The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTree Removal 2 parcels - OT General - 2/22/2017 MASON COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES Building,Planning,Environmental Health,Community Health February 22, 2017 Pkase - 189 Cuttysark DR Doug and Ann McDonald c ' I , w• Ken and Karen Klett - 173 E Nantucket Shirley Walker - 171 E Nantucket Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Parcel Numbers: 12119-55-00005 mate„,�,�tto Fill:: 12119-55-00026 12119-55-00027 The Planning Department has reviewed your proposal to remove trees within the 50' buffer of a potential landslide hazard area within the Harstine Point development. This hereby authorizes the removal of trees P1, P2 and P3 from within the 50' buffer of the marine bluff. The Planning Department received your arborist's report with photographs and site plan and has based this approval on her findings. Thank you for checking with the Planning Department prior to the tree removal. A copy of your documentation will be kept within each.of your parcel files. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, u kIAK Grace Miller, Planner DEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Public Health Community Development (Community Health/Environmental Health) (Permit Assistance Center/Building/Planning) 415 N.6`h Street—Shelton,WA 98584 615 W.Alder Street—Shelton,WA 98584 Shelton:360-427-9670,Ext.400 Shelton:360-427-9670,Ext.352 Belfair:360-275-4467,Ext.400 Belfair:360-275-4467,Ext.352 Elma:360-482-5269,Ext.400 Elma:360-482-5269,Ext.352 HARTSTENE POINTE MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION A Community on Harstine Island � 202 EPointes Drive East Shelton,WA 98584 Tree Trimming Permit MUST BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED ON SITE Permit# 1619 Effective Date 811812016 Expires Six Months After Issuance Building Site Legal Description and Common Address: 189 Nantucket Job Site Phone: 360-426-1146 Applicant: Doug and Ann McDonald Applicant Address: same same Contractor: Owner Contractor Address: Contractor License No: ree: $ 15.00 Bond: $ This permit is for: Tree Trimming. There were no objections. With the exception of Trees P1, P2 and P3, PRC recommends approval of trimming as requested. Trees P1, P2 and P3 are within 50' of the bluff, and may be removed with written County approval. DO NOT SCHEDULE WORK UNTIL THE PRC HAS BEEN NOTIFIED Hartstene Pointe iVlaintenance Association 1 By Stefan Birgh General Manager HARTSTENE POINTE MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION A Community on Harstine Island 202 E POINTES DRIVE E SHELTON,WA 98584 TEL: 360-426-2300 FAX: 360-427-6208 WEB: hpma.org August 18, 2016 Mr. and Mrs. Doug McDonald 581 Pointes Drive West Shelton, WA 98584 RE: 189 Cuttysark_Tree Trimming Dear Doug and Ann, The 10-day posting period on your Tree Trimming Permit Application for Tree Trimming has expired. There were no objections. With the exception of Trees P1, P2 and P3, PRC recommends approval of trimming as requested. Trees P1, P2 and P3 are within 50' of the bluff, and may be removed with written County approval. The HPMA Board of Directors has approved your application on August 12, 2016. Permit 1619 is enclosed. Please post the green cutting permit in a prominent location during the project and notify the HPMA office when the project is finished. A PRC MEMBER MUST MEET WITH THE PERSON/S WHO WILL BE DOING THE CUTTING BEFORE THE WORK CAN BEGIN. When you have scheduled your cutting, please call David Mackey at 360-426- 8667. