The URL can be used to link to this page

Staff Decision PLN-2009-0047 Attachments 7-13.pdfWashington Tree Experts 9792 Edmonds Way #123 Edmonds, WA 98020 206-362-3380 ash' stf ergs DEC 2009 af@nP_fnnfrt-PgMe--COM DEVEL()pp4EjVT SERV Cori , Client name: Richard Kirschner Street: 7622 202nd pl. SW City, Zip: Edmonds, WA 98026 Re: Doug Fir tree (Pseudotsuga Menziesii) Location: Front of residence Size: Diameter at 4 Y = 31" Height = —75' Target if tree fails: Residence, neighboring residences, street, and utilities Observations: -tree is of moderate vigor -tree has been wind topped in the past -most likely part to fail is the newly grown and Poorly attached limbs which are over the residence or could fall towards the street -the roots are interfering with akin jwalkways making them Tcuitto navigate. This is causing a liability for the property owner. tree has out grown the planting area. '� More than half of the root zone is paved which could be a contributing factor to its potential failure. -there has been a recent sight disturbance in the form of neighboring lot clearance. This has a potential to affect the integrity of the tree in newly exposed wind situations. Management -the property owners homeowner's insurance is requiring tree be cut back frombuilding for safety. To be effective all the limbs on the south . side of the tree would need to be removed causing major asymmetry increasing the Potential hazard -thinning for windsail reduction would be viable to decrease hazard of wind throw but this hazard.manner Of trimming would not resolve the issue Of debris on the roof and fire -removal is the preferred mitigation by the property IDWrier. -replacement as required by city code. TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM All sections of this form must be _Complet bodst ed �bg�ice!gied aC _ Site/Address: Map/Location: Owner: public private unknown — other Date: J1D'1Arb,9ri& J tAJ t Ct ISA*- PNU 2—(f Arborists Signature: TREE CHARACTERISTICS HAZARD RATING: + Failure + Size + Target = Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating Immediate action needed Needs further inspection Dead tree Tree # Species: P5r VH I v DBH: i #oftrunks. Spread. Form: 0 generally symmetri.,K-inor asymmetry 13 major asymmetry 0 stump sprout El stag -headed Crown Class: Vdominant 0 co -dominant 0 intermediate 0 suppressed Live crown rafi-V& Age C12s= 0 young Xsemi-mature 0 mature 0 over-maturelsenescent Pruning History- 0 crown cleaned 0 excessively thinned 13 topped X crown mised 13 pollarded 0 crown reduced [I flush cuts 0 cabled/braced 0 none El multiple pruning events Approx. dates_ �j A - Special Value: Ospecimen 0 heritagelhistoric, 13 wildlife 13 unusual El street tree Dscreen 0 shade )l indigenous o protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage Cover:'9 normal 0 chronic Cl necrotic Epicormics" Y (ON Growth obstructions: Foliage Density, X normal 13 sparse Leaf size- 13 normal J;(sWH 0 stakes 0 wfmfdes 0 signs Elcables Annual shoot growth: 0 excellent 0 average 0 poor ftlig Dieback? Y N 0 curb/pavement 0 guards Woundwooddevelopraefft: Dexcellent Xaverage Opoor Onone 0 other Vigor class, E3 excellent Xaverage 0 fair 0 poor Major pests/diseases: SITE CONDITIONS Site Character., )(residence 0 commercial 13 industrial 13 park El open space 0 natural 0 woocHandfibrest Landscape type: 0 parkway El raised bed 0 container 0 mound 13 lawn El shrub border 0 Wind break Irrigation: )1 none 0 adequate 0 inadequate 0 excessive 0 trunkwettled Recent site disturbance? 'CY) N 13 construction 0 soil disturbance 0 grade change 0 line clearing site clearing iI I • dripline paved: 0% 070D 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N • dripline w1fill soil: 0% CJG.P 25-50% 5045% 75-100% • dripline grade lowered: 96 1045% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: Odrainage 0shallow, Xcompacted Eldroughty Ossime Galkalme Oacidic Osmalivolume Odisease center O history of fail Oclay 13expansive Elslope aspect_ Obstructions: l3tights UsWnage Eltinea-site l3view 0overhead litres Xuridergroundufiffies Oftaffic O adjacent veg. E3_ Exposure to wind: Osingle tree Obelow canopy 13abovecanopy )(MCWWexposed Elwindward, canopy edge 13 area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: S Occurrence of snowlitoe storms 0 never )(seldom 0 regularly TARGET Use Under Tree: Xbuikii-g opi-ki-g Vt-ffi. Wp'edesfti.. Orecreation olzindscape 13hatriscap. Dsmall features O utility lines Can target be moved? Y G) Can use be restricted? Y�) Occupancy. El o=slonat use 0 intermittent use 0 frequent use X constant use TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS: Suspect root rot: Y N Mushrooratconkibracket present: Y(�.ji ID. 1EXP05ed roots. 