UPDATED: Cottonwood Controversy at Idylwood Park

Resident posts eagle notices
on city notice board

Thirty Cottonwood trees are scheduled for removal from Idylwood "Regional" Park sometime early this Spring.  The trees are prime perching and foraging habitat for park eagles and are highly valued.

I learned about the city's plans from a Letter to the Editor in the Redmond Reporter.  The city didn't hold a neighborhood meeting despite this being a regional park. Public notice was limited to two sandwich boards in the park and a blurb on the city website. Not good!

I called a phone number on the sandwich board. (The sign announced 30 Cottonwoods would be removed!)  David Tuchek, the Parks Operations Manager (and Parks "risk manager") kindly arranged a park tour.

David Tuchek in front of tree #10
 near Idlylwood Creek bridge

Mr. Tuchek was a city arborist at one time; and during the tour we discussed the following:

1)  The Bald Eagles spend most of their time in the Douglas Firs on the park's west side; there are no inhabited nests in the firs and no nests in the Cottonwoods. 2) Last year a serious summer drought caused the Cottonwoods to suck water into their branches, making them heavy and prone to falling. 3) Dave showed me a color picture of a large branch that fell on a park picnic table cracking it in half and landing on condo property. He noted two weeks later, a limb hit a park-goer sending her to Harborview. 5) Dave explained the 30 trees planned for removal were "target trees" that could hit people. 6) He pointed out the tape surrounding the Cottonwoods, saying falling limbs can "cartwheel" about 30 feet from the tree, 7) A mix of 60 conifer / deciduous replacement trees will be planted.  I recommended deciduous trees on the north side to provide shade from the southern sun. 8) Landmark Cottonwood #10 was growing in two riparian zones (river & lake) through which Kokanee salmon pass.  I noted how the tree was holding the bank. Dave indicated he would save as much of this target tree as possible. Besides mitigating erosion of the creek bank, the Cottonwood cools the water for salmon, and provides perching habitat.  9) The southern forested wetland will be enhanced and restored with replacement trees and shrubs.  The wetland will be fenced off and it's possible part of a Cottonwood can be saved for perching and bio-mass.

It was so kind of Dave to take me on this tour.  A few days later KING 5 reported on the city's plans, residents hired a lawyer requesting "cease and desist," (Read More,) and over 60 showed up at the Council's Audubon annual "Neighborhood Conversations" meeting - most of them emphatically objecting to the project. The final decision will be made by a Hearing Examiner. Yesterday, I took a video for posterity.

B. Yoder

Partial Letter from a lawyer requesting cease and desist of tree-cutting owing to permit violations, dated March 25th, 2018:

To: Mayor / Council, Parks Director Maxine Whattman, Planning & Development Department, 

We represent a group of Redmond residents and their families who are concerned about the City’s decision to cut down 30 cottonwood trees in Idylwood Beach Park. As we understand it, the City’s decision will result in the destruction of all cottonwood trees in the park with the exception of a small copse of cottonwoods in a fenced-off area. Cutting the cottonwoods would be unlawful because there is insufficient information to conclude the cottonwoods are hazardous, and the City’s decision-making process to cut the cottonwoods has violated several processes required by the Redmond Zoning Code (RZC). To the best of our knowledge, the City of Redmond has not issued the required tree removal permit, has not supplied the required findings, plans, and other documentation to remove trees within critical areas, and is unlawfully cutting significant trees within the shoreline jurisdiction. We ask the City to immediately suspend tree cutting until a proper arborist’s report can be prepared and until the procedural requirements of the RZC have been followed.

I. There Is Insufficient Information to Conclude the Cottonwoods Are Hazardous. The decision to cut the cottonwood trees stems from city staff’s belief that the 30 cottonwoods are hazardous due to the possibility of “Summer Sudden Limb Drop.” However, the facts the City has offered do not support this conclusion. Summer Limb Drop is a poorly understood phenomenon in which a branch fails during hot temperatures for reasons unrelated to wind. There is no generally accepted hypothesis for why it happens. Not every branch that fails during summer is due to Summer Limb Drop. The vast majority of branch failures are due to ordinary, measurable causes, not Summer Limb Drop. A proper arborist report is necessary to assess the risk of Summer Limb Drop and other potential limb failures.

The City’s so-called tree risk assessment report is not worthy of the name. The report (Att. A) consists of a single spreadsheet in which each of the 30 trees has a defect identified. With the exception of trees no. 28 and 29, each tree’s “defect” is simply labelled “summer sudden limb drop.” While Summer Limb Drop is a condition that can affect trees, simply listing a defect next to a tree does not constitute a diagnosis that the defect will actually affect that specific tree. The City’s arborist report is akin to a doctor marking “cancer” next to every patient’s name in a hospital—while cancer is a real disease that can affect any patient, a proper diagnosis requires examining whether it is actually affecting a particular patient.The City’s so-called tree risk assessment report is not worthy of the name.

