Loading...
Hazard tree removal STF20180027.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION '12C. 18ym July 26, 2018 Matt and Patti Boyle 8111 Frederick PI. Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Hazard Tree Removal (STF20180027) Dear Mr. and Mrs. Boyle, The City of Edmonds was contacted by you regarding a request for hazard tree removal, and has been provided with a recommendation by a certified arborist Mathew Brenan regarding the removal of a Red Alder "Alnus Rubra" and a Big Leaf Maple "Acer Marcrophyllum" tree located at 8111 Frederick PI. The subject property contains slopes of approximately 54% according to the City's LiDAR information, which is considered a critical area pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40, 23.80. Generally, the removal of trees or vegetation within a critical area or a 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. "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 Red Alder and Big Leaf Maple the trees are larger than 4" DBH so tree hazard evaluation is required. ISA Tree Risk Assessment forms, prepared by Mathew Brenan (PN-8620A) were submitted with the request to remove two trees with an overall risk rating of "high." According to the report and photos provided the subject Big Leaf Maple tree has had issues in the past with very large branches braking off and causing property damage. The subject Alder tree has had issues and is within range to impact the property and cause damage as well. Due to the high risk for failure the trees are a candidate for removal. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv each hazard tree removed must be replaced with new trees at a ratio of two to one. Per information provided by the applicant the site is currently very heavily vegetated with much of the vegetation consisting of offshoots from the existing vegetation on the site. Additionally the applicant's arborist has confirmed that water sprouts and suckers from both the Big Leaf Maple and the Alder tree will regenerate from the remaining habitat stumps left in place. Since new trees will regenerate from the habitat stumps that will remain, additional replacement trees will not be required. An exemption for tree cutting is granted with the following conditions: 1. Only the identified Big Leaf Maple and Red Alder trees may be cut. The stump of the trees cut must be left in place to provide slope stability and prevent erosion. 2. Stumps must be left in place to provide for new shoots. 3. The downed wood may be left onsite or removed. If you have any questions, please let me know at either michele.szafran@edmondswa.gov or 425-771-0220. Sincerely, Michele Q. Szafran Michele Q. Szafran Planner Encl: Tree Risk Assessment Forms Photos Site Plan Emails 3020 Issaquah Pine Lake Rd PMB#503 Sammamish, Wa 98075 Customer and Location: Matt/Patti Doyle 8111 Frederick Place Edmonds,Wa. 98026 Species: Alnus Rubra (RED ALDER) & Acer Macrophyllum (BIG LEAF -MAPLE) The reason for my visit was to inspect the Red alder with a DBH 2 1 " HEIGHT 85' and the big leaf -maple, DBH 29" HEIGHT 110" Arborist Findings: I found that there is an critical area and some kind of stream or creek down below in the ravine. The maple has had issues in the past, very large branches broke off and caused property damage. Evidence supports that the codominant stem broke away. Other branches have also broken off from high winds. The Alder has had issues also and is within range to impact the property and cause damage as is the maple. Recommendations: I recommend removal of both trees to be proactive vs. reactive, the likely hood of failure of both trees is very probable. Leaving habitat stumps of approximately 3-4' and replanting of native species to city protocol limits. Mt. Hemlock's have been suggested. Mathew Brenan mbrenan@evergreentic.com 425-248-5765 ISA Certified Arborist I' � :.►.17.1 Limiting conditions: Unless expressed otherwise: information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection; and the inspection is limited to a visual examination of the items without dissection, excavation, probing or coring. There is not a warranty guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. IS;. Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client MATT/ PATTI DOYLE Date 7/14/2018 Time 8:00am Address/Tree location 8111 FREDERICK PLACE Tree no. 1 Sheet 1 of 2 Tree species RED ALDER dbh 21 Height 90 Crown spread dia. 30' Assessor(s) MATHEW BRENAN PN-8620A Timeframe 30MINS Tools used VISUAL CAMERA Target Assessment Target zone Occupancy d a m 3 x �' r' t ;= rate 1-rare r m u r c z Target description a = F� L x W u1 2 - occasional 3-frequent y u ` N u F ; E a4 4-constant a- 12- a 1 HOME AND DECK N Y Y 3 N N 2 3 4 _Site Factors_ History of failures YES Topography Flat❑ Slope❑ __A_Q_% Aspect Site changes None EX Grade change ❑ Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Rootcuts❑ Describe (',RITI('AI ARFA Soil conditions Limited volume ❑XSaturated ❑ Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ __D_% Describe Prevailing wind direction,SW Common weather Strong winds.R ice Snow Heavy rain Describe TYPICAL NW WEATHER Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ❑ Normal A High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal)DQ None (dead) ❑ Normal 1 nn % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests Abiotic Species failure profile Branches)O Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describe BREAKING OF BRANCHES POSSIBI F TRUNK FAILURE Load Factors Wind exposure Protected ❑ PartiaDO Full ❑ Wind funnelingX UP THE SLOPE Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium ❑ Large)O Crowndensity Sparse❑ Normal)(l Dense❑ Interior branches Few[] NormaA Dense[] Vines/Mistletoe/MossM Recent or planned change in load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown)Kl LCR_a5_2% Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branchesX) %overall Max. dia. " Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Over -extended branches KI Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark J4 Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth Main concern(s) RACT F.A.I L 1 IRES OF OTHER TREES- TO rlrl 0SE TO H 0 M F Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderated Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable Imminent ❑ —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ. Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Depth Poortaper)l Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Lean ° Corrected? Response growth Response growth Mainconcern(s) HISTORY OF FAILURES Mainconcern(s) HARn TQSEE CCLVERED I IP WIT HILLSIDE GROWTH Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Improbable[] Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Page I of 2 Risk Categorization Risk rating of part Matrix 2) ������n■iiiiClQ�ii■■� iii�iiii���■■■�i�ni�ii ■■■■iii �i � iiiiii� Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Ukellhood Likelihood of Impacting Target of Failure Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Kmewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Matrix2. Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Negligible Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Notes, explanations, descriptions CRITICAI AREA PAST HISTORY OF FAILURES PICTLIRES OF EVIDENCE Mitigation options REMOVAL TO BE PROACTIVE AND MITIGATE THE ISSUE North 1 i Residual risk MTHIGH Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ HighM Extreme ❑ Work priority 1)0 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ Overall residual risk Low ❑ Moderate$) High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval N/A Data X Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed)(]No ❑Yes-Type/Reason 1 Inspection limitations ❑None ❑Visibility XIAccess ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe -S / E& P —q0 ee This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists — 2013 Page 2 of 2 ISP, Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client MATT/PATTI DOYLE Date 7/14/20108 Time 8:30AM Address/Tree location 8111 FREDERICK PLACE EDMONDS,WA. Tree no. 2 Sheet 1 of 2 Tree species BIG LEAF MAPLE dbh 29 Height 100 + Crown spread dia. 60' Assessor(s) MATHEW BRENAN PN-8620A Tools used VISUAL CAMERA Time frame 30 MIN. Target Assessment Target zone Occupancy ti c c c E c Target description Target protection t d c r 3 s r. ;= rate 1-rare ° m :' c ti F `p a �p9 x �p .