05evere A, moderate 0 low Undermined. 0 severe X-oderaie 0 low Root pruned: Root area affected: 'IV. Buttress wounded. Y -N Man: Restricted root area: L7 severe )kqZ moderate, 0 Iry Potantf*l for rootftifura: Cl severe 0moderatc Oio,--- LEAN: _ deg. From vertical Onatural Ourinatural Oself-corrected Soif heaving: Y Decay in, plane of lean: Y (,N) Roots broken: YjN Soil cracking. Y (6/ Compounding factors: Lean severity. 0 severe 0 moderate '01low CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severifty (s=severe, rn=moderate, t=low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Saw, sweep ?7o—dominantstf 3rks Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight Cracks/splits Hangers Girdling Wounds/seam Decay Cavity Con kstm ushrooms/bracket Bleeding/sap flow Loose/cracked bark Nesting holdibee hive Deadwood/stubs Borers/termites/ants Cankers/gallstburis Previousfailure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fait', Failure potential: 1 -low.- 2 -medium: 3 -high: 4 -severe Inspection period:_ annual_ biannual other Size of part; I - <6' (15 cm); 2 -6-18" (15-45 cm): Failure Potential + Size f Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating 3 - 18-30' (45-75 cm); 4 - > 30" (75 crn) '2- Target rating: I - occasional use; 2 - intermittent use; 3 -frequent use: 4 -constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: 0 remove defective pan 0 reduce end weight Ocrown clean Mbin Oraise canopy 0crown reduce L1 restructure Dshape Cable(Brace, Inspectfurther. Oroot crown Odeecay Oaerial Omonitor Remove tree;(771 14 Replace? (T) N Move Tan -let: Y N Other. Effect on adjacent trees: Anone 0 evaluate Notification: 0 owner 0 manager governing agency Date-A-2JAV 112 C1 Xg I Ilk, U i Washington Tree Experts 9792 Edmonds Way #123 Edmonds, WA 98020 206-362-3380 Client name: Richard Kirschner Street: 7622 202nd Pl. SW City, Zip: Edmonds, WA 98026 Re: Doug Fir tree (Pseudotsuga menziesii) Location: Front of residence Size: Diameter at 4 Y2' = 19" Height= —55, Target if tree fails: Residence, neighboring residences, street, and utilities Observations: -tree is of moderate vigor -tree has had the top removed in the past and has since grown multiple new tops that are extremely prone to wind throw -most likely part to fail is the newly grown and poorly attached leaders which are directly over the residence -the roots are interfering with walkways making them uneven and difficult to navigate. This is causing a liability for the property owner. -tree has out grown the planting area- More than half of the root zone is paved which could be a contributing factor to its potential failure. This -there has been a recent sight disturbance in the form of neighboring lot clearance. has a potential to affect the integrity of the tree in newly exposed wind situations. Management _because the tree has been previously topped and its proximity to the potential targets trimming would not mitigate the hazard. -removal is the recomMmOcd mitigation. -replacement as required by city code. Prepared by Jennifer Yarbrough Certified Arborist #PN 6209A 1111- VDIATIANVIAM91,00af W11 Site/Address: Map/Location: 2 -- Owner: public- private unknowns nknown other Date: Arborist . If �T,) i -r , v4.e i I_) ISA* PN U209A Arborist's Signature L) 4 LN Y9, TREE CHARACTERISTICS HAZARD RATING: allure + Size + Target = Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating Immediate action needed Needs further inspection Dead tree Tree #: Speciew DBH:Ir .-ftrunks_ Heigh e r!� -Spread: Form: 0 generally symmetri.)dminorasymmetty 0 major asymmetry l3 stump sprout 0 stag -headed Crown Class: kdominant 0 co -dominant 0 intermediate 0 suppressed Live crown ratlo..