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call Pam Lynn, Office Assistant at 360-426-2300. Sincerely, Hartstene intenance Association Stefan Birgh General Manager SB/pl cc: 189 Enclosure VIEW TRIMMING PROPOSAL 189 E CUTCY SARK DRIVE The property at 189 E Cutty Sark has a view corridor based on past history and county tax assessments. The view at present is overgrown and trimming has not been done for several years. We have a plan* which is outlined below. We have discussed our common area view trimming plan with the immediate neighbors adjacent to the view corridor—Shirley Walker at 171 Nantucket and Ken and Karen Klet<at 173 Nantucket. These neighbors support our plan and have signed our proposal. This plan will benefit our property at 189 Cutty Sark. It will benefit our neighbor Shirley Walker at 171 Nantucket by opening her view to the NE and by increasing light falling on the dwelling and/or property. This plan will also benefit the Klett's property at 173 Nantucket by opening up the view to the SE and by increasing light falling on their dwelling and/or property. Our pion is as follows: 1. Remove 7 topped trees 3"to 8"in diameter(±15'tall) --A-UhC ED -D'ETA I LGID �IACsIZAM 2. Remove 1 topped tree 11"diameter(±25'tall) 3. Trim huckleberry to approximately 3 to 4 feet as needed(except along path at 173 Nantucket) 4. Remove branches on larger trees up to 25 feet 5. Plant native low growing plans such as Oregon Grape-Spy ci Es TH ikT GP-DLO ►o' 'TAi.1-- 6. Brush cleanup to remove flammable material Shirley Walke Ken and Karen Klett D g and Ann McDonald rage 1 01 a Ken faeU From: ffKan EWAcom> Date., Srmday,�01,201311.44 AM To. aMackey David"�ackey@s°3w2-� Cc: I PMA Gan Mgr Stefan BMW > �' Lnet7 Attach: Trees P1&F2-I.emr dom Subject; Trees P1&PZ Aug 31, 2013 Dear David, On Saturday,Aug 31s, per our telecon on Friday. I re-measured the two trees identified as P1 & P2 included in my permd applications beginning in oat 2012_ I'm sure you recall that the removal of both trees was approved by the PRG&the Board at that time as part of Permit#124 dated 11120120 ppr my ap ficonfin ent on my planting tali Oregon Grape to restore screening (which was part me and requested that I withdraw my application due to some open le gal issues surrounding"Areal November,you calleds_ I submitted my withdrawal request the that day Nov 29, le 2012. and In April 2013,we spoke and you advised that mHtYtcandations wrd Tree ere g�eful beenram had adoptedteldn May that I could resubmit an application. Your repo 20131 re-submitted a slightly revised permit application and in June 1 received Permit#1311 -- this permit denied approval to remove P1 &P2 because they were over W in diameter and within 50 feet of the bluff edge. on June 11. 1 sent you an email requesting another review of the trees because 1 believed the diameters of both trees were less than W DBH (Diameter at Breast Height). When i spoke with you last week,you advised that the PRC had re-visited and re-measured the 2 rises but tod concluded they were larger than I;DBH. When I��cured dog not think that the tree is P2 i vas indeed larger than 6'DBH ( Pp , but that should be a danger to people or any structure, it is defective and 1 believe disused an arborist when he engages the decided by arbodst l will ask Stefan to have it reviewed by next review_ P1,on the other hand, measured at esserifial(y 6-DBH. Data follows: 4' W from high ground=6.06 r DBH 4' 6'from low ground �6p 0$7'DBH DBH 4' W from average ground royal, especially because in Oct 2012 when 1 in my opinion,that is dose enough to allow apP first received approval, it probably was less than 6"DBH- meters—this is app roximatelY In addition,the new industry standard to measure DBH is at 1.4 I.IT higher off the ground. I believe the higher level measurement would result in a lesser DBH because the tree gets askirinier''the higher it gro were r at the ed to measure 1.4 m t vel t4� 7.12')above average ground but unfortunately two branches above average ground and I could not get a measurement re�aats you would Sorry to be such a pain in the neck about this but 1 would really apP 9/1/2013 YSgeL o2"L tW I WN fqWM ym • T w*YOU Dnd, Ken 91112413 Page 1 of 1 Grace Miller - Requested Approval of Tree Removal From: <admedonald60@gmail.com> To: Grace Miller<gbm@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 1/2/2017 6:24 PM Subject: Requested Approval of Tree Removal CC: Ken & Karen Klett<klettkk@gmail.com>, Shirley Walker<montlake36@hotmai... Attachments: 10-11-16 Letter& Package to Grace Miller.pdf Grace, We wanted to follow up on our request to Mason County for approval to remove three small trees at Hartstene Pointe. We are attaching our correspondence of October 11, 2016 which detailed and supports our request. Thank you, Doug and Ann McDonald—189 E Cuttysark Dr Ken and Karen Klett-173 E Nantucket Shirley Walker—171 E Nantucket Sent from Mail for Windows 10 k fic"" �9r'uffm ?46�6� /�L it 1-557,16 AM 591 -D)LN 6.eQ VU4. t4A IS oo(p wilt ?r 6�Ate( A0 Saucd c gee s ddo t 7 ,do C- file:///C:/Users/gbm/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/586A9AECMasonmail 100167376E1... 