Hazard tree removal decision STF20170007.pdf,Pe. 18y -
April 17, 2017
CITY OF EDMONDS
1215th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www,edr ondswa. ov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT o PLANNING DIVISION
Mike Buchanan
19824 Maplewood Dr,
Edmonds, WA 98026
Subject: Hazard Tree Removal (STF20170007)
Dear Mr. Buchanan,
You have contacted the City of Edmonds regarding proposed work on three maple trees located
on your property at 19824 Maplewood Drive. Your parcel is more or less bisected by a steep
slope and what appears to be a headwater section of Northstream Creek running downslope to
the north through Maplewood Park. The slope is classified as a critical area pursuant to
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.40 and 23.80. Similarly, a stream is a
critical area in accordance with ECDC 23.90.
Generally, 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. Normal maintenance of vegetation is an allowed activity in critical areas
but is of limited scope. "Normal maintenance of vegetation" is defined as "removal of
shrubs/nonwoody vegetation and trees (less than four -inch diameter at breast height) that
occurs at least every other year. Maintenance also may include tree topping that has been
previously approved by the city in the past five years." In this case, the trees are larger than 4"
in a critical area so tree hazard evaluation is required.
A report prepared by certified arborist Todd Salamonsen was submitted which evaluated the
risk of each tree. According to the report, Maple #1 has a high risk of failure which could be
mitigated by cutting the tree to a snag or thinning the crown and cabling two stems to support
weak connection areas, although removal is also a possible remedy. Maple #2 has high risk for
failure and is a candidate for immediate removal. Maple #3 has a low risk of failure but needs
some trimming to improve its structure. Based on our conversations, the desire is to remove
Maple #1 given its declining health and location on relative to a parking area.
ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv requires that hazard trees that are removed be replaced with new
native trees at a ratio of two to one. Lower growing understory trees such as vine maples or
similar would be appropriate in this instance given the treed native of the site. They could be
planted near the area of the removals or nearby if additional space is needed for the
replantings.
An exemption for the proposed tree cutting is granted with the following conditions:
1. Maples #1 and #2 identified in the March 17, 2017 report by certified arborist Todd
Salamonsen may be removed. Maple #3 has a low risk rating and so must be retained at
this time but may be trimmed as recommended by the arborist.
2. Four replacement trees of a native species must be planted to replace the two maples
being removed within one year of the tree cutting activity. Evergreen species must be a
minimum of 6 -feet in height while deciduous species must be a minimum of one to two
inches diameter at breast height consistent with ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv. Multi -
stemmed trees should be a minimum of eight feet in height. Replacement trees should
be planted in the general vicinity of the trees being removed.
3. The downed wood may be left onsite or removed and the stumps either left in place or
ground out.
If you have any questions, please let me know,
Sincerely,
Mike Clugston
Associate Planner
Attachment: Hazard tree report and email
Z
J
W
Z
W
V
C W w
W j
jL
U C c
i/ �
U Lr G
E E
to
N
N N C V LL V rn LL N V 1 Q
��mYgI�I
MAF
DEST TREE SERVICE
Mike Buchanan
19824 Maplewood Dr.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Inspection Property: Same as above
Purpose: Tree Risk Assessment — Level 2 (Basic)
Mike,
March 17, 2017
On Thursday, the 161 of March 2017, I visited with you at the property located at 19824 Maplewood Dr.,
Edmonds, WA to examine three (3) trees located on the west side area of this property. Specifically, you
asked me to make a basic risk assessment and evaluation concerning various safety and performance issues
which may be associated with these trees in their present condition. Your concerns were that you can no
longer use your gravel parking space due to the trees breaking, failing and causing damage to your property,
see page 10, Photo 8. Your desire is to have these trees removed or heavily trimmed. Safety is of primary
concern and parking has become very limited on your property as a result.