+ x �p� 2—occasional 3—frequent G a u H H F H 4—constant 12 m E z a. 1 HOME AND DECK NONE 3 N N 2 3 4 _ Site Factors History of failures YES AT LEAST TWO OCCATIONS Topography Flat❑ Slope[2 % Aspect NSA Site changes None IR Grade change ❑ Site clearing ❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts ❑ Describe CRTICAL AREA Soil conditions Limited volume IR Saturated ❑ Shallow Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots 0 % Describe HILLSIDE Prevailing wind direction SW Common weather Strong winds ❑ Ice ❑ Snow Heavy rain ❑ Describe TYPICAL NW WEATHER Tree Health and Species Profile _ Vigor Low IR Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) 12 None (dead) ❑ Normal 45 % Chlorotic % Necrotic 55 % Pests/Biotic Abiotic Species failure profile BranchesIR TrunkIR Roots❑ Describe MAJOR LOSS OF VERY LARGE BRANCHES Load Factors Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Full Q Wind funneling 5a UP HILLSIDE Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium ❑ Large[R Crown density Sparse 12 Normal ❑ Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑ Normal 5d Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss IR LOWER TRUNK Recent or expected change in load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown R LCR 60 % Cracks 5a FROM PAST FAILURES Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches 5a 50 %overall Max. dia. 18 Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. o Weak attachments 5d Cavity/Nest hole /o circ. Over -extended branches 5d Previous branch failures 12 Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth Condition (s) of concern AGAIN PAST FAILURES DAMAGE TO HOME Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance 100' Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ ModerateIR Significant5a Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant Ek kelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent 5a likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent IR —Trunk — rDead/Missino — Roots and Root Collar — bark 2 Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ odominant stems IR Included bark 12 Cracks 12 Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ. Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper 5d Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Lean 45%Corrected? Response growth Response growth Condition (s) of concern DIFFICULT TO SEE FOREST CONDITI Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant Gil Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate IR Significant ❑ Ukelihoodof failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable ❑ Imminent Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable 5d Imminent ❑ Page 1 of 2 Risk Categorization Target (Target number or description) Conclition(s) of concern Likelihood Risk rating ffrom Matrix 2) off r�1711111111 BRANHES ................ ................ NONE ENEENNEN NONE Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix Likelihood Likelihood of Impact of Failure Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely X Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likeN Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix Likelihood of Failure & Impact consequences of Failure Negligible Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate XHigh Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Notes, explanations, descriptions PAST FAILURES TREE IN BAD CONDITION TO CLOSE TO HOME Mitigation options 1. REMOVAL ASAP 2. 3. a. Residual risk HIGH 10 Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High 5a Extreme ❑ Overall residual risk None ❑ Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High IR Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval N/A Data 5aFinal ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed IRNo ❑Yes-Type/Reason OBVIOUS TO THE EYE Inspection limitations ❑None ❑Visibility IRAccess ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe CRTICAL AREA STEEP This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 Page 2 of 2 Aal ,,�tl 1 1 , .�1, � ����A11'`' I ,� •'1 r ), , ,JI .+'7' \ , '�'I `� t) l f j 1 • (I 1 1' tat X , , i S y,, % 1 �/, �, , 1 1 If 'It rJ• S 1' �1' MIMai I ' • `{ 'A lot t If f 1.1 ion i,� � '. M � ' '•►��� .,� ,• 1 •+ h �a • i(��'i , �r,- n I'� "(�4 .'M'�I _ � �T • ��•'I Of 00. It p j�',� y.. t • . ��}y(1 1 �' t' d • I �� _ r4 'y".,.' .tl� /` •'/11I(� i •'y A `� �tii � 1/ '1 '1 `� �1 ��, �� � tL•• l •�• r �•T•.,f `�LA•�'I' V� _r,� •i �;r .. ' ,�i!' 1. ; �• '11 IV y1.' '1T'', -'♦ ;t 1 r•f* V 1� • • n� �RJ W ,lid ) "''� r 7 ! l,lf Al 1 f • / I' 'w '�'fi�afr% � 4 �� ! �.