BLD2024-0558+Arborist_Report+4.26.2024_4.50.00_PM+4222631Tree
Solutions nc
Consulting Arborists
Project No. TS-8486
Arborist Report
To: MIG c/o Justin Martin
Site: 8215 236t" St SW, Edmonds, WA 98026
Re: Housing Hope Tree Inventory and Assessment
Date: May 16, 2022
Project Arborist: Haley Galbraith,
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-7512BM
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Referenced Documents: C1.0 DEMO SWPPP for Tree Inventory, provided by MIG on May 11, 2022
C3.0 STORM for Tree Inventory, provided by MIG on May 11, 2022
A1.0 Architectural Site Plan by DNWA, Inc, dated October 11, 2021
L1.0 DRAFT Tree Protection Plan by DNWA, Inc and MIG, dated April 2022
Attached: Marked -up Site Survey by Harmsen, LLC dated June 23, 2021
Summary
I inventoried and assessed 14 trees at the above -addressed site, and documented five additional trees
located on adjacent property that are likely to be impacted by the proposed site work activities. Based
on City of Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC), trees measuring six inches or greater in diameter at standard
height (DSH) are required to be assessed for development projects. I tagged each on -site tree with a
numbered aluminum tree tag. Tree identifiers shown in Table 1 correspond to the tree tag numbers.
I used an alphabetical tree identifier for trees located off site (see Table 2). 1 was asked to assess four
trees located in the northeast corner of the adjacent property to the west where installation of a sports
court is proposed. One of these trees was a standing dead wildlife snag, so I excluded it from my
inventory. The other two off -site trees included in this report are within the existing fence line along the
eastern property boundary of the site, but technically outside of the property line.
A marked -up copy of the site survey that was provided to me is included as an attachment; tree tag
numbers and letter identifiers are shown, as well as three comments, in red.
Based on my review of the documents listed above, it appears that only three out of the 14 trees I
assessed on site are potential candidates for retention. This equates to just over 21-percent retention,
which is less than the required 25-percent for multi -family development per EMC Table 23.10.060.C.
Due to this, new tree plantings or fee -in -lieu payment will be required as outlined by EMC 23.10.060.F.4.
Preliminary root exploration using a pneumatic excavation tool is recommended prior to determining
the feasibility of successfully retaining the three trees proposed for retention on site.
TreeSolutions.Net
206-528-4670
2940 Westlake Ave. N #200
Seattle, WA 98109
Arborist Report — HH ELC Apts
MIG: 8215 236t" St SW, Edmonds May 16, 2022
Assignment and Scope of Work
This report documents the site inspection by Haley Galbraith of Tree Solutions Inc. on April 27, 2022. 1
was asked to complete a tree inventory and assessment at 8215 236" St SW (Parcel 00576700002614)
and in a specified area of the adjacent property to the west, in Edmonds, Washington. Justin Martin of
MIG requested these services as a necessary step in the planning and permitting process of the Housing
Hope Project.
Observations and Discussion
Site
The 1.35-acre site fronts 2361" St SW between 84t" Ave W to the west and Highway 99 to the east. The
site is currently undeveloped; both the site and the adjacent property to the west are owned by
Edmonds Lutheran Church.
Proposed Plans
Based on my review of provided plan pages, I understand that four apartment buildings are proposed to
be constructed on site, with parking stalls around the periphery. Additionally, a sports court is proposed
in the northeast corner of the adjacent property to the west. Associated site work will result in complete
transformation of existing conditions which makes tree retention on site extremely difficult.
Trees
At this time, based on my observations, knowledge, training, and experience, there are only three trees
on site that I believe may be viable candidates for retention through construction of the proposed
apartment project. These trees are located in the northwest corner of the site. Based on existing
conditions and the clearing limits currently shown on sheet C1.0, it looks like there may be space for
adequate protection of the trees. However, prior to committing to the retention of this grouping, I
advise that preliminary root exploration be carried out to evaluate the extent of tree roots that exist
below grade at the closest line of proposed excavation.
One of the trees in particular, Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) tree 27, is in good health and
structural condition, but due to its size would ideally have at least 12.3 feet (5x trunk diameter) of
undisturbed tree protection area. If this amount of space from the base of the tree cannot be protected,
root exploration must be performed to confirm that no roots large enough to risk destabilization of the
tree would be cut or otherwise damaged if the tree is retained.