1/3/2017 HARTSTENE POINTS MAPaENANCE ASSOCIATION Community on Harstine Island rT 202 E POIlVTES DRIVE E SHELTON,WA 98584 TEL: 360-426-2300 FAX: 360-427-6208 WEB: hpma.org August 18, 2016 Mr. and Mrs. Doug McDonald 581 Pointes Drive West Shelton, WA 98584 RE: 189 Cuttysark Tree Trimming Dear Doug and Ann, The 10-day posting period on your Tree Trimming Permit Application for Tree Trimming has expired. There were no objections. With the exception of Trees P1, P2 and P3, PRC recommends approval of trimming as requested. Trees P1, P2 and P3 are within 50' of the bluff, and may be removed with written County approval. The HPMA Board of Directors has approved your application on August 12, 2016. Permit 1619 is enclosed. Please post the green cutting permit in a prominent location during the project and notify the HPMA office when the project is finished. A PRC MEMBER MUST MEET WITH THE PERSON/S WHO WILL BE DOING THE CUTTING BEFORE THE WORK CAN BEGIN. When you have scheduled your cutting, please call David Mackey at 360-426- 8667. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call Pam Lynn, Office Assistant at 360-426-2300. Sincerely, Hartstene ntenance Association Stefan Birgh General Manager SB/pl cc: 189 Enclosure Jean Shaffer,Forester Nisqually TreeArt,Ecoforestry Consulting 9400 Rocky Ln SE Olympia WA 98513 September 20,2016—September 27,2016 Ken&Karen Klett Shirley Walker Doug&Ann McDonald 4439 154'h Pl NE 17502 102'Ave NE# 109 581 E Pointes Dr W Bellevue,WA 98006 Bothell,WA 98011 Shelton, WA 98584 Subject Property: Common Area between 173 and 171 E Nantucket Rd, Shelton, WA 98584 Here is my report about the 3 trees on HPMA Common Area, needing removal as they are unhealthy and will become a future risk. On September 20' 2016 I examined these trees and their relationship with neighboring shoreline zone trees. In the past the 3 trees in question,have been topped,presumably for views, and should they survive, will become a hazard to the 2 adjacent homes. Descriptions of the 3 trees and their condition. The fast tree(P 1) is a Cedar, 7.5"diameter at breast height(DBH). It is approximately 5 to 10 years old(counting annual branch laterals and multiplying the diameter at breast height times the average growth factor for cedars, etc.**).The cedar's height is 15'. The cedar has been topped at a previous time,with a slanted cut. The second tree (P2) is a hemlock, 8.5"DBH. It is approximately 7-8 years old*. The hemlock's height is 15'tail. The top of the hemlock has been cut off previously. It now has a"fist"of side branches that are all trying to compete for dominance, called a candelabra top. This tree (P2) is also infected by a large sore indicating the tree is under significant stress. The third tree (P3)is a Douglas fir, 6.21" DBH. It is approximately 6 years old*. This 15'tall Douglas fir has also been topped. Three thick side branches are competing for top leader dominance. Discussion: The area where these trees grow is near a shoreline bluff.The cedar(P 1) is 39'from the bank. I attended a seminar in Olympia,Washington this spring partially presented by Mason County concerning the management of Shoreline Trees. I learned how bluff edge trees extend their roots backwards to trees behind them,gaining a foothold on those trees.This in turn stabilizes the trees on the bank of the bluff,and the trees stabilize the bluff itself. http://www.cof.orstedu/cof/fr/research/o M-anon/pubs/FRL R1369.ndf tree list,avg.growth factor,on the 13'page It is unlikely the larger trees in front of the group-of 3 small young topped trees are using them (PI-P3) for anchorage. The 3 small trees are under ten years old. There is a 36"DBH cedar approximately 13 feet back from the group of 3 small topped trees. This,and others, would be the strong hold the