work includes site work, depositions, deliverables and expert witness testimony * Minimum legal charge is % day fee if court/hearing appearance is cancelled within 48 hours 8) Pre -site visit/review of new projects (construction sites and new developments) $5 Return site visits that result in a formal written letter of the meeting or review .: 250.00 No charge for estimating tree work. Travel: Included as part of the pre -site visit/review fee for Construction. Following initial site visit, all travel time for additional site visits is charged at the arborists hourly rate. Does not apply to Legal Fee Retainer **cost for ferry travel varies upon availability. If car travel is an option the lesser of the two will be applied. Expenses: We bill for actual expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred such as ferry fares, parking, photocopies, tree tags, and printing of documents. Priority Services: 1.5 x regular rates apply to "priority" services — site visits and/or reporting requested within 5 business days, when there are no schedule openings or if you require a particular arborist who has no openings. If we must re -arrange the schedule to accommodate you, we charge a premium for immediate attention. Anne Marie Morey PN9302A * ISA Certified Arborist * Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Mike Morey Jr. PN-6934A * ISA Certified Arborist * Tree Risk. Assessor Qualified Members of ISA, PNW and Western CHAPTER ISA and ASCA Celebrating 20+ years of Service I 00 O RECEIVED ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form NOW Eli C k r�il Date.-3 -I/ Tin, - - - --' - ...1Z ,,) q e Address/Tree Incation '04-0 E0Yna,-�X'--i f CIT�,OF EDMON - ( i -free n'o'. Sheet 0 dbh Height _Crown spread dia. Tools used 2"`ic4 ic?- 7— Tine frame_ , Z, - L Target Assessment Target ZM occupancy S E �s § , -S ,; :r rate I -rare 0 - C Target description Tawprmftn I �S 3 �, � � +,, i 150 14 3- 4—frequent 8. 3 4 Site Factors J'j History of failures Topography FlatigUlopeO % Aspect Site changes None Grade changeO Site clearingO Changed soil hydrologyO RootcutsO Describe Soil conditions Limited volume 0 Saturated 0 Shallow .0 Compacted Pavement over mots Describe 11 ramIj YA Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds Ef Ice 2"Snowl2l"Heavy rain Rr Describe Tree Health and Spades Profile Vigor Lowe Normal 0 High 0 66 Foliage Nole (seasonal) 0 None (dead)[3 Normal .90 Y. Chloratic % Necrotic 36 Abititi,( c4 Species failure profil; 'Branch bs0- Trunk5k Rootsa Describe-T-, ;). Load Factors f Wind exposure Protected Partial 13 Fuller, Wind funnelirt-gO Relative crown size SmaW4ediumll Large Crowndensity Sparse14 NormalO DenseEl Interior branches FewO Normally DenseO Vines/MmIletoeIMoss y factors 1,a 0 �u �j -;�x4 Recent or expected change in load f; f Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crownp- LCR —;)4 % 1-"4- Lightning damage unbalan ced twlgs/branchesa % overall Max. dia. CodominantZg Included bark�- Broken/Hangers Numuct Max. dia. weak attachments M Cavity/Nest hofe—% circ. Over -extended branches W, Previous branch failures A& Similar branche . s presentA!(, Pruning history Crown cleaned M Thinned Raised CS Dead/Missing, bark Q Cankers;/Galls/Buds E3 Sapwood damage/decayfM Reduced 11 Topped A Lion -tailed 0 Conks 0 Heartwood decay 0 Flush cuts Other R,,p.,,,egoWh fa 44 0 Condition (s) of concern 4- Part Size Fall Distance —y727— Part Size. Ilk FaIlDistance Load on defect NIA 0 Minor 13 ModerateO Significant$f Load an defect NIA 0 Minor 0 ModerateO Significant8r Likelihood of failure ImprobableO posstbnR Probable 0 Imminent 0 111MIlhood of failure lrnprobabler3 Possible J( Probable 13 1--inent 0 —Trunk — Dead/Missing bark II Abnormal bark texture/color Qf\ Codominant stems 01 included bark tZ.. Cracks ;5- Sapwood damageldecay R Cankers/halls/Burls 0 Sap ooze`, Lightning damage Cl HeartwooddecayO