Loading...
REVIEWED PLN RESUB 1-BLD2023-1355+Arborist Report+3.25.2024_9.59.03_AM+4153976BLD2023-1355 RESUB DMar FE 2024 CITY OF DMON05 EVE OPMENTSERVICES DER -ENT _ LAYTON TREE CONSULTING, LLC TREE INVENTORY/ARBORIST REPORT 8503 2001" Street SW Edmonds, WA Report Prepared by: Bob Layton Registered Consulting Arborist #670 Certified Arborist #PN-2714A October 10, 2023 Updated March 12, 2024 lt's all about trees...... PO BOX 572, SNOHOMISH, WA 98291-0572 * 425-220-5711 * bob@ laytontreeconsulting.com Arborist Report — 8503 200" ST SW Table of Contents Assignment.............................................................................................................................................. Description.............................................................................................................................................. Methodology........................................................................................................................................... JudgingCondition................................................................................................................................ Observations........................................................................................................................................... Discussion/Recommendations................................................................................................................ Tree Protection Guidelines..................................................................................................................... Tree Protection Measures...................................................................................................................... TreeRetention........................................................................................................................................ TreeReplacement................................................................................................................................... Arborist Disclosure Statement................................................................................................................ Attachments Photos, pages 9 - 16 Tree Summary Table Tree Plan Map Tree Appraisal Worksheets 3 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 Page 2 Layton Tree Consulting LLC October 10, 2023 Updated March 12, 2024 Arborist Report — 8503 200" ST SW Assignment Layton Tree Consulting, LLC was asked to compile an Arborist Report for a property in Edmonds, located at 8503 200th Street SW. The purpose of the report is to satisfy City requirements regarding tree retention and protection associated with the proposed redevelopment (demolition of existing house and construction of new single-family residence) of the property. My assignment is to prepare a written report on present tree conditions, which is to be submitted to the City with the development application materials. This report covers all of the criteria set forth under the City of Edmonds tree regulations (EMC 23.10.060 Tree retention associated with development activity). The required retention is 30% of significant trees. A significant tree means a tree that is at least six inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured at four and one-half feet from the ground. Date of Field Examination: September 7, 2023 Description 13 significant trees were identified and assessed on the subject property. These are comprised of a mix of planted ornamental, volunteer and native species. Trees are found scattered around the property. A tree summary table is attached which provides detailed information for each assessed tree. Subject trees were identified in the field with a numbered aluminum tag attached to the lower trunk. These tag numbers correspond with the tree numbers on the attached summary table and maps. An additional eight off -site or neighboring trees were also assessed. These are located mainly within a proximity of the east property line. There are no trees within the street right-of-way of 200th Street SW. Methodology Each tree in this report was visited. Tree diameters were measured by tape. The tree heights were measured using a Spiegel Relaskop. Each tree was visually examined for defects and vigor. The tree assessment procedure involves the examination of many factors: • The crown or canopy of the tree is examined for current vigor/health by examining the foliage for appropriate color and density, the vegetative buds for color and size, and the branches for structural form and annual shoot growth; and the overall presence of limb dieback and/or any disease issues. The trunk or main stem of the tree is inspected for decay, which includes cavities, wounds, fruiting bodies of decay (conks or mushrooms), seams, insect pests, bleeding or exudation of sap, callus development, broken or dead tops, structural defects and unnatural leans. Structural defects can include but are not limited to excessive or unnatural leans, crooks, forks with V-shaped crotches, multiple attachments. • The root collar