Review
A Level 2 assessment is a basic tree risk assessment, meaning only basic tools such as a measuring device,
binoculars, magnifying glass, mallet and a probe were used to acquire informational data concerning these
trees. Observations were made from ground level; no tree climbing or aerial observations were made. No
advanced techniques or equipment were used such as sonic tomography or ground penetrating radar (GPR).
These pieces of equipment are used to detect internal decay and fractures in the main stem or root systems
respectively.
The subject trees are three (3) Acer macrophyllum-bigleaf maple — maple trees, Trees number #1, #2 and
#3. Tree #1 is located in the south-west corner area of the property near the east side entrance of a gravel
parking area and Trees #2 and #3 are located approximately fifty feet (50') to the north-west of Tree #I and
they are just west of the gravel parking area, see page 6, Site Plan. Tree #1 has a multi -stemmed base and
has a calculated diameter, based on the three main stems, at breast height (dbh)' of seventy-five inches (75")
and it has an overall height of approximately seventy feet (70'). Tree #1 has a crown spread diameter of
approximately sixty feet (60'). Tree #2 has a dbh of twenty-five inches (25") and has an overall height of
approximately seventy feet (70'). Tree #2 has a crown spread diameter of approximately fifty feet (50').
Tree #3 has a dbh of eleven and one-half inches (11.5") and has an overall height of approximately fifty
feet (50'). Tree #3 has a crown spread diameter of approximately thirty feet (30'). The three subject maple
trees exhibit poor structure either in an unbalanced crown spread or large multi -stemmed base area that are
competing for space.
Tree #1 has a large base area were three competing stems originate, see page 7, Photo 1. Each of these
main stems are very large and range in diameter from twenty inches (20") to thirty-two inches (32"). The
height of the main union where these leaders are attached is approximately three feet (3') above ground
level. There is a significant amount of included bark at each of these union/attachment areas. Tree #1
appears to be in a below average state of health and vigor, with visible large branches either completely
dead or in a major decline to die back condition.
' (dbh) means diameter at breast height which is measured at 4.5 feet above average grade.
Page 1 of 11
P. O. Box 13739 Mill Creek, WA 98082 (425) 379-8460 (206) 365-6760 Fax (425) 337-1914
besurceservmice6b,hotmai Lco .n
BEST TREE SERVICE
Review — continued
On numerous occasions large branches or main leaders have broken off and damaged cars and equipment
that were parked in the gravel parking area according to the property owner, see page 10, Photo 8. There
are large cavities at the trunk flare area where it meets the soil. These cavities represent approximately ten
percent (10%) of the base circumference. These cavities were produced presumably by surface soil erosion
due to the tree location being on a short but steep embankment, see page 8, Photo 3. The overall decay in
the upper crown area represents approximately ten to fifteen percent (10% to 15%). Due to the nature of
the lower three main stem configuration the upper lateral branches are not well balanced and consequently
this puts additional strain on the outside leading stems. There were no visible signs of any seams, conks,
fruiting bodies or insect infestations.
Tree #2 is in a very poor condition of vigor and health. There is a large open cavity and seam where the
main trunk splits into two large stems at approximately seven feet (T) above ground level, see page 8, Photo
4. This tree has an unbalanced crown structure and is arching to the southerly direction — towards the
neighboring driveway. In the large cavity area there is obvious decay that penetrates deep into the main
stem. Also there is a black stain on the north side of the main stem below the cavity area, see page 9,
Photo 5. This suggests that the cavity is filling with water and spilling out and running down the main
stem. Tree 42 has multiple areas with large dead branches and decay areas, see page 9, Photo 6. There
were no visible signs of any conks, fruiting bodies or insect infestations.
Tree #3 is in an average state of health and vigor however, due to the surrounding plants and trees its growth
pattern has been structurally compromised with an unbalance crown. This tree has most of its branches on
the south side causing it to lean and arch in the southerly direction — towards the neighboring driveway, see
page 10, Photo 7. There were no visible signs of any seams, conks, fruiting bodies or insect infestations.