�% Age Class: Yyoung 13 semi -mature 13 mature 13 over,4nature/senesced Pruning History: 0 crown cleaned 0 excessively thinned 0 topped A crown raised 0 pollarded 0 crown reduced 0 flush cuts 0 cabledibraced 13 none 0 multiple Pruning events Approx. datev-. NZI\ .. - , Special Value: 0 specimen 0 heritagelhistoric; 13 wildlife 0 unusual 0 street tree 13 screen 0 shade k indigenous 0 protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage Cover.normal 0 chronic E3 necrotic EpIcornics,> Y @) Growth obstructions: Foliage Density: Anormal 13 sparse Leaf stw. )( normal E3 small 13 stakes 0 wireAes 13 signs Ocables Annual shoot growth: 0 excellent X average 0 poor Twig DlebackgCY) N � curbrpavement 0 guards Woundwood development: El excellent *9 average El poor 0 none 13 other Vigor class: 13 excellent Aaverage E3 fair 0 poor Major pests/diseases: SITE CONDITIONS Site Character: 'A residence El commercial 0 industrial 0 park 13 open space 0 natural 0 woodland/forest Landscape type: DparkvZy 13raised bed Dcontainer Xmound 13lawn Dshrub border Owind break Irrigation: Xnone Eladequate Elinadequate Oexcessive Eltrunkwettled Recent site disturbance? (YN Yconstruction 0soil disturbance Ograde change Oline clearing 0(siteclearing % dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 75-100% Pavement lifted?(-YN -74 % dripline w/fill soil: 0% a125 25-50% 50-75% 75-10D% -0 % driptine grade lowered: CO -9 10-25% 25-5D% 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: 0 drainage 0 shallow )fcompared 0 droughty 13 saline 0 alkalme, 0 acidic 0 small volume 0 disease center 0 history of fail 13clay 13expansive Osk)pe? aspect Obstructions: Olights 0signage Olin -d -site Oview CovetheadImes 0 underground utilities Otraffic Dadjacent veg, 0 Exposure to wind: 0 single tree I below canopy Dabove canopy 13 recently exposed Dwindward, canopy edge 0 area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: 11 - Occurrence ofsnowfice storms Elnever A seldom 0 regularly TARGET I Use Under Tree: 'A building� 0 parking 0 traffic xmdestda. Ommeatim Glandscape Ohardsmpe 0smell features O utility lines :_ , 111 Can target be moved? Y 'N Can use be restricted'? (-N� Occupancy: 11 occasional use O intermittent use Dfrequent use )(constant use I ! " I �Mlm. TREE DEFECTS R007 DEFECTS; Suspect root rot: Y( N Mushmorn(conk/bracket present Y dxposed roots: ❑severe 0 moderate Qt fum Und.-drid.- 0 severe E3 moderate 0,,rw Root pruned., Root area affected: % Buttress wounded: Y/N Restricted root area: CL severemoderate 13 low Potentl2i for root failure: Osevere moderate f A/. LEAN: deg. From vertical Onatural Ourmatural Oself-corrected Soil heaving; Y ,'I% -, Decay in plane of lean-, Y N Roots broken: 'YN Soil cracking: Y(111) J When: 0 low Compounding factors^ Lean severity: 0 severe 0 moderate 0 law CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s=sevwe, m --moderate, 1 --low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow, sweep C-6dommants/forks Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight Cracks/splits Hangers Girdling Wounds/seam Decay . x C-fily Conks/mushrooms/bracket Bleedingksap flow Looselcracked bark Nesting holdibee hive Deadwoorltsfutis Borers/termiteelants, Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to WI:cc- Failure potential: 1 -Jew: 2 -medium: 3 -high-, 4 -severe Inspection period:_ annual_ biannual _ other Size Of Part: I - <6" (15 cm); 2 - 6-18" (1545 cm); Faiiurpotential + Size of Part + Target Rating Hazard Rating 3 - 18-30' (45-75 cm); 4 -> 30' (75 cm) — -"-> - - �4 I Q Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 - intermittent use; 3 -frequent use; 4 -constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: 0 remove defective part 0 reduce end weight Elcrown. clean Othin El raise canopy Ocrown reduce Orestructure Oshape Cable/Brace: Inspect further 0 root crown 0 decay 0 aerial 0 monitor Remove tree:�'Y? N Replace? QC/ N move Target Y N Other. Effect on adjacent trees:none 0 evaluate X Itifi- 4 M Nocation: 0 owner 0 manager XQ—ing agency Vat'r, -z b I COMMENTS' Washington Tree Experts 19792 Edmonds Way #123 Edmonds, WA 98020 206-362-3380 staff@washinp-tontreeexperts.com Client name: Richard Kirschner Street: City, Zip. 7622 202nd pl. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Re: Doug Fir tree (Pseudotsuga menziesii) Location: Front of residence Size: Diameter at 4 V2' = 32" Height = —70' Target if tree fails: Residence, neighboring residences, street, and utilities Observations: -tree is in poor vigor and has limited new growth which is a sign of distress -there is an excessive amount of cones which is a sign of distress -tree is in decline -the roots are interfering With walkways making them -uneven and difficult to navigate. This is causing a liability for the property owner. -tree has out grown the planting area. More than half of the root zone is paved which could be a contributing factor to its decline. -there has been a recent sight disturbance in the form of neighboring lot clearance. This has a potential to affect the integrity of the tree in newly exposed wind situations. Management -because the tree has displayed signs of decline and its Proximity to the potential targets removal is the recommended mitigation- -replacement as required by city code_ Preparedby Jennifer Yarbrough RECEIVN-:_R:^J Certified Arborist DEC 112009 ON 6209A OFEVELOPMENT SERVICE471 Cou�ITE7, TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM AH sections of this form must be fully completed by a certffied arbodst. Site/Address: Map/Location: owner: public private unknoother Date: I I I tft Arborist: W-�rE isA*.i�, a A W Arborists Signature: -A tLkll A— TREE CHARACTER1S_nC!9' HAZARD RATING: ---------- Fa",:1"u_re'+ Size + Target = Hazard Potential- of part Rating Rating Immediate action -needed Needs further inspection Dead tree Tree It- 72 f a. Species: Oak DSH:_ 777 # of trunks. fight l —Spread:. Form: 0 generally symmetri.)(minor asymmetry 0 major asymmetry 13 slump sprout E3 stag -headed Crown Class: 'dominant 13 co-dommant 0 intermediate 13 suppressed Live crown rwi._10% Age Class- [3 young X semi -mature 13 mature 13 over-maturelsenescent BL Pruning History: 0 crown cleaned 0 excessively thinned 0 topped 0 crown raised 0 pollarded 0 crown reduced 0 flush cuts 0 cabledibraced 0 none 0 multiple pruning events Approx dates: +k_-�Ant- Special Value: 0 specimen 0 heritagefffistorili; 0 wildlife 0 unusual 0 street tree 0 screen 0 shade indigenous 13 protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage Cover. 0 normal 0 chronic V, necrotic Epicormics'.310 N Growth obstructions - Foliage Density: 13 normal 'q sparse Leaf size: 13 normal )A small Elstakes l3wireffies Osigns Ocables Annual shoot growth: 0 excellent 13average ok poor Twig Dleback" CY) I N 0 curbipavement 0 guards Woundwooddevelopment: Oexcellent r( average l3poor Onone 0 other Vigor class: 0 excellent 0 average Oklair 13 poor Major pests/diseases: Site Character: )(residence 0 commercial 0 industrial 0 park 0 open space 0 natural El woodlandflorest Landscape type: 0 parkway Cl raised bed El container >dmound 0 lam El shrub border 0 wind break Irrigation:-(- x1one Oadequate Dinadequate Dexcessive 0trunk wattled tt Recent site disturbance? Y N Oconstruction 0 soil disturbance 0gradechange Olineclearing ite clearing i, % dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25 50% 50-76% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N J % dripline wiffil soil: 0% 10-25% 2550% 50-75% 75-100% % dripline grade lowered: 0% 10-25% 2550% 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: 0drairoge 0shaHcwA\comPacted 0droughty Elsaffne Dalkaime Oacidic Usmall volume Odisease center Ohistory offail Oclay Elexpansive Uslope I aspect Obstructions- Ellights Elsignage Olim-d-site Oview 13overhead lures Elunderground utilities Otraffic D adjacent veg. 0 Exposure to wind: )d single ZI! 0bekcanopy ElabOvecanOPY Drecently exposed El windward, canopy edge 0 area prone to v6qndthrow* Prevailing wind direction: Ocounwice 01'snowfioe storms 13never �seldcrn 0 regularly TARGET Use Under Tree: )(building )(parking Xtraffic Opeclestrian Grecreadon Alandsmpe 13hardscape Osmeiffeatures Outility tines Can target be moved? Y ro Can use be Occupancy* El occasional use D iritermMent use 0frequent use i'N2.stant use R E C E 0 V E 11VEW, DEVELOPMENT SERVIGE, COUl'iffER TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS: Suspect root rot. Y (N Mushroomfconk[bracket present: Y 4- ID; exposed roots: 0 *=Verc moderate 0 low Undermined; 0 severe �moderate 0 iuw Root pruned: Root area affected: Buttress wounded: Y ffN i When: Restricted root area: 0 severe I R-oderatz 0 kAm Patential for root faliture: 0 savere�'tvr .rnaderate 0 low LEAAf-_ deg. From/vertical Onatural Ournatural Oself-corrected Soitheaving: Decay in plane of lean* Y N Roots broken: Y i Soil cracking: Y / N Compounding factors* y Lean severity. 