Hazard Tree Assessment/Maintenance Plan 2014 - Bartlett Tree Experts

Hazard Tree Assessment/Maintenance Plan 2014

14 Erskine Lane View Royal, BC Conducted by: Trevor Coey of Bartlett Tree Experts ISA member #PN1890AT

The purpose of the assessment was to evaluate the health and safety of the larger trees located throughout the property and how the trees impact units throughout the property.

Several areas of the Strata grounds were over planted many years ago. Some trees in the landscape are now over mature and have outgrown their location. Other native trees that were present during construction are showing signs of decline, likely due to the impact and changes during construction.

Listed below are the trees that I have recommended for removal and reasons for the recommendation.

• Grand fir located at the rear of units 40-42. This is a large native tree which was present during construction and is located very close to the building. The tree is showing signs of stress and decline through die back throughout the canopy. Balsam wooly adelgid is stunting twig growth. The crown is sparse and has been getting thinner annually since 2009. I expect that this tree will be dead within 3 years.
• Alder located at the rear of unit 14. This is also a native tree present during construction and is located close to the building. The tree is severely decayed in the lower trunk and poses an imminent risk of failure which could result in property damage or personal injury.
• Pine located in front of units 5-7. These two trees were planted as part of the original landscape and have now outgrown their location. This was a poor choice of tree given the small area at the fronts of the units. The growth habit of this tree is rounded, wide and spreading. Both trees are damaging the roofs of the units due to branches on the roof and the overhang. The trees also hang well over the driveway impacting vehicle clearance. Roots are also starting to lift the asphalt. The maintenance associated with these trees outweighs their value in the landscape. The trees should be removed and replaced with more suitable species.
• Small unwanted trees located across from units 10-12. This group primarily consists of Grand fir seedlings. The trees are small in size now and should be removed to avoid future problems and enhance the area with more suitable trees which are being out competed by the Grand fir.
• Pine located at the rear of unit 12. These two Pine trees have also outgrown their location and were poor choices during the original landscape installation. The maintenance associated with these trees outweighs their value. They are too close to the building and should be replaced with more suitable species.
• Small trees located at the rear of unit 11. The Willow, Spruce, Alder and Oak are all suppressed trees. The growth is poor and the location will not accommodate so many trees. The trees should be removed to prevent future damage and enhance the landscape.
• Pine located at the left of unit 31. These two Pine trees are located too close to the building. Visible surface roots are growing toward the building. The trees hang over the roof. The trees should be removed to avoid damage.
• Douglas fir located at the rear of unit 44. This is a native tree present during construction. The tree is located too close to the building and the roots were likely damaged during construction.

In summary, many of the trees listed have outgrown the site. Several of the trees are now impacting the units and property in a negative manner or pose a safety risk due to the health of the tree. In my opinion the trees listed should be removed and replaced with more suitable species at more suitable locations throughout the property. Considerations should be made when replanting regarding the mature size of the trees selected.

Should there be any questions regarding my report, please contact me by phone at the office at 250-479-3973 or by email at tcoey@bartlett.com.

Thank you, Trevor Coey.