•+ y�� �''f� '�, rp�,r �i;� t M '`I! �'��� +,\• ,� �: � � �f t1 ..� � I � j �� / ,ice � '•, i4 ;'.'1'// 'j" � f1' MJIV ''�� rf� � , •• , Y!� .�� •�J• 1•,I � �1 4 •, '�' !' ''i 1// 'I,J ij.�t r /.. 1�1,1�, 1 �'1 y ' + +��,; •1 �` • ,y,�,�., t 1, • #,` 'i ' . i a T .S I ^� �`F11'1 ` ��',1• � t�( t� '►, f• �F �•�i;� I,•�f���'� , `I . S '�� •ti '�•PAVb . Al �s. F � � , � ■ram `f •� e 1 �� '� r VON 1 1 i Sol F�A 16 lv 1 �� �ti � •, • •1 rrx , 1 'i � � ' �'�' S r �• tit M • �' 1 S� 1 � f ,..k I 4 41 y ' oll I }s ir • el r t w- N' �� 1 r •- it � r .t 1►' " � I 1 � i r � 1 I 1• I } V i 1►. r ��sa �J� �•`•`�I�1 � r 914 r r, r. af 40 - .. `M IN . i r . � ►:� yid' ,� ,, �, ow Y M I If va Job 4p Ah k •�. _yr � +• k�J ' r f � ►. ..ter -f A7; Jr or i . r r - I, .. i - � - -a � .' , Irya� � f 11• �•4���� s . . 1 Y� Ave w '• � r M' .ir• f•,1y�' ..1y y -y � may. ��,� Al bo y � is l� s } 1� � ft�y `• � • • - �'�����",�, a_ � ^t • �. • it , , VF -It tA PA Apiv 1 , ` ♦�.• �Yt � v1 y,'%- �� 1' ,�, n� , < Aj ON MMA .,. y-- { `!� lyl; � t .. 'Ire .ii, � t'• /• e _ ; �>, r r, .i ' .�\ f _ • � �I1 '���' 13• i ��1i���'�� :•S _. 1s V r ! • .{ 1 r-� �t _ .��+r3`,T(.� r•,,� v !IV, �S�a� .`' ,. ,�, !.� ` . . `... t''�!i �'r ; r , ;,�,5 :r3 .. 'i i�'I� � ,' •, a ~1• �,A Y:I •.;,' ,�`9-_ �-ar''r-er �`p'�� r �,' '�' •,R� mac. !•f•� •`R�, � .; ':{'�/+ '•a,. • li{. �'•!l�� l 1 , ',1;;. It• `•j. \ ` t. ♦ • -.• _ ; ,ram!:" '�w �• , -w - ' f /!+ `a' •:;� •;'" ..t ..•� : � ' � ; .;may � •.� ,,,�•; . �� �' µ 3 ��' ' • ;f � , • - • t dam.. �.•; d ( ;� �• ; y J�. �1 r . C4 r�; t i ' y OKIO Al !t• :'%t' f . �711/ - 4r - .. ,. • `,e17. . \ .x' ���. (t r�A�l+, 1 ' - ;t' 4 . jA•' "+�': A.:` }}y . 1'. - � �. f � ' .h.,/.. �'� Mir � �•� , � �.`#- 1 • ,. '.6' '� � • � 7 .. � �• t !. /'� _ �^ .. � �• �l y 1 � - '�� y -i � ?fit•- ~ •� �,, �,� it �.ihl'•^ '.,� �; , j Y • ',�:' 'A yy�! .�, ci ra +,..R,; ' 1 y.17 1! . , � ti � ` I �+f ! t1p' ,r •� I� •1 ^ fir �} y 4cIlk '0Y li AWL- I .f �p•i�. ;� , I •. �r Vic It I IF fow NP 74 tr >1 ',: -.► K, ; ` .. r 1.0 a INS .. � ,�' �. -"' ,y ' . r it t,,„ , • :•� � ... �,, Y . •tt gyp• t �" "� •H -� �.'�;' `T� v 1 eJ`y�/ 1''�• >. � �. - - •gip rrii �•" •��j.�..t,�; �� �:�t�: , `• 1 Ott, eT jz ft. 0 Plgz ov -dop %door- 0 PM -k M. V,7 SN 41 w iL 41 I ) or .9 ■ w .. - -_- L, PW A 'o k , mll 419 , '7f I�jd Jf ir 46 low;, J�r 14t, 40 lAf AS, V Adum, ~!•`� •C . ,�.': l�"• � 1 - '1•lk l` Yam' �' •i / 1 1 is f �i ,Z.... I•L �; ?� ,� .; '� io 'T �•r ram. KIt fk 777 r - � _ 's � � � rt.1s" � .F� 111� y d � t J• j1 [. L R�• 1S1 O tra.,r � ov lip 4 r Y � n fin, ;, �. 'c, _� 1. 'a ,+ "�' yjyf..►. �'' r' . ♦ .c # 1p{' •t'; _ wry, rr fir.: •� Q1� i ?'� ♦TR� .�' It It A f7i Awl Aw vt -44 � ..�•t� r 'j1'•' 1 `. '� �i .r, y�,.{<, i J � R \' - .. iV�.t� �:A�_...` �.1 ;i '6 City of Edmonds Site Plan WGS_1984 Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere © City of Edmonds This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION Legend ArcSDE.GIS.STREET CENTERLINE: .� <all other values> 1 2 5; 4 9;71;7;8 Notes Hazard Tree Removal 8111 Frederick PI. STF20180027 Szafran, Michele From: Matthew Brenan <MBrenan@evergreentic.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 5:07 PM To: Szafran, Michele Cc: Matthew Boyle; mbrenan@evergreentle.com Subject: Re: Hazard Tree Removal - 8111 Frederick PI. (STF20180027) Hi Michelle Water sprouts and suckers from both the big leaf maple and alder will regenerate as long as there is an habitat stump available ie in this case these trees will continue to grow and may have to be crown height reduced again in the future. Deciduous trees with photosynthesis will regenerate as an ISA certified arborist I'm confident the critical slope requires no additional replanting Mathew Brenan ISA certified arborist PN-8620A Sent from my iPhone On Jul 24, 2018, at 4:52 PM, Szafran, Michele <Michele.Szafran@edmondswa.gov> wrote: Matt, Thank you for getting back with me and for providing the site plan. Per my previous email and per your description of the property, please provide