The report (Att. A) consists of a single spreadsheet in which each of the 30 trees has a defect identified. With the exception of trees no. 28 and 29, each tree’s “defect” is simply labelled “summer sudden limb drop.” While Summer Limb Drop is a condition that can affect trees, simply listing a defect next to a tree does not constitute a diagnosis that the defect will actually affect that specific tree. The City’s arborist report is akin to a doctor marking “cancer” next to every patient’s name in a hospital—while cancer is a real disease that can affect any patient, a proper diagnosis requires examining whether it is actually affecting a particular patient.

At our client’s request, arborist Christopher Ridley has written a report on Summer Limb Drop and a response to the City arborist’s report (Att. B). As Mr. Ridley says, “It is my opinion that arborists generally attribute branches that fail in the summer to Summer Limb Drop without properly researching weather patterns, or are limited in their knowledge of what causes trees to fail.” That certainly seems to be the case here, where the City has simply made a blanket statement that every cottonwood in the park is at risk of suffering Summer Limb Drop.

Mr. Ridley has provided a list of other causes of limb failure that should be investigated before diagnosing Summer Limb Drop: weather pattern analysis; over-extended lever arm branches caused by improper pruning; wind; early signs of wood decay; heavy canopies due to improper pruning; and various biotic or abiotic disorders. There is no indication the City arborists looked for these other factors. Mr. Ridley also takes issue with the finding of “high risk.” In the world of professional arboriculture, the phrase “high risk” is a term of art—it has a specific, technical meaning.

A “high risk” rating cannot be awarded until an arborist with a Tree Risk Assessment Qualification has conducted a survey that follows the protocols of the International Society of Arboriculture. There is no indication that the City’s arborist report used a TRAQ-certified arborist or that it followed the ISA protocols. Although he cannot conduct his own survey without permission from the City of Redmond, Mr. Ridley finds it unlikely that a properly conducted survey could have arrived at a “high risk” rating for so many of the trees. Typically, a “high risk” rating requires a tree in imminent danger of failing, a high likelihood of striking a given target, and a severe impact. Given that these cottonwoods overhang non-stationary targets rather than stationary objects, given the lack of

In addition to the citywide tree protection rules, all development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall comply with additional, shoreline-specific tree protection requirements. RZC 21.68.110.A. Removal of vegetation constitutes development. RZC 21.78. The shoreline jurisdiction includes the 200 feet landward of Lake Sammamish. RZC 21.68.020.A. Within the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction, a minimum of 35 percent of the existing significant trees shall be preserved on-site. Furthermore, within the 35 feet closest to Lake Sammamish (the waterfront building setback), significant trees shall be retained unless the tree is dead, diseased, dying, or hazardous. RZA 21.68.020.A.1.a.

Because the City has provided no landscape plan, there is no way to be sure that 35 percent of existing significant trees will remain within the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction after the cottonwoods are cut. Furthermore, because there has been inadequate evidence that the cottonwoods are hazardous, the City may not cut the cottonwoods within 35 feet of the lakeshore. The City’s plan must be put on hold until these findings can be made.

 D. The City Has Not Obtained a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. Development activities (which, as noted, includes vegetation removal) within the shoreline jurisdiction are subject to the shoreline permitting program. RZC 21.68.050. When an activity is neither permitted outright nor forbidden outright, such activity may be authorized through a shoreline conditional use permit. RZC 21.68.050.C.1.c. Tree removal is an activity neither permitted outright nor forbidden outright. Table 21.68.050. The City’s plan to remove the cottonwoods along the shoreline therefore requires a shoreline conditional use permit.

To the best our knowledge, the City has not obtained a shoreline conditional use permit. “Normal maintenance” is exempt from the shoreline permitting requirement. RZC 21.68.200.C.3 The removal of the cottonwoods is likely not “normal maintenance,” because normal maintenance requires no substantial adverse affects to the shoreline. WAC 173-27-040(2)(b). Removal of the cottonwoods would impair both bald eagle perching and the function of salmon streams, and these substantial adverse affects mean the tree removal constitutes development, not maintenance. However, even if the removal of the cottonwoods can be construed as maintenance rather than development, maintenance still requires the issuance of a letter of exemption. Table 21.68.200.

To the best of our knowledge, no such letter has been issued. Because, to the best of our knowledge, neither a shoreline condition use permit nor a letter of exemption has been issued, it is unlawful to cut the cottonwoods.

Brickman & amp;Newman LLP

Alex Sidles

sidles@bnd-lan.com

1424-4th Ave. #500

Seattle 98101

206-264-9810​

NOTE:  During the Neighborhood Conversations meeting the Mayor said the Cottonwoods were 40-50 years old.