The understory area for the three trees is somewhat managed with a few landscaping plants, ferns and leaf
liter. The gravel driveway that runs next to the trees covers approximately forty percent (40%) of the root
area on Trees # I and #2 and approximately ten percent (10%) of Tree #3. Soil conditions are semi -compact
with no standing water. The root -soil connection appears good with little to no visible structural root
surfacing exposure. There is a long history of major failures with Trees #1 and #2 and other maple trees
in the local vicinity. No site changes, local tree removal or development, have occurred that would increase
wind loading on the subject maple trees. Predominate wind forces are coming from the southwest directi.
The three subject maple trees have some protection from stress loading due to wind exposure from a few
neighboring cedar trees.
Targets that have been identified are as follows: people/pedestrians; house structure; public road way —
Maplewood Dr.; utility poles and lines; parked cars and a boat. Most of these targets are located within the
drip line of these trees and are within direct striking range if the trees were to fail either by wind throw,
main stem or branch failure.
Risk Evaluation
The tree risk assessment method used is the matrix approach as defined by the International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA) tree risk assessment guide lines. This method uses a combination of ratings of the
likelihood of a tree failure occurring and the consequence of harm or damage to a potential target.
Page 2 of 11
P. O. Box 13739 Mill Creek, WA 98082 (425) 379-8460 (206) 365-6760 Fax (425) 337-1914
b s tree ervice�ct).hca oaiaiC,corn
BEST TREE SERVICE
Risk Evaluation — continued.
These ratings are then compared to two matrixes (Likelihood and Risk Rating matrixes) that have been
developed through past studies of tree failures and outcomes, to determine a level or rating of risk, see
Attachment 1, Likelihood & Risk Rating Matrixes. Four terms are used to categorize "Likelihood of
Failure" in the Likelihood Matrix and they are: Improbable, Possible, Probable and Imminent. Four terms
are used to categorize "Likelihood of Impacting Target" in the Likelihood Matrix and they are: Very
Low, Low, Medium, and High. Four terms are used to categorize "Likelihood of Failure & Impact" in
the Risk Rating Matrix and they are: Unlikely, Somewhat Likely, Likely and Very Likely. Four terms are
used to categorize "Consequences of Failure" in the Risk Rating Matrix and they are: Negligible, Minor,
Significant and Severe. In the final tree assessment outcome, using the matrix method, four terms are used
to define levels of risk when analyzed through these two matrixes: Low, Moderate, High and Extreme.
The risk factors that were identified include the size of the tree as a whole and/or its significant parts, failure
potential or likelihood of a failure occurring, and identified targets in which damage or harm may be the
result if a failure were to occur.
The multi -dominate condition of the main stem of Tree # 1 has certainly moved this tree into a higher failure
risk rating. This is due to a couple of factors: 1) the union areas with included bark have reduced holding
capacity, due to bark that is embedded between stems. 2) As this tree grows each of the competing main
stems grow in diameter creating more internal force between them. At some point the diameter growth will
out -pace the available space and the outer stem(s) will fail. One of the largest stems of this tree is an outer
stem and it is leaning and arching in the direction of the gravel driveway. Tree #1 has open cavities in the
trunk flare/buttress root area. As mentioned earlier this is most likely the result of surface soil erosion due
to the steep slope that the tree is positioned on. However, this condition does compromise the soil/root
connection resulting in a less stable support system for the tree. Surface soil erosion pathways once
developed typically continue unless mechanically altered. Continued erosion of soil away from the root
system structure of this tree could lead to a failure event.
More importantly given the failure history of Tree #1 and other trees of the same species in the local area
does move this tree into a higher failure category.
Risk Rating Conclusion for Tree 9'1
The "Likelihood of Failure" for Tree #1 is in a Probable category. The "Likelihood of Impacting
Target" would be in a High category, due to the fact that many potential targets are within the drip line
area. This puts the "Likelihood of Failure and Impact" in a Likely category. The "Consequences of
Failure" would be considered Significant as there are multiple "high value" targets with frequent levels of
occupancy.