0 severe 0 moderate CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate oresence of individual defects and rate their severity (s=severe. m=moderate, Mow) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow,sweep Codominants/forks Multiple attachments included bark Excessive end weight Cracks1splits Hangers Girdling -Wo—undsdseam Decay Cavity Conksi'mushroornsibracket Bleedingisap flaw Looselcracked bark Nesting holdibee hive DeadwoodistUbs gorersitermiteslants Cankersigallsiburls Previous failure Tree part most likely to fall:- r1q)6."t6-) Failure potential: I -low: 2 -medium: 3 -high: 4 -severe Inspection period:_ annual_ biannual _ other Size of pad: I - <iY (15 cm); 2 -6-18" (15-45 cm) 4 Failure Potential + Size of Part Target Rating = Hazard Rating 3 - 18-30' (45-75 cm)'4 -> 30" (75 cm) zj Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2- intermittent use: 3 -frequent use: 4 -constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: 0 remove defective part 0 reduce end weight l3crown dean Othin Draise canopy Ocrown reduce Orestructure Oshape Cable/Brace: Inspect further. Oroot crown Odecay 0aerial Remove tree: CY , N Replace? Y N fltoveTargelt: Y N Other. Effect on adjacent trees: � none 0 evaluate Notification: 0 owner 0 manager governing agency Mt-!Z:l COMMENTS Llr ft-� 11DUP R 2'r 'A Rt�yE S - Attachment PLN -2009-0047 n,cicr,,4 NNIM WIN" W -W ELI= 3wo PAC—) AIN \4w E9 / Attachmentr. Oq PLN -2009-0047 ".Z Washington Tre.,'-3 9792 Edmonds Way #123 Edmonds, WA 98020 Washington Tree Experts proposes to pick up, deliver, and install the following plants as a part of a restoration program after tree removal: -3 five gallon or larger Western Hazelnut (Corylus cornuta) -3 five gallon Redtwig Dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) -3 one gallon Tall Oregon Grape (Mahonia aquifolium) -6 one gallon or smaller Salal (Gaultheria shallop) -6 one gallon Sword Fern (Polystichurn munitum) ME After planting we will provide and distribute arborist chips as a mulching agent. $200 Replanting should occur in October through early November. During the subsequent growing season plants should be monitored and watered as necessary. Ii I M 2 a 0 IM411001159 - —I- - __ - Clugston, Michael From: wind33mtn@comcast.net Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 2:07 PM To: Clugston, Michael ilk Subject: Fwd 2: LANDSCAPE PLAN (PLN20090047) QUESTIONABLE TREE REMOVAL ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: wind33mtn@comcast.net To: clugston@ci.edmonds.wa.us Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 1:59:37 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Fwd: LANDSCAPE PLAN (PLN20090047) QUESTIONABLE TREE REMOVAL ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: wind33mtn@comcast.net To: clugstone@ci.edmonds.wa.us Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 1:51:37 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: LANDSCAPE PLAN (PLN20090047) QUESTIONABLE TREE REMOVAL ATTN: Mike Clugston, AICD, Planner Thank you for putting the associated files online today for Landscape Plan PLN20090047. The plan requested by the property owner (Richard Kirschner) involves the complete removal of three beautiful and well established evergreen trees in front of three different properties (7620/7622 and 7616 202nd PI SW, Edmonds, WA 98026). These trees are well established, and have been here since before buildings were put on the property. These trees not only provide beauty and oxygen for the environment, but they are also a major abode for wildlife, including a variety of native birds, squirrels, and even an occasional racoon and opossum. They also provide a wind shed • north -blowing winds in the winter as well as much needed oxygen replenishment and protection from carbon pollution. Concerning the 'Arborist Reports', my question is, does this particular arborist stand to profit from the cutting of those trees? In the first place, according to the arborist what does "moderate vigor" mean. A description more specific and a technical diagnosis as to the health of the trees