and exposed surface roots are inspected for the presence of decay, insect damage, as well as if they have been injured or wounded, undermined or exposed, or the original grade has been altered. Page 3 Layton Tree Consulting LLC October 10, 2023 Updated March 12, 2024 Arborist Report — 8503 200" ST SW Based on these factors a determination of condition and viability is made. Judging Condition The three condition categories are described as follows: Good —free of significant structural defects, no disease concerns, minor pest issues, no significant root issues, good structure/form with uniform crown or canopy, foliage of normal color and density, average or normal vigor, will be wind firm if isolated or left as part of a grouping or grove of trees, suitable for its location Fair — minor to moderate structural defects not expected to contribute to a failure in near future, no disease concerns, moderate pest issues, no significant root issues, asymmetric or unbalanced crown or canopy, average or normal vigor, foliage of normal color, moderate foliage density, will be wind firm if left as part of a grouping or grove of trees, cannot be isolated, suitable for its location Poor— major structural defects expected to cause fail in near future, disease or significant pest concerns, decline due to old age, significant root issues, asymmetric or unbalanced crown or canopy, sparse or abnormally small foliage, poor vigor, not suitable for its location A viable tree means a significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in good health, with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a grove, and is a species that is suitable for its location. Observations The subject trees are found scattered around the property. There is a grove of semi -mature to mature Douglas fir trees, located in the southwest portion of the property. Oldest or largest trees are estimated at +/- 90 to 100 years of age. Trees are of good vigor. Foliage is of normal color and density. No outward indicators of any internal decay issues were observed. The vast majority are in good condition. The trunk of Tree #5 forks at roughly 10-feet above ground into codominant (equal diameter) stems or trunks. There is a noteworthy buildup of included or embedded bark between the forked stems. Resin flows at the seam between the forked stems would indicate some internal decay. The forked attachment is inherently weak. This tree cannot be isolated and is therefore considered non -viable. It is in 'fair' condition within the grove setting. There are two corkscrew willow trees close to the west property line, Trees #9 and #10. Tree #9 recently suffered a broken top. It has developed poor structural form. Condition is 'fair'. Tree #10 either suffered a broken stem or was topped. It is non -viable. Tree #11 is a semi -mature bigleaf maple, comprised of three stems or trunks. It is diseased with the bacterial fungus, Xylella fastidiosa. This is evident by significant cambium dieback. Noteworthy decay has developed within the lower trunks. Continued decline is expected. It is non -viable. Trees #12 and #13 are semi -mature silver maple located close to the north property line. These have developed wide -spreading canopies. Both are comprised of multiple trunks. Each has a trunk or stem Page 4 Layton Tree Consulting LLC October 10, 2023 Updated March 12, 2024 Arborist Report — 8503 200" ST SW with a precarious lean. One stem from #12 leans west off of the property and one from #13 leans south onto the subject property. These are in 'fair' condition. Off-site/Neighboring Trees Tree #101 is a semi -mature silver maple, similar to the property silver maples. Foliage is sparse. It appears stressed. It has developed poor stem taper under heavy competition with surrounding trees for sunlight and space. It is in 'fair' condition. Tree #102 is semi -mature to mature Western red cedar. Vigor is good. It has a forked top with codominant stems. The forked attachment is inherently weak. It is in 'fair' condition. Tree #16 is a semi -mature noble fir. No concerning issues were observed. Foliage in the lower to mid crown is somewhat sparse. Upper foliage is of good vigor. The lower trunk is sound. Trees #17 > #20 are a planted row of four English holly varieties. These have developed typical form for the species. They also appear a little drought -stressed. Top foliage is sparser than normal. These are in 'fair' condition. Discussion/Recommendations The attached map indicates the condition and actual driplines of the subject trees. Driplines and limits of disturbance measurements are provided on the tree summary table. "Limits of disturbance" means the boundary between the area of minimum protection around a tree and the allowable site disturbance. This information can be used to determine the feasibility of tree retention when siting new structures and utilities. The Douglas fir trees at the front of the property will be compromised by new the new driveway construction and installation of utilities. The removal of Trees #2 and #3 will subject Trees #5 