It appears that there will be sufficient space for protection of two of the trees on the adjacent property
to the west (trees A and B), but the clearing limits on sheet C1.0 are very close to tree C, a western
juniper (Juniperus occidentalis). Ideally, this tree would have at least 6.4 feet (5x trunk diameter) of
protected space. However, juniper trees are generally tolerant of disturbance, as well as drought
conditions, so as long as no significant -sized roots are lost, I believe it can likely be retained.
Trees D and E are bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) trees located along the eastern property line of the
site, inside the existing fence line, but they are technically off site. The larger of these, tree D, should
ideally have at least 6.7 feet (5x trunk diameter) of space from the closest extent of excavation in order
to remain stable. It appears that this may be feasible and if so, this tree and the neighboring tree E are
likely viable candidates for retention in my opinion.
The following tables contain detailed information on each of the trees I assessed.
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 2
Arborist Report — HH ELC Apts
MIG: 8215 236t" St SW, Edmonds
May 16, 2022
Table 1. Tree Inventory
Tree ID
Common
Botanical
DSH*
Dripline**
Condition
Notes
Name
Name
(inches)
(feet)
39
Bitter
Prunus
6.5
7
Fair health,
Canopy asymmetrical to south;
cherry
emarginata
Poor structure
suppressed by tree 38.
38
Bigleaf
Acer
65.9
18
Fair health,
Five separate stems from ground
maple
macrophyllum
Poor structure
level (10, 10.2, 14.4, 14.5, 16.8);
significant Kretzschmaria deusta
observed at base on east side;
several vertical trunk wounds with
decay; large parts dead and dying.
37
Bigleaf
Acer
7.0
14
Poor health
Canopy asymmetrical to east;
maple
macrophyllum
and structure
suppressed by tree 38.
36
Bigleaf
Acer
30.7
20
Fair health and
DSH measured at narrowest point
maple
macrophyllum
structure
below co -dominant union; narrow
angle of attachment with bacterial
flux; significant canopy dieback;
significant trunk wound on east side
of north stem from 4-6.5 feet up.
35
Red alder
Alnus rubra
52
18
Fair health and
Five separate stems attached just
structure
above grade (7.7, 10.4, 11.1, 11.2,
11.6); attachments appear stable;
top decline.
34
Douglas -fir
Pseudotsuga
6.4
9
Good health
Not on survey.
menziesii
and structure
33
Bigleaf
Acer
30.1
22
Good health
Not on survey. Co -dominant (13.7,
maple
macrophyllum
and structure
16.4) from base; good attachment.
32
Bitter
Prunus
23.7
18
Good health,
Co -dominant (11.7, 12) from base
cherry
emarginata
Fair structure
with narrow angle of attachment.
31
Bitter
Prunus
15
12
Fair health and
Three separate stems attached
cherry
emarginata
structure
above grade (4.5, 5, 5.5 — estimated
due to excessive debris pile and
blackberries); canopy asymmetrical
to west.
30
Bigleaf
Acer
24
16
Good health,
DSH measured at narrowest point
maple
macrophyllum
Fair structure
below co -dominant union; indicators
of vertical trunk wounds on west
side; defect at base.
29
Bigleaf
Acer
10.3
12
Good health,
Vertical trunk wound on west side
maple
macrophyllum
Fair structure
28
English
Ilex aquifolium
9.7
8
Good health,
DSH measured at narrowest point
holly
Poor structure
below previous topping. Invasive
species; only retain for protection of
tree 27.
27
Douglas -fir
Pseudotsuga
29.5
19
Good health
History of crown raising; some over-
menziesii
and structure
extended branches throughout
canopy.
26
Bigleaf
Acer
17.6
28
Good health
Minor trunk cavity at 10 feet up due
maple
macrophyllum
and structure
to past branch removal.
Tree ID correlates to numbered aluminum tree tag placed on north face of tree trunk at roughly six feet above grade.
*Diameter at standard height (DSH) was measured at four and one-half feet above average grade. For multi -stemmed trees, the
DSH shown is the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six inches at that level, per EMC 23.10.020.