would seem to be appropriate. We are talking about the lives of well established trees here. I think they at least deserve a qualified diagnosis. Attachment 11 PLN -2009-0047 11/30/2009 All three trees in question are well established, seemingly in good outward health and appearance, and are at least 100 feet tall, if not over 100 to 150 feet tall each. Furthermore, in the almost ten years that I have lived here, to my knowledge they have never been topped, and I would inquire as to the date of their so-called topping. Don't all trees grow new limbs each year? Don't all trees require some kind of regular trimming and maintenance? Also, according to the arborist report: "-there has been a recent sight disturbance in the form of neigboring lot clearance. This has the potential to affect the integrity of the tree in newly exposed wind situations." Let it be known, that the 'neighboring lot clearance' occurred several years ago, and is not recent. At the time several full grown evergreens were also cut down from this parcel (Parcel No. 00512700001700) (with or without a permit?) The trees in question with the new Landscape Plan (PLN20090047) are on the north side of the building, and were therefore not affected by windsail from the trees removed on the south side of the buildings several years ago. The arborist report also states that "the roots are interfering with walkways making them uneven and difficult to navigate". Let it be known that the tree in front of 7616 202nd PI SW is elevated on a berm, and there is no appearance of the roots interfering with the walkway. The walkway was built sloping toward the building, so when it rains, the water runoff drains toward the building and settles in the lowest part of the walkway causing it to settle and sink a little more each year. So, due to rain and the downhill slope toward the building, the walkway has settled over the years in spots, and is in need of 'regular maintenance', which is not the fault of the tree. It is interesting to note that there is no cap on the roof drain at ground level at 7616 202nd PI SW. Therefore, the drain is open to weather debris flowing into and clogging the drain. Also, the real danger is in the (seven inch) to (11 inch) drop-offs on either side of the walkways leading to duplexes 7616 /7618 202nd PI SW, The drop-offs are in dire need of being filled with gravel to avoid potential serious injury when the walkways get slippery. Again, this is a maintenance issue, and is no fault of the trees. What appears to be needed is trimming and maintenance of the trees. It is my understanding from the insurance letters that the request is for the trees simply to be trimmed and maintained. The arborist seems to suggest that this would cause 'asymmetry' to the trees if they were trimmed only on one side. My question is, wouldn't the tree be trimmed on all sides, rather than on just one side by a qualified arborist? IKKOAR GTM DII lie Re 11916.1 1163ATA4 WO L01MV14 LO Fr a 11/30/2009 thirty to forty feet tall, perhaps taller. I would hope that the safety of this tree is not in jeapordy when potentially the 'evergreen' juniper or arborvitae bushes are planted on the south side of the building. I understand that these comments will be included and considered concerning the evaluation of the Proposed Landscape Plan (PNI-20090047) for property addresses and 7616, 7620/7622 202nd PI SW, Edmonds, WA 98026. Very Sincerely, A very concerned Citizen and Resident Mahria Jordan 7616 202nd PI SW Edmonds, WA 98026 11/30/2009 To: Mike Clugston City of Edmonds Planning From: Claire Beach Resident 7622 202 d pl 5 Edmonds, WA 98026 1 Date: November 30, 2009 2/0 �-, u, 0 I 1 I am sending my public response to Richard Kirschner's request to cut down our last 3 existing old trees on our property. In the last few years we have watched while over 20 trees were cut down in our backyard without city permits. These last 3 existing trees provide our last bit shade and privacy. I moved in here in May of 2001 because of the beautiful Pacific North West landscaping, Trees that provided beauty, privacy, shade and a home to many kinds of wildlife surrounded us and now we are facing losing all of them. These trees are not dead and even the State Farm Insurance report is only asking for specific