and #6 to unfamiliar wind -loading from south prevailing winds. Tree #5 cannot be isolated or exposed. Doing so would dramatically increase the risk of a codominant trunk failure. Tree #6 should also not be completely isolated. The removal and replacement of #5 and #6 is recommended. Douglas fir Tree #4 can be retained. This is a small, young specimen. Tree #9 can be retained. Pruning is recommended to improve structural form. Trees #12 and #13 are well -positioned for retention at the back of the property, but are in need of pruning to prevent a future stem failure. Each cluster has one stem that has a major lean and is susceptible to failure in the future. The removal of these leaning stems is recommended. See pictures below. The attached map indicates the recommended location of the tree protection barrier. Page 5 Layton Tree Consulting LLC October 10, 2023 Updated March 12, 2024 Arborist Report — 8503 200t" ST SW Tree Protection Guidelines Tree protection fencing shall be positioned around any retained trees or off -site protected trees prior to the start of work or bringing any heavy equipment onto the site. This will help to define clearing limits and protect soils and surface roots. Existing grades within the tree protection fenced area shall not be altered. Position fencing as shown on the attached map. Any excavation within the driplines of retained trees and/or the neighboring trees shall be monitored by the project arborist so necessary precautions can be taken to minimize overall impacts. Any roots damaged during site work outside of the tree protection area shall be pruned clean at sound tissue prior to backfilling or finishing areas. Sound tissue is where the root is undamaged and the bark is completely intact with the root. This will help roots to seal off potential decay and allow them to sprout new growth. Any disturbed areas near protected trees shall be watered weekly during the dry season of June through September. This will help to create a favorable environment for new root growth and reduce the overall stress associated with root loss and disturbance. Simply finish the landscape within the tree protection areas by cutting/hand-pulling any unwanted vegetation and applying a 2 to 4-inch covering of organic mulch/beauty bark. Avoid large plantings, irrigation trenches and the construction of hardscapes within the driplines of retained trees. Tree Protection Measures The following guidelines are recommended to ensure that the designated space set aside for the preserved trees are protected and construction impacts are kept to a minimum. Standards have been set forth under EMC 23.10.070 Tree protection measures during development. Please review these standards prior to any development activity. • Tree protection fencing shall be erected prior to moving any heavy equipment on site. Doing this will set clearing limits and avoid compaction of soils within root zones of retained trees. Tree protective fencing shall be a minimum height of three feet, visible and of durable construction. • Excavation limits shall be laid out in paint on the ground to avoid over excavation and unnecessary damage. • Authorized work or excavation within the driplines of protected trees shall be monitored by a qualified tree professional so necessary precautions can be taken to decrease impacts to tree parts. • To establish sub grade for foundations, curbs and pavement sections near the trees, soil shall be removed parallel to the roots (away from tree trunks) and not at 90-degree angles to avoid breaking and tearing roots that lead back to the trunk within the drip -line. Any roots damaged during these excavations shall be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly with a saw. • Areas excavated within the driplines of retained trees shall be thoroughly irrigated weekly during dry periods. Page 6 Layton Tree Consulting LLC October 10, 2023 Updated March 12, 2024 Arborist Report — 8503 200" ST SW • Preparations for final landscaping shall be accomplished by hand within the drip -lines of retained trees. Large equipment shall be kept outside of the tree protection zones at all times. Tree Retention Per 23.10.060 Tree retention associated with development activity. C. Tree Retention Requirements - 30% of the significant trees are required to be retained. There are 13 significant trees on the property requiring the minimum retention of 4 trees. The proposal is to retain Trees #4, #9, #12 and #13. Tree Replacement 23.10.080 Tree replacement. 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 six inches and 10 inches DBH removed, one replacement tree is required. 2. For each significant tree between 10.1 inches and 14 inches in DBH removed, two replacement trees are required. 3. For each significant tree greater than 14 inches and less the 24 inches in DBH removed, three replacement trees are required. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be: One -and -one -half -inch caliper for deciduous trees; and six feet in height for evergreen trees. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species. The removal of Trees #1, #7 and #8 will require 3 replacement trees. The subject property is large enough to sustain the tree replacement requirements. Per ECDC 23.10.060 E. 3. For each significant tree greater than 24 inches in DBH removed, a fee based on an appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal shall be reauired. The appraised values for viable removed Trees #2, #3 and #6 are shown of the attached tree summary table and appraisal worksheets are attached to the end of this report. Values have been appraised using the methodology described in the latest Guide for Plant Appraisal — Revised 101h Edition. Page 7 Layton Tree Consulting LLC October 10, 2023 Updated March 12, 2024 Arborist Report — 8503 200" ST SW Arborist Disclosure Statement Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training and experience to examine and assess trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risks associated with living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that grow, respond to their environment, mature, decline and sometimes fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy and/or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist's services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. Page 8 Layton Tree Consulting LLC October 10, 2023 Updated March 12, 2024 Arborist Report — 8503 200" ST SW Photo Documentation Tree #2, lower trunk, large buttress root extends north Trees #2, #3 and #4 Page 9 Layton Tree Consulting LLC October 10, 2023 Updated March 12, 2024 I'�' s � `.c �,. �" '� , ''�' +''off'•' Q � ,� ' .' " D . �• �.° r+{ j. :� ti ' /�. ry r, �-�---�� ��. .. .�v'`�.: __ , .. y .�. _ fl"M 17' 7. ot �llyl 404 V s Pm- -a M 41oil t* mat - 'J�!+♦ •'t •#Iw�" - Td " - � FAT '� "C .t. r1 m4 '�•, � - Tree #11, lower trunk, root crown abuts shed foundation Tree #1Ismallest trunk with heavy lean west *, — PaAe13 Layton Tree Consulting LL[ October 1U,2U23 Updated March 12,2U24 Arborist Report — 8503 200" ST SW Tree #13, one of the trunks leans heavily to the south (arrow) Tree #13, neighboring Trees #101 and #102 in background Page 14 Layton Tree Consulting LLC October 10, 2023 Updated March 12, 2024 � t ahlr'rtr �' f- Sad !!�fi-FST. Arborist Report — 8503 200" ST SW Trees #18, #19 and #20 Looking west to subject property, Trees #2, #3, #5 and #6 in background 2023. 9. r Page 16 Layton Tree Consulting LLC October 10, 2023 Updated March 12, 2024 Layton Tree Consulting LLC For: Village Life Site: 8503 200th ST SW - Edmonds Tree Summary Table Date: 9/8/2023 Required Tree/ Species Species DBH Height Drip-Line/Limits of Distrubance Viable Appraised Replacement Tag # Common name Scientific name (inches) (feet) (feet) Condition Yes/No Comments Proposal Value Trees N S E W 1 Norway maple Acer platanoides 9 32 10/6 816 12/6 1016 Good Yes good form and vigor Remove 1 2 Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 35 120 20/16 16116 16/16 14/16 Good Yes sound, good farm and vigor Remove $18,200 3 Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 33 126 10/16 16116 12/16 12/16 Good Yes sound, good farm and vigor Remove $18,200 4 Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 8 38 8/6 816 6/6 8/6 Good Yes young specimen, good farm and vigor Save 0 5 Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 36 130 12/16 14/16 14/16 14 Fair No trunk forks 10 feet, codominant stems Remove non -viable 0 6 Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 35 132 14/14 10/16 16/16 18 Good Yes sound, good form and vigor Remove $17,400 7 Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 7 34 8/6 8/6 8/6 8/6 Good Yes young specimen, good form and vigor Remove 1 8 bitter cherry Prunus emarginata 7 32 8 10 6 6 Fair Yes volunteer, poor stem taper Remove 1 9 corkscrew willow Salix bab lonica`Tortuosa' 12 26 4 12/8 4/8 8 Fair Yes broken top,poor form Save 0 10 corkscrew willow Salix bab lonica`Tortuosa' 13 12 x x x x Poor No topped, low risk, could be left Remove 0 11 bi leaf maple Acermacroph llum 14,14,14 42 58 16 20 16 18 Fair -Poor No diseased, moderate trunk deco ,not sustainable Remove non -viable 0 12 silver maple Acersaccharinum 23,12,12 47 68 20 20/16 14 26 Fair Yes natural lean, asymmetric canopy west Save 0 13 silver maple Acersaccharinum 15,14,12 41 66 16 28/16 12 20 Fair Yes forked at base,weak attachment Save 0 3 OFF -SITE TREES 101 silver maple Acersaccharinum 13 58 8 14/12 10 12 Fair Yes poor stem taper, sparse foliage Protect NA NA 102 Western red cedar Thuja plicata 30 80 16 16 14 18 Fair Yes forked top Protect NA NA 15 Western red cedar Thuja plicata 44 96 14/16 14/16 18/16 16/16 Fair -Good Yes top foliage somewhat sparse Protect NA NA 16 noble fir Abies procera 23 78 10/12 10/12 8/12 12/12 Fair -Good Yes sound, good form and vigor Protect NA NA 17 English holly Ilex aquifolium 11,10,8 29 46 6/8 10/8 10/8 10/8 Fair Yes top foliage somewhat sparse Protect NA NA 18 En fish holly Ilex aquifolium 11 44 8/8 8/8 10/8 10/8 Fair Yes top foliage somewhat sparse Protect NA NA 19 English holly Ilex aquifolium 6,6(12) 34 6/8 6/8 8/8 8/8 Fair Yes typical Protect NA NA 20 English holly Ilex aquifolium 9,8(17) 34 12/8 8/8 10/8 12/8 Fair Yes typical Protect NA NA Dripline and Limits of Disturbance measurements from face of trunk For trees with multiple leaders at four and one-half feet height, the DBH shall be the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six inches diameter at four and one-half feet above the average grade. 