With the "Likelihood of Failure and Impact" in a Likely category, and the "Consequences of Failure"
in a Significant category Tree #1 has a risk rating in a High category.
Risk Rating for Tree #1 is High
Page 3 of 11
P. O. Box 13739 Mill Creek, WA 98082 (425) 379-8460 (206) 365-6760 Fax (425) 337-1914
besltrceseyvice Dliot nai Lcolli
BEST TREE SES' VICE
Risk Ratine Conclusion for Tree #2
Tree #2 has significant amount of decay at a critical support area for two large stems. If one or both of
these stems fail it will destroy the balance of the tree and potentially cause significant injury or damage to
the targets mentioned. Photo 8 shows a fallen branch from Tree #2, see page 10, Photo 8.
The "Likelihood of Failure" for Tree #2 is in an Imminent category. The "Likelihood of Impacting
Target" would be in a High category, due to the fact that many potential targets are within the drip line
area. This puts the "Likelihood of Failure and Impact" in a Very Likely category and the
"Consequences of Failure" in a Significant category as there are multiple "high value" targets with
frequent levels of occupancy.
With the "Likelihood of Failure and Impact" in a Very Likely category, and the "Consequences of
Failure" in a Significant category Tree #2 has a risk rating in a High category.
Risk Rating for Tree #2 is High.
Risk Ratin Conclusion for Tree #3
Tree #3 has an unbalanced crown area with its main stem leaning and arching towards the targets mentioned.
The "Likelihood of Failure" for Tree #3 is in a Possible category. The "Likelihood of Impacting
Target" would be in a Medium category, due to the fact that many potential targets are within striking
range if failure were to occur by wind throw. This puts the "Likelihood of Failure and Impact" in an
Unlikely category and the "Consequences of Failure" in a Minor to Significant category.
With the "Likelihood of Failure and Impact" in an Unlikely category, and the "Consequences of
Failure" in a Minor to Significant category Tree #3 has a risk rating in a Low category.
Risk Rating for Tree #3 is Low.
Mitieation Recommendations and Comments
Tree #1 has a High risk rating which would suggest a few options for mitigation: 1) Cut down tree leaving
a tall stump allowing sprouting to occur. 2) Reduce crown area and clean out dead and broken branches
and stems and installing two dynamic cabling support systems to add additional support to weak
connection/union areas.
Tree #2 has a High risk rating and should be removed as soon as possible.
Tree #3 has a Low risk rating and can be trimmed to improve structure and balance or cut down tree leaving
tall stump allowing for sprouting to occur.
Structural failures occur when the stresses due to the forces acting on a tree exceed the strength of the tree
structure or the root -soil connection supporting the tree. Even a structurally strong tree, free of defects, will
fail when a load is applied that exceeds the load -carrying capacity of the one or more of its parts. With the
Page 4 of 11
P. O. Box 13739 Mill Creek, WA 98082 (425) 379-8460 (206) 365-6760 Fax (425) 337-1914
besttreeservicer), LlottliLli1.Coll)
BEST REE SERVICE
Miti ation Recommendations and Comments - continued
poor structure and multi -dominate nature of two of these maple trees the overall stresses applied to the main
stems with high branch density increase the risk of failure by wind throw or significant breakage during a
wind storm event. Reducing the weight load and cabling the main stems will reduce the failure potential.
Included bark weakens a union/connection area making them prone to failure under stress loads. This is a
typical condition with codominant and multi -dominate main stems. However, this does decrease the
strength of the attachments and does raise the risk of failure of one or more of these main stems.
Tree defects are defined in this case as growth patterns that are not normally found within a particular
species and that will reduce the tree's structural strength or stability. In this case Trees #1, #2 and #3 have
various defects that indeed reduce these important structural aspects.