**Dripline was measured from the face of the trunk to the furthest extent of the tree crown, per EMC 23.10.020.
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 3
Arborist Report - HH ELC Apts
MIG: 8215 236t" St SW, Edmonds
May 16, 2022
Table 2.Off-site trees
Tree ID
Common
Botanical
DSH*
Dripline**
Condition
Name
Name
(inches)
(feet)
A
Bigleaf
Acer
16
18
Fair health and
!Notes
ase; vertical wound on east side
maple
macrophyllum
structure
pears minor); large dead parts
oughout canopy.
B
Douglas -fir
Pseudotsuga
11
15
Fair health and
Suppressed due to adjacent property
menziesii
structure
madrone and previously existing
Douglas -fir to east which is now
dead/wildlife snag.
C
Western
Juniperus
15.3
13
Good health
Open -grown form; narrowly attached
juniper
occidentalis
and structure
co -dominant union at approximately
9 feet up is typical of species; no
concerns other than grass growing in
contact with base.
D
Bigleaf
Acer
16
18
Good health
DSH estimated as tree is technically
maple
macrophyllum
and structure
off -site; invasive vegetation at base.
E
Bigleaf
Acer
10.5
9
Good health,
DSH of three separate stems
maple
macrophyllum
Fair structure
estimated (2.5, 4, 4) as tree is
technically off -site; invasive
vegetation at base.
*Diameter at standard height (DSH) was measured or estimated at four and one-half feet above average grade. For multi -
stemmed trees, the DSH shown is the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six inches at that level, per EMC
23.10.020.
**Dripline was measured from the face of the trunk to the furthest extent of the tree crown, per EMC 23.10.020.
Table 3. Impact Assessment
Tree ID
CRZ*
LOD**
Proposed Action
Notes
39
6.5
2.7
Remove - construction impacts
38
65.9
27.5
Remove - construction impacts
37
7.0
2.9
Remove - construction impacts
36
30.7
12.8
Remove - construction impacts
35
1 52
21.7
1 Remove - construction impacts
34
6.4
2.7
Remove - construction impacts
33
30.1
12.5
Remove - construction impacts
32
23.7
9.9
Remove - construction impacts
31
15
6.3
Remove - construction impacts
30
24
10
Remove - construction impacts
29
10.3
4.3
Remove - construction impacts
28
9.7
4
Retain for protection of tree 27
Invasive species; plan for future removal.
27
29.5
12.3
Retain and protect, pending findings of
preliminary root exploration
Preliminary root exploration at proposed
clearing limits strongly advised.
26
17.6
7.3
Retain and protect
Off -site trees
A
16
6.7
Retain and protect
B
11
4.6
Retain and protect
C
15.3
6.4
Retain and protect
D
16
6.7
Retain and protect
E
10.5
4.4
Retain and protect
*Critical Root Zone (CRZ), in feet, as defined by EMC 23.10.020.
**Limits of Disturbance (LOD), in feet, based on alternative tree protection guideline of 5x trunk diameter.
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Pag
Arborist Report — HH ELC Apts
MIG: 8215 236" St SW, Edmonds
May 16, 2022
Recommendations
• Using the Limits of Disturbance values shown in Table 3, confirm whether the three trees
proposed for retention on site will have space for adequate protection.
• Preliminary root exploration using a pneumatic excavation tool is recommended to determine if
significant -sized roots from tree 27 would be cut or otherwise damaged at the proposed clearing
limits.
■ This exploratory excavation must be performed if the clearing limits will be within the
Limits of Disturbance shown for this tree in Table 3.
• Excavate carefully along the clearing limits near trees to be retained. Roots one -half -inch in
diameter and greater should be cleanly cut using a sharp tool. Soil should be replaced as over
exposed and cut roots as soon as possible to avoid root desiccation.
• Do not pull the stumps of removed trees near trees to be retained. For example, near trees D
and E, stumps of removed trees can be carefully ground out but should not be pulled as this is
more likely to damage roots from the trees to remain.
• Follow tree protection requirements as outlined in EMC 23.10.070.
• Coordinate with City staff to determine mitigation requirements for the site since the project
will not be meeting the minimum of 25-percent significant tree retention on site.
Respectfully submitted,
Consulting Arborist
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 5
Arborist Report — HH ELC Apts
MIG: 8215 236t" St SW, Edmonds
May 16, 2022
Appendix A Photographs
Photo 1. Trees in the SE corner of the site that will require removal to accommodate proposed plans.