8503 2001" ST SW Tree Plan Map P� -- � Tree Conditions Good p Fair -to -Good Fair Fair -to -Poor Poor Dripline Limit of Disturbance Tree Protection Fence Tree Proposed for Removal SS- 7- /, 7 S' — cn — Client name Phone Functional Replacement Method - Trunk Formula Technique Date Case # E-mail S'/ i E Address S o 3 7—o 0 Subject tree — T`? .!-�� A -2— Species %O v 64 "y-f 1. Trunk diameter* (D) 357 in. Ca 2. Condition rating U % Health l ov0 Structure Form 3. Functional limitations r 114 � % 4. External limitations ��+ % Functional replacement tree Utility or benefit to be replaced L1 Replacement plan �� LIzQ ntt i� � T7uh �� ��+/� rh �y �4 5. Trunk diameter* (D) �c7 in. Ca 6. Cross -sectional area (line 5)2 x 0.7854 = -70 G . % ° in'- Replacement nursery tree 7. Trunk diameter* (D) 7 in. Oa 8. Cross -sectional area (line 7)2 x 0.7854 = 7. o-7 in2 9. Nursery tree cost Source: 114,t A0CA1 f -7-4 f E /0' $ — Calculations 10. Unit nursery tree cost (line 9 _ line 8 or from RPAC) $ 3 z , 11. Basic functional replacement cost (line 6 x line 10) $ Z2( —7 Z 3 12. Depreciated basic cost" (line 11 x line 2 x line 3 x line 4) $ 16 7 7 Additional costs Cleanup / $ Nursery tree installation $ Aftercare $ Hardscape $ Other $ 13. Total additional costs" (sum additional costs) $ ' Total functional replacement cost (line 11 or 12 + line 13) $ 40f j 7 e' Rounded $ /�� Z o 0 * Diameter and cross -sectional area may be replaced with plant area, volume, or height as appropriate. Apply depreciation and add additional costs if appropriate for the assignment. Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA. Revised and current as of October 2020. Functional Replacement Method Trunk Formula Technique Client name Date Case #f Phone E-mail �i C Address Zo-°70 Subject tree # 3 Species /9a 1. Trunk diameter* (D) 3 3 in. 2. Condition rating % Health Cs o v , Structure Formv'y 3. Functional limitations Nd/i4 '' 4. External limitations All* Functional replacement tree Utility or benefit to be replaced Replacement plan �� LC2 o rz/c / r, �sn C T�7uya �C fs✓c 'ra �� " a ., Ei ' 3 ^x 5. Trunk diameter* (D) 30 in. Oa - 6. Cross -sectional area (line V x 0.7854 = -70 G . `3 "7 v 2 in' Replacement nursery tree 7. Trunk diameter* (D) 3 in. Oa 8. Cross -sectional area (line 7)2 x 0.7854 = 7, 07 % inz 9. Nursery tree cost Source: /;4RA/D4A1 f Tat f C�d2I r2` z Z S Calculations 10. Unit nursery tree cost (line 9 _ line 8 or from RPAC) $ 3 Z , / 94jinz 11. Basic functional replacement cost (line 6 x line 10) $ ZZL —7 Z 12. Depreciated basic cost" (line 11 x line 2 x line 3 x line 4) $ / $�, l 7 $ Additional costs 1 f j l 14- Cleanup $ Nursery tree installation $ Aftercare $ Hardscape $ Other $ 13. Total additional costs" (sum additional costs) Total functional replacement cost (line 11 or 12 + line 13) $ /f'i! 7 e Rounded $ 4�401 Zoo * Diameter and cross -sectional area may be replaced with plant area, volume, or height as appropriate. "Apply depreciation and add additional costs if appropriate for the assignment. Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA. Revised and current as of October 2020. Client name Phone Functional Replacement Method - Trunk Formula Technique Date E-mail Case # S'i i C Address �i S o 3 7,o o S';;— Smj — o"P ",o „/, � 1^ Subject tree — Tn r,�_ # (o Species 1. Trunk diameter* (D) 3 in. 2. Condition rating 7�- / % Health o u e> e, Structures-' % %tom Forme 3. Functional limitations A//if r % 4. External limitations Al . f - oho Functional replacement tree Utility or benefit to be replaced Replacement plan IVP GG,z a rz<c. , ;vr ;'�Ar < 7 7�� �e �i,/c r n �U •, a s/ ' 3 5. Trunk diameter* (D) 30 in. Ca 6. Cross -sectional area (line 5)2 x 0.7854 = -70 G `ij 7 0 7 in2 Replacement nursery tree 7. Trunk diameter* (D) 3 in. Oa 8. Cross -sectional area (line 7)2 x 0.7854 = 7. 0'7 in 2 9. Nursery tree cost Source: A4,-A D,rA1:r ?'.a t C $ 7-z S' - Calculations 10. Unit nursery tree cost (line 9 _ line 8 or from RPAC) $ 3 Z , 11. Basic functional replacement cost (line 6 x line 10) $ ZZL -7 2 3 12. Depreciated basic cost (line 11 x line 2 x line 3 x line 4) Additional costs f; / Cleanup $ Nursery tree installation $ Aftercare $ Hardscape $ Other $ 13. Total additional costs" (sum additional costs) $ --•'' Total functional replacement cost (line 11 or 12 + line 13) Rounded $ / % * Diameter and cross -sectional area may be replaced with plant area, volume, or height as appropriate. Apply depreciation and add additional costs if appropriate for the assignment. Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, IOth Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA. Revised and current as of October 2020.