big trees on the bluff(6'to 22'from the bluff)would be investing their root growth back towards and into, for support These topped trees are trees under stress.At the time of the topping pathogens were able to enter the tree,making for future heart rot. And the topped tree's lower branches are under competition for being the top leader. Branches making a candelabra tree top, are a weakness unlike a natural tree top leader. These resulting un-natural tops are broken tree tops waiting to happen.As the tree gets taller and taller the top has a longer way to fall,putting the 2 homes at risk. As a forester,working for the community's greenbelt safety by diagnosing green belt danger trees, I recommend these small young compromised bluff area trees be removed, as a preventative measure I highly respect the work Mason County is doing to keep the integrity of shoreline bluffs. If you have questions I can be reached at 360459-0946. Thank you, Jean Shaffer Forester Enclosure: map of bluff area and trees x BANK 0 4"CEDAR he PINK TAPE=TREE REMOVAL ra; '0• 23"CEDAR coYELLOW TAPE a TREE LIMBING n{yam O FIR ar�tire. DECK LL dr. 171/169 NANTUCKET w •7.6"Qww(bPPM9 tY W � (i'7}�trmnv DECK ' �'��► 61rC Fintkok(bpptW) ry �OtYWN 1751173 Nantucket ,WWI tYWU i?�iwme:d{ C:irG�vrs Prr A,01.1 y mppmod • (�71'1�It 1:JVul'?Q'i:•: �t�afw"Mrow N' PIMi ��•JJ Iv:vri,�...;,;..,,�:•s•uru•;a�.; Nantucket /a111►; ) 1° WJ ,t/t„'�. l;t, D ir , ` k r t i �` �h v� �'�9•lt F�uF';ya JY` .f ♦.,. •.y. At worm, .S,'F'`• '�4 �� ;a��' t �.;r �'•.. IWO, '.,1� ` ,y Pik .+�►�, r. 1 s wt��''� ��` ,1..' �, ra {, it .F..u. • ..�� ., •' sit.� :`, ` � r ' y ii�k nth jet.�"��.t!l.�w �' .N?4�. - �,� •y :i,,��^, � �C+. ., 1. �,�� .� � �•� � �,:' ... fill 4"O ma tom. 1 •a1 "�„ .. t� ��• � `q r �' �,. s.:l. �: � ail. } � `�• '!�*`l ggqppp��,,�{{.�� ,i� �� '"L':. ,n }'r �'A1 .:r' '`�� r�;� ' - A - .. Is ,V• i': 1. - t.�Cr i'MM iH + ,'•Lr,ii i , �.. A yy,,pp,,bt l 1-6 lt 40 jr o IP f ... 5. % a.? October 11, 2016 Grace Miller Community Development Planning Department 615 W Alder St Shelton, WA 98584 SUBJECT: Distressed Tree Removal Dear Ms. Miller: We are enclosing a trimming and tree removal proposal by three Hartstene Pointe property owners. This small common area(50'x 100') is bordered by the Klett property to the North, the Walker property to the South and the McDonald property across Nantucket to the West. In addition, a copy of the Hartstene Pointe permit application,which has been approved by the HPMA Board of Directors with the exception of trees P1,P2,and P3. We have asked Jean Shaffer,an arborist to review and evaluate our proposal to remove these three compromised Vees (P1, P2,and P3.) We have included her proposal,which recommend the removal of these 3 small trees. Thank you, Doug and Ann McDonald—189 E Cuttysark Dr. Ken and Karen Klett--173 E Nantucket Shirley Walker—171 E Nantucket Enclosures: Arborist Report Mapping of Treees HPMA Permit Request PRC Approval Jean ShalTer, Forester Nisqually TreeArt,Ecoforestry Consulting 9400 Rocky Ln SE Olympia WA 99513 September 20, 2016—September 27,2016 Ken&Karen Klett Shirley Walker Doug&Ann McDonald 4439 154"'PINE 17502 102°d Ave NE# 109 581 E Pointes Dr W Bellevue,WA 98006 Bothell,WA 98011 Shelton, WA 98584 Subject Property: Common Area between 173 and 171 E Nantucket Rd, Shelton, WA 98584 Here is my report about the 3 trees on HPMA Common Area,needing removal as they are unhealthy and will become a future risk. On September 20"'20161 examined these trees and their relationship with neighboring shoreline zone trees.In the past the 3 trees in question,have been topped, presumably for views, and should they survive, will become a hazard to the 2 adjacent homes_ Descriptions of the 3 trees and their condition: The first tree(P 1) is a Cedar, 7.5"diameter at breast height(DBH). It is approximately 5 to 10 years old (counting annual branch laterals and multiplying the diameter at breast height times the average growth factor for cedars,etc.'