Waiver of Liabilit
There are many conditions affecting a tree's health and stability, which may be present and cannot be determined by
an external visual inspection, such as; root rot, internal cracks, wood rot and more which may be hidden from view of
the observer. Changes in site conditions can also cause a deterioration of a tree's health and stability. These findings
do not guarantee future safety nor are they predictions of future events. It should also be noted that the information
contained herein represents my opinion as to the tree's condition at this point in time. It is the responsibility of the
property owner to schedule additional site inspections and assessments by qualified professionals to ensure a longer
term program for the subject tree(s) to be successful. It is the responsibility of the property owner to obtain all required
permits from the city, county or any other governing body.
This report summarizes the findings of the services authorized under our agreement. It has been prepared using
generally accepted professional practices, related to the nature of the work accomplished, in the same or similar
localities, at the time the services were performed. This report should not be construed to represent a legal opinion.
No other conditions, expressed or implied, should be understood.
The total liability of Best Tree Service NW, Inc. (BTS), its officers and employees, shall not exceed the invoiced
amount for the services provided. This limit of liability shall supersede all clauses to the contrary, implied or
otherwise, in any purchase order or contract, unless different terms are authorized in writing by an officer of BTS.
Experience and, gualifications
I have been in the tree care industry for over twenty-five years and have observed and managed all types of trees that
are found in the Pacific Northwest region. I am the president and founder of Best Tree Service NW, Inc. and I am a
Certified Arborist with the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and a Qualified Tree Risk Assessor with the
ISA. I also have a bachelor's degree in chemistry and have extended courses in soil structure and biology.
If there are any questions regarding the contents of this report please contact me by email.
Sincerely,
Todd Salamonsen
ISA Certified Arborist PN -7480A
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Best Tree Service NW, Inc.
Page 5 of 11
P. O. Box 13739 Mill Creek, WA 98082 (425) 379-8460 (206) 365-6760 Fax (425) 337-1914
bestireeserviccki1hotinaiL goln
BEST TREE SER VICE
SITE PLAN
MIKE BUCHANAN BEST TREE SERVICE NW INC
19824 MAPLEWOOD DR P O BOX 13739
EDMONDS, WA 98026 MILL CREEK, WA 98082
425-478-1086 425-379-8460, 206-365-6760
m.mjbwa@frontier.com besttreeservice@hotmail.com
Page 6 of 11
P. O. Box 13739 Mill Creek, WA 98082 (425) 379-8460 (206) 365-6760 Fax (425) 337-1914
L)q ttreeservi cr h tniail,cabni
BEST TREE SERVICE
Page 7 of 11
P. O. Box 13739 Mill Creek, WA 98082 (425) 379-8460 (206) 365-6760 Fax (425) 337-1914
BEST TREE SER VICE
Page 8 of 11
P. O. Box 13739 Mill Creek, WA 98082 (425) 379-8460 (206) 365-6760 Fax (425) 337-1914
best fivesery LhOj it!i
�cul ,com
Page 9 of 11
P. O. Box 13739 Mill Creek, WA 98082 (425) 379-8460 (206) 365-6760 Fax (425) 337-1914
..........................