branches to be removed, which I would suspect is a normal requirement of ongoing tree maintenance required by landowners. The replacement plan is inadequate at best. There is no plan to replant similar trees, only bushes. The "green fence" plan that would line the "back yard" is something that Mr. Kirschner has needed to do for a long time but not a reasonable replacement for removing 3 huge trees in the front. A fence that used to provide us a bit of privacy from our back property neighbors was removed when these same neighbors built their house. We understand that the same neighbor has offered to split the cost of a fence there, but nothing has happened. Hence, Mr. Kirschner already has a reason means to put some kind of fence up regardless of the removal of our last standing trees in the front. It is not an appropriate replacement plan. Every time trees have been removed from near or on our property, it has had a domino effect on other trees in our neighborhood. If this trend continues, we will lose many more healthy trees. I know the City of Edmonds treasures the natural beauty that makes our city such a beautiful place to Attachment 12 PLN -2009-0047 live. As a public school teacher and a registered voter I hope that our stewardship of natural resources will be upheld and you will decide in favor of natural beauty and conservation. I thank you for listening and appreciate the work you do to maintain our beautiful city. Respectively, Claire Beach 7622202 nd PL SW Edmonds, WA 98026 425.275.8760 C, C/i 0 WCz E CZ) C) _0 CO Q) CN CN C5 CMOn 0 (N CD C L E Cu -0 0 CM 6) a) -0a) E = U) 0 0 > E 0 CM > 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn E 0 0-amiM > <=) M Cu :tf E o Q rs Cn 00 n U) -a (D 0 AD -0 °"q3 CL O 0i 14— 0--0 0 LIJ U5 0 <1 0 -Fu a) .0) -0 (D > 0 C= 0 E z i:� M 2 W Co 0- =3C) o 0 .— "7; a) CL (2) -2 (3) 0 Co CU n a) o CIS v C) Cl- C) Cu CU a) Cu Q (D 00 > Q Cna) Ln 0) X a3 oc Q) co a) CL Ct Ny > 0 0 N 7Z C"i C\jw E a) Cu 0 C14 C.0 o -0 C13 (3) aia, E z C) CO 0 ct as C4 CD C) CD- I 2 F— Cn . 4i g 0 C'3 z u cl� C\j orsZ CN Cu U) tt Q a) r00 (n CM 07 C�3 E W Co Co M Cz > Cz .2 -0 to C 0 2 0 0 — (n W > 0 0 — a a) �o -0 0 C/) 0 < 03 03 O > 3 o 0 0 0 0 sn. M Co a a) 0 t0Ss 0 bb 0- 0- CD- < 0 < 1� cL w E -S2 < —0) E 0 0Cz C) Attachment 13 Co ca 0 o o d cL Ct IC) H PLN -2009-0047 I ki STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) FILE NO.: PLN -2009-0047 APPLICANT: Kirschner I, first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That on the /J day ofy the attached Notice of Application was posted on or near the subject property, in accordance with Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 20.03. Signed_ Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of Nbyg,4� t4 G U OTAR), -OUBUG 08 ry'Public in an w kesidingat e-0 W a�" A of Washington. RECE""7EZ! M M�';� MO EW WOMMy"261 "*K=l File ilumber: PLN -2009-004 Applicant: Kirschni 1, 4 , first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That on the is day of the attached Notice of Development Application was mailed as required to adjacent property owners, in accordance with Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 20.03. Signed_ Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of Residing at -4r- of Washington. RECOVED NOV 1(-:) 2009 DEVELOPMENT SE17)pr- COUNITED"i I STATE OF WASHINGTON) pie COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That on the 43 day of Afrr,�,3&)C , I caused to be published in the Everett Herald a legal Notice of Application, in accordance with Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 20.03, a copy of which is attached. Signed_ Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of ► Oyex"Le� ublic i tate of Washington. STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH Account Name: Kirschner Richard DEC �9 N1.i l ✓ _tom Affidavit of 1 1 The undersigned. being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice Notice of Development Application Richard Kirschner File Number: PLN -2009-0047 a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: November 13, 2009 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of N I&M Notary Public in aid f the State' =� a -4 gt-041 County. -31 ?� 13th �-1 Snohomish Account Number: 218555 tj t m —or Number: 0001674555