-').The cedar's height is 15'.The cedar has been topped at a previous time,with a slanted cut. The second tree(P2) is a hemlock, 8.5"DBH. It is approximately 7-8 years old*. The hemlock's height is 15'tali.The top of the hemlock has been cut off previously.It now has a"fist"of side branches that are all trying to compete for dominance,called a candelabra top.This tree(P2)is also infected by a large sore indicating the tree is under significant stress. The third tree (P3) is a Douglas fir,6.21"DBH. It is approximately 6 years old This 15'tall Douglas fir has also been topped. Three thick side branches are competing for top leader dominance. Discussion: The area where these trees grow is near a shoreline bluff. The cedar(P 1) is 39'from the bank. I attended a seminar in Olympia, Washington this spring partially presented by Mason County concerning the management of Shoreline Trees. I learned how bluff edge trees extend their roots backwards to trees behind them,gaining a foothold on those trees.This in turn stabilizes the trees on the bank of the bluff, and the trees stabilize the bluff itself. htta//www cof orst edu/cof/fr/research/organon/pubslFRL RB69.pdf tree list,avg.growth factor,on the 13'�page It is unlikely the larger trees in front of the group of 3 small young topped trees are using them(FI-I 3) for anchorage.The 3 small trees are under ten years old.There is a 36"DBH cedar approximately 13 feet back from the group of 3 small topped trees.This,and others,would be the strong hold the big trees on the bluff(6'to 22'from the blur)vvould be investing their root gtYi'i'ivfih back towards and into, for support. �ll These topped trees are trees under stress.At the time of the topping pathogens were able to enter the tree,making for fiiture heart rot. And the topped tree's lower branches are under competition for being the top leader.Branches making a candelabra tree top,are a weakness unlike a natural trec top leader. These resulting un-natural tops are broken tree tops waiting,to happen.As the tree gets taller and taller the top has a longer way to fall,putting the 2 homes at risk. As a forester,workinb for the community's greenbelt safety by diagnosing green belt danger trees, l recommend these small young compromised bluff area trees be removed,as a preventative measure I highly respect the work Mason County is do-Ina to keep tyre integrity of shoreline bluffs.If you have questions I can be reached at 360-459-0946. Thank you, Jean Shaffer Forester Enclosure: map of bluff area and trees BANK 0 CEDAR U z PINK TAPE=TREE REMOVAL '°`�o• 23"CEDAR m YELLOW TAPE=TREE LIMBING �ro 2- FIR N L] 3T 3 "Fir '2FT DECK 1711169 NANTUCKET M r 7 5'Godat(�nPp,Kq 5 UiL DECK h $If3"FhurJnc;;Urpped) 175/173 Nantucket 4 r.uw mCC1�'5p.rwn Nantucket February 20, 2017 RECEIVED Ms. Grace Miller, Planner III FEB 2 3 2017 Mason County 615 W. Alder Street Community Services Department 615 W Alter St, Bldg. 8 Shelton, WA 98584 Dear Ms. Miller: We are very discouraged by the need to send copies of our tree trimming proposal to your office once again. Our original proposal was delivered to your office on10/11/16 with a follow-up on 1/2/17. On 2/13/17 we left a phone message on your voicemail. To date, we have received no response from your office. Our original HPMA(Hartstene Pointe Maintenance Association) tree removal permit,was approved by HPMA on 8/18/16 contingent upon Mason County approval. Our HPMA permit has now expired as of 2/18/17. We will now need to go through the HPMA permitting process again to remove three small distressed/topped trees. Our original proposal included an arborists evaluation and recommendation to remove these trees. We have incurred expenses and invested a significant amount of time to satisfy Mason County that our request is reasonable. Your office has had this information now for over four months—may we please have a much overdue approval of our proposal? Th k you, Doug and Ann McDonald 581 E Pointes Dr W Shelton, WA 98584 cc: Ken and Karen Klett Shirley Walker From:admcdonald60@gmaii.com Sent: Monday,January 2, 2017 6:24 PM To:Grace Miller Cc: Ken&Karen Klett;Shirley Walker Subject:Requested Approval of Tree Removal Grace, We wanted to follow up on our request to Mason County for approval to remove three small trees at Hartstene Pointe. We are attaching our correspondence