CankslMushroomsO Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper Q Lean— . Corrected? Rosponso growth 0 Condition(s) of concern I A I Part Size Fall Distance Load an defect N/A E3 Minor 0 Moderateols!gnmcantfiL Ukerthood of thilum improbable[3 Possible 1b( Probable E3 Intrtiinent E3 — Roots and Root Collar — Collar buried/Not visible 1'*, Depth Stem girdling 0 Dead n Decay 0 Conks/Mushrooms E3 rRMTM Cavity 0 % circ. CracksE3 Cut/Damaged roots 13 Distance from trunk Root plate lifting 0 Soil weakness 0 Responsegrawth Condition(s) of concem Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A 0 minor 0 ModerateO SignificanIX Likelihood of failure ImprobableD Possibleo, Probable 0 imminent 0 RECEIVED 08/ CITY P DE 1 /2024 t Tareet 13@Dire Failure igrapact Consequences O E D 'm 5er Tree pert Cc nd_f inn[sj L NN N6iQescri rorr of coo n , 7 V LOPMENT Risk A i g a rating a �' o co E M r Qr (�rua�r M6b,2.1 1a � FA #f 3 k N\ 3 k y ✓ i y x Matrix i_ Likelihood €nat6_ Likelihood likelihood of impact of Failure very low Low High Immment Unlikely Somewhat likely likely fiery likely Dr€ table Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat lik—ely Likely Possible-- -Urlikely Unlikely Unlikely somewhatlikety liaroble l lnl"€Rely Urtl€kely Unlikely Unlikely Mairk Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Consequences of Failure Failure & impact pjegligibW Iiflinor Significant uevere Ve,Tylikely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Wderate High High Somewhat 11k gy LOW Low Moderate hFlt3der3ie Unlikely Lour Low ioev Lour ill tes, OAg nati€sns, d� os�s ty q `%ems0 i kl 1 � TL_ options I Residual risk u'' v'.. Residual rss Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree rill. ratima Low Q Moderate I High El Extreme 0 Overall residual risk %onet4-,,.Low E•3 ill de€-e O High L3 .w-tM e n ReCai.,,Mpr faeLi i iSpel�l aiia6 JtLFmal 0 Preliminary Advanced assessrne needed`-lo oyes-TypelReeason Inspection liinitadons 1=liilone Wsibility OAccess 1 IVinesAsfloot collar buried Describe A Matrix i_ Likelihood €nat6_ Likelihood likelihood of impact of Failure very low Low High Immment Unlikely Somewhat likely likely fiery likely Dr€ table Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat lik—ely Likely Possible-- -Urlikely Unlikely Unlikely somewhatlikety liaroble l lnl"€Rely Urtl€kely Unlikely Unlikely Mairk Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Consequences of Failure Failure & impact pjegligibW Iiflinor Significant uevere Ve,Tylikely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Wderate High High Somewhat 11k gy LOW Low Moderate hFlt3der3ie Unlikely Lour Low ioev Lour ill tes, OAg nati€sns, d� os�s ty q `%ems0 i kl 1 � TL_ options I Residual risk u'' v'.. Residual rss Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree rill. ratima Low Q Moderate I High El Extreme 0 Overall residual risk %onet4-,,.Low E•3 ill de€-e O High L3 .w-tM e n ReCai.,,Mpr faeLi i iSpel�l aiia6 JtLFmal 0 Preliminary Advanced assessrne needed`-lo oyes-TypelReeason Inspection liinitadons 1=liilone Wsibility OAccess 1 IVinesAsfloot collar buried Describe A Mairk Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Consequences of Failure Failure & impact pjegligibW Iiflinor Significant uevere Ve,Tylikely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Wderate High High Somewhat 11k gy LOW Low Moderate hFlt3der3ie Unlikely Lour Low ioev Lour ill tes, OAg nati€sns, d� os�s ty q `%ems0 i kl 1 � TL_ options I Residual risk u'' v'.. Residual rss Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree rill. ratima Low Q Moderate I High El Extreme 0 Overall residual risk %onet4-,,.Low E•3 ill de€-e O High L3 .w-tM e n ReCai.,,Mpr faeLi i iSpel�l aiia6 JtLFmal 0 Preliminary Advanced assessrne needed`-lo oyes-TypelReeason Inspection liinitadons 1=liilone Wsibility OAccess 1 IVinesAsfloot collar buried Describe A ill tes, OAg nati€sns, d� os�s ty q `%ems0 i kl 1 � TL_ options I