additional documentation from the arborist to support that the offshoots from the maple tree can grow and survive and thus function as an alternative to replanting. As staff is currently processing the tree removal request, and due to the hazardous tree issue, proceeding with tree removal of the two trees is permitted at this time. Review of the hazard tree removal will be completed once I have received the additional documentation by your certified arborist regarding an alternative replanting plan. Please provide the documentation as soon as possible. Regards, Michele Q. Szafran / Planner City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 425-771-0220, x 1778 michele.szafran@edmondswa.gov General permit assistance, online permits, and Web GIS: http://www.edmondswa.gov/handouts.html Permit Center Hours: M, T, Th, F 8:00 AM — 4:30 PM Wednesday 8:30 AM —12:00 PM From: Matthew Boyle <mboyle@mboylelaw.com> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 12:14 PM To: Szafran, Michele <Michele.Szafran@edmondswa.gov> Cc: mbrenan@evergreentle.com Subject: Re: Hazard Tree Removal - 8111 Frederick PI. (STF20180027) Thank you Michele: Per your request, I have located and labeled the trees on the attached site plan to the best of my ability. The site plan you sent is a bit misleading because it is old and obviously the photo was taken before a big branch of the maple tree (tree 42) fell on and damaged our deck. Also, the aerial photo cannot show that the alder tree (tree #1)is already leaning precariously. With regard to the replanting issue, I would request that you, or someone from you department take 20 minutes out of your day to come look at our property. In my opinion, replanting is not necessary. Quite frankly, I have no idea where one could plant anything. There is already very heavy vegetation on the property. Much of that vegetation consists of countless offshoots from the maple tree in question. In addition, as Mr. Brenan's report indicates, the stumps of both trees will be left as habitat stumps. Moreover, I think that any attempt to disturb the natural flora to replant would do more harm than good.. It is my understanding that Mr. Brenan included the replanting in his report only because he understood that you would require something; not because he thought it was advisable. By copy of this email to Mr. Brenan, I am requesting that he clarify that part of his report. When I stopped by your office to drop off Mr. Brenan's report, you were not available. In your absencel spoke with Kernen Lien who told me that, because this was a hazardous tree issue, we could proceed with cutting down the trees without a permit. We have made arrangements for a tree service to cut the trees down on Thursday, July 26. Thank you. Matt and Patti Boyle On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:48 AM, Szafran, Michele <Michele.Szafran(a�edmondswa.gov> wrote: Matt Boyle, I am reviewing the hazard tree removal which was submitted last week for your property located at 8111 Frederick Pl. I have reviewed the arborist report which identifies two (2) trees for removal and would like to request that you mark the attached site plan showing where the two (2) trees are, please label tree 1 and tree 2 for removal on the site plan. Additionally the arborist report does discuss replanting of native species to city protocol limits and Mt. Hemlock's have been suggested, please confirm if you intend to replant as suggested. If the intent is not to replant what the arborist has suggested then you may have the arborist address alternative options for replacement that you feel may meet the replanting/replacement requirements. The staff decision for hazard tree removal requires additional documentation, so at your earliest convenience please email back the attached site plan. Additionally, please clarify if you will be replanting as the arborist has suggested or provide a letter from the arborist with an alternative proposal. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Regards. Michele Q. Szafran / Planner City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Matt Boyle Law Offices of Matthew T. Boyle, P.S. 8111 Frederick Pl. Edmonds, WA 98154 Tel: 206-795-3635 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.