,BEST TREE SERVICE -
Page 10 of 11
P. O. Box 13739 Mill Creek, WA 98082 (425) 379-8460 (206) 365-6760 Fax (425) 337-1914
lya,s(twrrwes r vice_N._c,�om
Attachment 1
Likelihood Matrix
Risk Ratilnp Matrix
Likelihood of Consequences of Failure
Failure &
Impact Negligible Minor Significant Severe
Very Likely Low
Likelihood
of Impact
Extreme
Likelihood of
Moderate
High
High
Somewhat Low
Failure
Moderate
Moderate
Likely
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
Risk Ratilnp Matrix
Likelihood of Consequences of Failure
Failure &
Impact Negligible Minor Significant Severe
Very Likely Low
Moderate
High
Extreme
Likely Low
Moderate
High
High
Somewhat Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Likely
Unlikely Low
Low
Low
Low
Page 11 of 11
P. O. Box 13739 Mill Creek, WA 98082 (425) 379-8460 (206) 365-6760 Fax (425) 337-1914
Clugston, Michael
From: Clugston, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 7:08 PM
To: 7>» m.mjbwa'
Subject: RE: Maple trees at 19824 Maplewood Drive
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the additional context. My comments from yesterday were made based on the only information that was
provided — an arborist's report from Todd Salamonsen of Best Tree Service. The development code provides for tree
and vegetation management depending on location so each situation is different. In your case, you have a single family
lot that can't be further subdivided but there one or more critical areas present. That pushes the proposal into ECDC
23.40.220.C.8 where a permit isn't necessarily required for tree work but review is to determine whether the trees are
hazardous — the code is included below for reference. From the arborist's analysis, one or more the trees can be
retained and the hazard reduced by maintenance. Maple #2 needs to go — it is a hazard. Maple #3 is a low risk — it
needs some maintenance but can stay (it could be removed with a tree cutting permit but that is a separate land use
permit process and costs $915 for the review). Maple #1 is in between —the arborist indicated that it could either be
removed or pruned and cabled. From what you've indicated, you'd prefer removal given the circumstances.
As far as replacement, as you can see it is required 2:1 by code when removing hazard trees from critical areas. Since
there are other existing trees on the site, additional native shrubs appropriate for the understory would likely be OK.
I'm going to be out of the office through the end of the week but we can touch base early next week if needed.
Mike
ECDC 23.40.220. C. 8. Select Vegetation Removal Activities. The following vegetation removal activities:
a. The removal of the following vegetation with hand labor and hand-held equipment when the area
of work is under 1, 500 square feet in area as calculated cumulatively over three years:
i. Invasive and noxious weeds;
ii. English ivy (Hedera helix);
iii. Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, R. procerus);
iv. Evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus);
v. Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius); and
vi. Hedge and field bindweed (Convolvulus sepium and C. arvensis),
Removal of these invasive and noxious plant species shall be restricted to hand removal unless
permits or approval from the appropriate regulatory agencies have been obtained for approved
biological or chemical treatments or other removal techniques. All removed plant material shall be
taken away from the site and appropriately disposed of. Plants that appear on the Washington
State Noxious Weed Control Board list of noxious weeds must be handled and disposed of
according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to that species;
b. The removal of trees from critical areas and buffers that are hazardous, posing a threat to public
safety, or posing an imminent risk of damage to private property; provided, that:
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;
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;
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,
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;
v. If a tree to be removed provides critical habitat, such as an eagle perch, a qualified wildlife
biologist shall be consulted to determine timing and methods of removal that will minimize
impacts; and
vi. Hazard trees determined to pose an imminent threat or danger to public health or safety,
to public or private property, or of serious environmental degradation may be removed or
pruned by the land owner prior to receiving written approval from the city; provided, that
within 14 days following such action, the land owner shall submit a restoration plan that
demonstrates compliance with the provisions of this title;
c. Measures to control a fire or halt the spread of disease or damaging insects consistent with the
State Forest Practices Act, Chapter 76.09 RCW,, provided, that the removed vegetation shall be
replaced in kind or with similar native species within one year in accordance with an approved
restoration plan;
d. Chemical Applications. The application of herbicides, pesticides, organic or mineral -derived
fertilizers, or other hazardous substances, if necessary, as approved by the city; provided, that
their use shall be restricted in accordance with State Department of Fish and Wildlife Management
Recommendations and the regulations of the State Department of Agriculture, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Ecology; and
e. Unless otherwise provided, or as a necessary part of an approved alteration, removal of any
vegetation or woody debris from a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or wetland shall be
prohibited;
From: 'i» Zm.mjbwa [MA lto—j a�,.Qj e frontLQ mr 1]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 4:15 PM
To: Clugston, Michael
Subject: Re: Maple trees at 19824 Maplewood Drive
Michael,
Tree #1 must be removed. It is very dangerous and has caused damage to cars, property, street, utilities, and the
ability to utilize my drive way. It is blanketed on three sides by 3 large cedars to the west,south, and east, which is
part of the problem. It's large branches grow into the cedars and the tops reach for the sky to seek sunlight,
increasing wind resistance with large limbs and tops breaking off. The root structure has damaged the runoff
stream [ not creek ] and redirected the water into the yard which required repair.