Residual risk u'' v'.. Residual rss Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree rill. ratima Low Q Moderate I High El Extreme 0 Overall residual risk %onet4-,,.Low E•3 ill de€-e O High L3 .w-tM e n ReCai.,,Mpr faeLi i iSpel�l aiia6 JtLFmal 0 Preliminary Advanced assessrne needed`-lo oyes-TypelReeason Inspection liinitadons 1=liilone Wsibility OAccess 1 IVinesAsfloot collar buried Describe A RECEIVED Oct 28 2024 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING October 28, 2024 John Mercier 840 Hindley Lane Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: PLN2024-0066 - 840 Hindley Lane; Stream Report & Tree Replacement Plan Dear Mr. Mercier, Wetland Resources, Inc. (WRI) visited the above referenced project site, located at 840 Hindley Lane (tax parcel #27032400224000) in Edmonds on October 9, 2024 to assess the conditions of Hindley Creek and the associated stream buffer where a nuisance Douglas fir tree is being removed. Per the City of Edmonds Planning Division (letter dated September 12, 2024), a letter and restoration plan that addresses the proposal and outlines replanting recommendations consistent with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC 23.90.030(C)) is required. The purpose of this letter is to satisfy these requirements. Stream and Buffer Determination Hindley Creek flows along the northern property boundary. Hindley Creek is a Type F stream. A possible fish passage barrier is located downstream (WDFW 2024), but the degree to which this barrier does or does not allow fish passage is listed as "unknown". If anadromous fish are able to access this reach of Hindley Creek, it would receive a 100-foot buffer. If anadromous fish were found to be not present within this stream reach, the buffer would be 75 feet. Regardless, the subject tree that is being removed is located approximately 35 feet from the stream and is therefore located within the buffer. The entirety of the on -site buffer consists of maintained lawn and landscaping. Tree Removal and Restoration Plan The roots of the tree that is being removed have caused damage to water and sewer lines. Per the arborist report, the tree was determined to meet the definition of a nuisance tree and was assessed to be a moderate risk. Tree replacement is required at a 2:1 ratio. WRI recommends installing two shore pine (Pinus contorta var. contorta) trees on the south side of the stream, approximately 15-20 feet from the stream channel and at least 10 feet apart from each other and from other existing trees. The replacement trees must be a minimum of six feet in height as measured from the top of the root ball. See figure below for recommended locations for the replacement trees. 9505 191" Avenue SE, Suite 106, Everett, WA 98208 425.337.3174 www.wetlandresources.com Functions Assessment ECDC 23.90.030(C) states that mitigation of alterations to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic and hydrologic functions. Functions provided by buffer vegetation that may be adversely affected by the proposed tree removal include water quality protection, wildlife habitat, food chain support, flood storage, conveyance, and attenuation, and erosion control. Interception of precipitation by coniferous trees reduces stormwater runoff, which in turn helps to protect water quality and attenuate flooding downstream. Trees provide cover, perching and nesting opportunities, and forage resources that benefit wildlife. Additionally, tree roots maintain soil stability and prevent or reduce soil erosion. By replacing the conifer that is being removed with two additional conifers, these functions will be maintained at an equivalent or greater level. Please feel free to contact us at 425-337-3174 or mailbox@wetlandresources.com if you have any questions. Sincerely, Wetland Resources, Inc. Joie Goodman, PWS Senior Ecologist Wetland Resources, Inc. 2 840 Hindley Lane October 28, 2024