Photo 2. Trees in the NE corner of the site that will require removal to accommodate proposed plans.
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 6
Arborist Report — HH ELC Apts
MIG: 8215 236" St SW, Edmonds
May 16, 2022
Photo 3. Trees D and E, just off site at the NE corner are likely viable candidates for retention.
Photo 4. Trees D and E, just off site at the NE corner are likely viable candidates for retention.
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists
Page 7
Arborist Report — HH ELC Apts
MIG: 8215 236" St SW, Edmonds
May 16, 2022
Photo 5. Trees 26, 27, and 28 are proposed for retention.
Photo 6. Tree B, located on the adjacent property to the west, is smaller than the formerly existing
Douglas -fir next to it, which is now a wildlife snag. A Pacific madrone from the property to the north
extends between the fir trunks and overhangs the property.
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 8
Arborist Report — HH ELC Apts
MIG: 8215 236t" St SW, Edmonds
May 16, 2022
Photo 7. Trees C, a western juniper, will likely tolerate proposed impacts.
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 9
Arborist Report — HH ELC Apts
MIG: 8215 236t" St SW, Edmonds May 16, 2022
Appendix B Assumptions & Limiting Conditions
1 Consultant assumes that the site and its use do not violate, and is in compliance with, all
applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or regulations.
2 The consultant may provide a report or recommendation based on published municipal
regulations. The consultant assumes that the municipal regulations published on the date of the
report are current municipal regulations and assumes no obligation related to unpublished city
regulation information.
3 Any report by the consultant and any values expressed therein represent the opinion of the
consultant, and the consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specific
value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, or upon any finding to be
reported.
4 All photographs included in this report were taken by Tree Solutions, Inc. during the
documented site visit, unless otherwise noted. Sketches, drawings and photographs (included
in, and attached to, this report) are intended as visual aids and are not necessarily to scale. They
should not be construed as engineering drawings, architectural reports or surveys. The
reproduction of any information generated by architects, engineers or other consultants and
any sketches, drawings or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of
reference only. Inclusion of such information on any drawings or other documents does not
constitute a representation by the consultant as to the sufficiency or accuracy of the
information.
5 Unless otherwise agreed, (1) information contained in any report by consultant covers only the
items 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, climbing, or coring.
6 These findings are based on the observations and opinions of the authoring arborist, and do not
provide guarantees regarding the future performance, health, vigor, structural stability or safety
of the plants described and assessed.
7 Measurements are subject to typical margins of error, considering the oval or asymmetrical
cross-section of most trunks and canopies.
8 Tree Solutions did not review any reports or perform any tests related to the soil located on the
subject property unless outlined in the scope of services. Tree Solutions staff are not and do not
claim to be soils experts. An independent inventory and evaluation of the site's soil should be
obtained by a qualified professional if an additional understanding of the site's characteristics is
needed to make an informed decision.
9 Our assessments are made in conformity with acceptable evaluation/diagnostic reporting
techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture.
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 10
Arborist Report — HH ELC Apts
MIG: 8215 236t" St SW, Edmonds
May 16, 2022
Appendix C Methods
Measuring
I measured the diameter of each tree at 54 inches above grade, diameter at standard height (DSH). If a
tree had multiple stems, I measured each stem individually at standard height and determined a single -
stem equivalent diameter by calculating the combined cumulative total of stems six inches in diameter
or greater, per Edmonds Municipal Code 23.10.020.
Tagging
I tagged each tree with a circular aluminum tag at roughly six feet above grade on the north side. On -site
tree identifiers correspond to this tree tag. I used alphabetical identifiers for trees off site.
Evaluating
I evaluated tree health and structure utilizing visual tree assessment (VTA) methods. The basis behind
VTA is the identification of symptoms, which trees produce in reaction to weak spots or areas of
mechanical stress. Trees react to mechanical and physiological stresses by growing more vigorously to
re -enforce weak areas, while depriving less stressed parts. Understanding uniform stress allows me to
make informed judgments about the condition of a tree.
Rating
When rating tree health, I took into consideration crown indicators such as foliar density, size, color,
stem and shoot extensions. When rating tree structure, I evaluated the tree for form and structural
defects, including past damage and decay. Tree Solutions 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.