Shade for the "creek"? There is no creek, just a storm water drainage for the catch basin in the street that goes
dry in dry weather. My whole property is shady. We have 26 or more large trees on the property: 10 maple,9
cedars, 5 firs, 1 spruce, 1 redwood, and many smaller trees such as vine maple, dogwood, chock cheery and
much more. It is heavily forested, almost jungle like.
It seems absurd to require a 2 for 1 replacement for trees removed in this situation. There is already too much
competition for sunlight and space to grow as is. Besides, we have already lost about 10 trees to storm damage,
the most recent being two large maples in the same condition as the ones to be removed. It is fortunate that the
winds blew them away from the house. Perhaps this will show you my concern.
Tree #3 is really part of #2. It does not share the same trunk as #2, but comes out of the same root ball at the
base of #2. Both are leaning 20-25 degrees to the south reaching for the sunlight and risking damage to the
neighbors trees, shrubs, driveway and power and telephone lines. There is a large section of #2 hanging over my
driveway. This tree has done damage to a boat and trailer in the recent past.
Trees #'s 2 and 3 are just inside my property line. They are blanketed on the west and south by neighbors trees
15-20 ft.away - maples and firs. Along the property line, on my neighbors side, are 1Oft.+ high laurels and a wild
cheery and lots of native under brush. Surrounding trees 2 & 3 are 20ft. indian plums, to remain. About 6ft. away
from trees 2 & 3 is a young maple about 30ft. tall and about 8-10 inch. in diameter that is staying. The whole area
is covered with native species of ground cover.
These three trees need to be removed. They are unsafe and dangerous and limit my use of my property. I find it
odd that I am subject to these codes on a highly wooded lot, while other properties on this same Maplewood Drive
have been aloud to clear cut their properties removing hundreds of trees without replacements. The most recent
being several large firs on the southeast corner of a lot on the west side where a house is built. The house was
already up and the trees were not a hinder construction - I walk past this site daily.
Please contact me, better yet, come see my situation.
Michael Buchanan
425-478-1086
On Monday, April 3, 2017 5:40 PM, "Clugston, Michael" <Michael.Clu stop edLngnd w.gov? wrote:
Hi Mike,
I received the attached report today from Best Tree Service about proposed work on three maple trees at your site. If you
could provide a little more clarification about the proposed work, I'd be able to write a memo for you.
It looks like Maple #2 is a high hazard and removal is the recommended remediation. Would you prefer a lower stump on
that or a snag (15-20 ft)? This tree will need to be replaced 2:1 with native species near the removal area — any thoughts on
the replacement species? Something lower growing like vine maple, cascara or the like could be appropriate.
Maple #3 is a low risk and just needs some trimming and will be opened up with the removal of Maple #2. No replacement
there.
Maple #1 appears to be a higher risk tree but the arborist proposed two options for remediation: removing it or crown
reduction and cabling. What's your preference here? If crown reduction and cabling would be sufficient, the code would
lean that way given its location on the site — preference for tree retention, shading the creek. However, I would understand
if you'd like to remove it and replant something lower growing as with Maple #2 as long as there are other trees providing
shading to the creek nearby.
If you have any other questions or concerns, please let me know.
Mike Clugston, AICP
City of Edmonds I Associate Planner
425-771-0220, x 1330
michae1.cIu stor dmorLd,,g� v
General permit assistance, online permits, and Web GIS: http„j-/wvyw.edmon sv�oyh t uts.html
Permit Center Hours:
M, T, Th, F 8:00 AM — 4:30 PM
Wednesday 8:30 AM —12:00 PM