of October 11,2016 which detailed and supports our request. Thank you, Doug and Ann McDonald—189 E Cuttysark Dr Ken and Karen Klett—173 E Nantucket Shirley Walker—171 E Nantucket Sent from for Windows 10 G&� M. Iut, RECEIV October 14, 2016 OCT E'D 14 2016 615 Grace Miller W A/der Street Community Development Planning Department 615 W Alder St Shelton, WA 98584 SUBJECT: Distressed Tree Removal Dear Ms. Miller: We are enclosing a trimming and tree removal proposal by three Hartstene Pointe property owners. This small common area (50' x 100') is bordered by the Klett property to the North, the Walker property to the South and the McDonald property across Nantucket to the West. In addition, a copy of the Hartstene Pointe permit application, which has been approved by the HPMA Board of Directors with the exception of trees P1, P2, and P3. We have asked Jean Shaffer, an arborist to review and evaluate our proposal to remove these three compromised trees (131, P2, and P3.) We have included her proposal, which recommend the removal of these 3 small trees. Thank you, Doug and Ann McDonald— 189 E Cuttysark Dr. Residence Address: 581 E Pointes Dr W (360) 426-1146 Ken and Karen Klett— 173 E Nantucket Shirley Walker— 171 E Nantucket Enclosures: Arborist Report Mapping of Treees HPMA Permit Request PRC Approval Jean Shaffer, Forester Nisqually TreeArt, Ecoforestry Consulting 8400 Rocky Ln SE Olympia WA 98513 September 20, 2016—September 27, 2016 Ken& Karen Klett Shirley Walker Doug&Ann McDonald 4439 154d'Pl NE 17502 102°d Ave NE # 109 581 E Pointes Dr W Bellevue, WA 98006 Bothell,WA 98011 Shelton,WA 98584 Subject Property: Common Area between 173 and 171 E Nantucket Rd, Shelton, WA 98584 Here is my report about the 3 trees on HPMA Common Area, needing removal as they are unhealthy and will become a future risk. On September 20'2016 I examined these trees and their relationship with neighboring shoreline zone trees. In the past the 3 trees in question, have been topped, presumably for views, and should they survive, will become a hazard to the 2 adjacent homes. Descriptions of the 3 trees and their condition: The first tree (P 1) is a Cedar, 7.5"diameter at breast height(DBH). It is approximately 5 to 10 years old (counting annual branch laterals and multiplying the diameter at breast height times the average growth factor for cedars,etc.**). The cedar's height is 15'. The cedar has been topped at a previous time,with a slanted cut. The second tree(P2) is a hemlock, 8.5"DBH. It is approximately 7-8 years old*. The hemlock's height is 15'tall. The top of the hemlock has been cut off previously. It now has a"fist"of side branches that are all trying to compete for dominance, called a candelabra top. This tree (P2) is also infected by a large sore indicating the tree is under significant stress. The third tree (P3)is a Douglas fir, 6.21" DBH. It is approximately 6 years old*. This 15'tall Douglas fir has also been topped. Three thick side branches are competing for top leader dominance. Discussion: The area where these trees grow is near a shoreline bluff. The cedar(P 1) is 39' from the bank. I attended a seminar in Olympia,Washington this spring partially presented by Mason County concerning the management of Shoreline Trees. I learned how bluff edge trees extend their roots backwards to trees behind them,gaining a foothold on those trees. This in turn stabilizes the trees on the bank of the bluff, and the trees stabilize the bluff itself. httv://www.coforst.edu/cof/fr/research/organ RB69.ndf tree list,avg.growth factor,on the 13'page It is unlikely the larger trees in front of the group-of 3 small young topped trees are using them(P1-P3) for anchorage. The 3 small trees are under ten years old. There is a 36"DBH cedar approximately 13 feet back from the group of 3 small topped trees. This, and others, would be the strong hold the big trees on the bluff(6'to 22' from the bluff)would be investing their root growth back towards and into, for support. These topped trees are trees under stress.At the time of the topping pathogens were able to enter the tree,making for future heart rot. And the topped tree's lower branches