Health
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 % 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.
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists
Page 11
Arborist Report — HH ELC Apts
MIG: 8215 236t" St SW, Edmonds
May 16, 2022
Structure
Excellent - Root plate undisturbed and clear of any obstructions. Trunk flare has normal
development. No visible trunk defects or cavities. Branch spacing/structure and attachments are
free of any defects.
Good - Root plate appears normal, with only minor damage. Possible signs of root dysfunction
around trunk flare. Minor trunk defects from previous injury, with good closure and less than 25%
of bark section missing. Good branch habit; minor dieback with some signs of previous pruning.
Codominant stem formation may be present, requiring minor corrections.
Fair - Root plate reveals previous damage or disturbance. Dysfunctional roots may be visible
around the main stem. Evidence of trunk damage or cavities, with decay or defects present and
less than 30% of bark sections missing on trunk. Co -dominant stems are present. Branching habit
and attachments indicate poor pruning or damage, which requires moderate corrections.
Poor - Root plate disturbance and defects indicate major damage, with girdling roots around the
trunk flare. Trunk reveals more than 50% of bark section missing. Branch structure has poor
attachments, with several structurally important branches dead or broken. Canopy reveals signs of
damage or previous topping or lion -tailing, with major corrective action required.
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 12
SW 1,4, NE 1/4, SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.
TNIs Douglas -fir is dead/wildlife snag. 1
significan matlrone from adjacent p,.o q yroN
��drew 'N h to between this snag aid tree B. d . / pto as .lases o..0 x
I I I P—.
nax1ER "�wsa / ;
jN
f 6 >o N
6FA66 I I d+ae5 �.E6
I I
I I
nEN.sw.3s
.- '�` I ExURCx RaMtIxG 0
I'I
I I
I-
I I
IIx Pa6< )2
APN:005 )6 )00002508 �srot 'A.
EDMONDS LUTHERAN CHURCH
8215 2367X Si SW
I I
I I
I I
I I
A55 � - 4EC. SEFWR PaxEL\
c
1- � 20,
wOdppRaxf 6 A0.w6
CWPpgtt ROCE
{
V(e
0 I®D
215
BASIS OF BEARING:
CENTERLINE OF 236TN ST SW BEARS
BEARS ND" 55'S5'S0' WEST
PER CITY OF EDMDNDS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
PLN2018-002) - AFN: 201809215002 I
I I
I I
6 Exam LRw J p2,
W-CAL DATUM I I
NA 4D 8B OE01D 12A
ESTABLISHED By OPS
SSMx MM-.M.01
� IE-aas.d�
T
c: tusERstFoccRt [Loco s6rlwcs�l[vl=tatvu6tlsH nwtnH zis lH mucNps rwaoxc os/zs/zozl
X.
�s -QIsII
it
g II I
IqI
I II •\
I I
I I I� arx � aoto66e `••
C. ®I iiil
I INI
I I
I III
I I
I 00002
di i I EOMONDS LUTHERAN CHURCH
III
it
I III
'I
--__�:-i{„
6
— —r-1—.
12
atw c s o
- - — - - —=os °e'-e"- waa eEaMnci - - — - -
so so —so —so —so—so- —�
C[an[�n K-�v.BJ 12 CoxC E R w K..St.eb _
L��
rs I � i ¢fiwwcco� 39
E
34
236TH ST SW
y� �—sp 6�sp so—so-
0. FEBAR �M Mwp2'FMa L6 ae61'
Two maple trees here appear
u be tecpiwlly offsitI based
on urye /fence location.
C.--red maple on other side of fence
✓ to aassessaxlikely to be impacted due
ttual p�ppeed;tt 11`1pcatlop.
APN:005)6)00002)00 ET AL
PARK EDMONDS APT LLC
8123 2361M ST SW
REVISIONS
-
Cc
WoW
W > Z I c
=WZ
J c a
W�a
rA t
C;
o ;
2 N
N n
A
J2�
¢o
}
WV)
3 N
t/1
6 v<RT. eo.Ro wood
W
ac
Nh
2W�
Fam. RE- A NAAA1.
Zw
iM
W
` -oei. mLow rRATFK cn
20LLJ
M �
OL()
a N
f••, ,s—
W
3�/L�So
_ x0 ufawFE M.
-sP
LDIA1