are under competition for being the top leader. Branches making a candelabra tree top, are a weakness unlike a natural tree top leader. These resulting un-natural tops are broken tree tops waiting to happen.As the tree gets taller and taller the top has a longer way to fall, putting the 2 homes at risk. As a forester,working for the community's greenbelt safety by diagnosing green belt danger trees, I recommend these small young compromised bluff area trees be removed, as a preventative measure I highly respect the work Mason County is doing to keep the integrity of shoreline bluffs. If you have questions I can be reached at 360-459-0946. Thank you, G Jean Shaffer Forester Enclosure: map of bluff area and trees BANK 1 Y Z Q m O I— zo 4"CEDAR Y 70; PINK TAPE=TREE REMOVAL 2, 3"CEDAR m YELLOW TAPE=TREE LIMBING b FIR N "Fir - W 12� DECK Uj s 171/169 NANTUCKET 7.6'Cedar(topped) 16'tell (P1)Remove 6• DECKSte, L_ 8 1/2'Hemlock(topped) 15'tell (P2)Diseased-Remove 175/173 Nantucket 5,tall fist(topped' III/ �� 15'tall rr 1' (P3)Distressed Deformed Re Previously approved f rroval 2012 S tl2'®r(bGPQ11T CMl S'b1 /LtiOW�, t r Nw.m mn aw....a R.mA7 zo�3b m1' 2r ads R.�.N.wr<wab2ota R. LYrE RallouM bpps0 ..— 2.rl.on A(¢OwE tyP c Wi.YN Nantucket rage i of Ken Klett From: "Ken Klett"4dettkk@ginail.com> Date: Sunday,September 01,201311:44 AM To: "Mackey David"<dmackey@so1ar2.us> Cc: "PPMA Gen Mgr Stefan Bvgh" Stefan hpma@cemcast-net;> Attach: Trees PI &P2-Lettter.docx Subject: Trees P1 &P2 Aug 31, 2013 Dear David, On Saturday, Aug 31It, per our telecon on Friday, I re-measured the two trees identified as P1 & P2 included in my permit applications beginning in Oct 2012- I'm sure you recall that the removal of both trees was approved by the PRC &the Board at that time as part of Permit#124 dated 11/20/2012. The approval was contingent on my planting tall Oregon Grape to restore screening (which was part of my application). In November, you called me and requested that I withdraw my application due to some open legal issues surrounding "Areal". I submitted my withdrawal request the that day Nov 29, 2012. In April 2013, we spoke and you advised that a Hazard Tree Program had been adopted and that I could resubmit an application. Your recommendations were gratefully received. In May 2013 1 re-submitted a slightly revised permit application and in June I received Permit#1311 — this permit denied approval to remove P1 & P2 because they were over 6" in diameter and within 50 feet of the bluff edge. On June 11, 1 sent you an email requesting another review of the trees because I believed the diameters of both trees were less than 6" DBH (Diameter at Breast Height). When i spoke with you last week, you advised that the PRC had re-visited and re-measured the 2 trees but concluded they were larger than 6" DBH. When I re-measured today, 1 found: P2 was indeed larger than 6" DBH (approx. > 7 V2"). While I do not think that the tree is a danger to people or any structure, it is defective and I believe diseased, but that should be decided by arborist. I will ask Stefan to have it reviewed by an arborist when he engages the next review. P1, on the other hand, measured at essentially 6" DBH. Data follows: 4' 6" from high ground = 6.067" DBH 4' 6"from low ground = 6.107" DBH 4' 6"from average ground = 6.087" DBH In my opinion, that is close enough to allow approval, especially because in Oct 2012 when I first received approval, it probably was less than 6" DBH. In addition, the new industry standard to measure DBH is at 1.4 meters—this is approximately 1.12" higher off the ground. 1 believe the higher level measurement would result in a lesser DBH because the tree gets"skinnier"the higher it grows. I tried to measure DBH at 1.4 m (4' 7.12") above average ground but unfortunately two branches were right at the 1.4 m level above average ground and 1 could not get a measurement. Sony to be such a pain in the neck about this but I would really appreciate it if you would be 9/1/2013 Yage z of L VW11ing to reconsider approval to remove tree P1. Let me know pease and please be assured that I will respect your decision. Thank you David, Ken 9/1/2013