Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 2014-03-27 Item 4 - Tukwila Village Phase II - Attachment E: Arborist ReportArborist Report: Tukwila Village Prepared for Mel Easter, ASLA The LA Studio 15200 52nd Ave S, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98188 Site visit : September 13, 2011 Prepared by Tina Cohen, I.S.A. Certified Arborist #PN0245A Northwest Arborvitae Report date: September 16, 2011 Page 1 of 8 RCRCETIFIED DDRIST 135 Page 2 of 8 136 Table of Contents Introduction and Scope of Work page 3 Summary of Tree Health page 3 Explanation of Spreadsheet terms page 4 Spreadsheet separate attachment Recommendations by Area page 5 Conclusion page 5 Limits to the Report page 5 Photos page 6 -7 Site plan via postal mail Tina Cohen, Certified Arborist Northwest Arborvitae 8318 26th Ave NW Seattle, WA 98117 phone 206 - 789 -3283 fax 206 - 789 -0262 email tina @tinacohen.com September 16, 2011 Mel Easter, ASLA The LA Studio 15200 52nd Ave S, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98188 Arborist Services Re: Tukwila Village, International Blvd & S. 144th Street, Tukwila, WA Site visit: 9/13/11 Dear Mr. Easter: On September 13, 2011 we met on site along with Jessica Marquardt from your office. I received the site survey, and evaluated the on -site trees. The purpose was to determine which trees are the healthiest and best candidates for retention. Scope of Work I determined the health, structure, life span, overall quality, positive or negative impacts on long — term survival, and positive or negative impacts to the development. The information is intended to guide the design as decisions are made about preserving or removing trees. I understand that the City of Tukwila does not have any tree preservation requirements, only guidelines. Summary of Tree Health The majority of the site trees are drought stressed, excessively pruned, and/or unaesthetic. I noted only 5 superior trees worth special retention consideration out of 59 trees evaluated. This project is an excellent opportunity to replace declining trees with vigorous, appropriate species. • North trees, north of the matchline, #1 -18, 45 -47: These are all unaesthetic and in marginal health. The exception is fir #18, which somehow escaped damage during the construction of the adjacent apartment building to the east. • East trees, #19 -24: These are benefiting from the irrigation from the adjacent library's lawn and are the most vigorous on the site. See the photo on page 5. Page 3 of 8 137 • North of S. 144th St.: The trees are dying or very stressed from wounds, excess pruning, and drought. See the photo on page 6. The exception is Coast redwood #32; even with graffiti on the trunk it stands out as a superior tree. It can grow to 200 feet and live 300 years. This species is tolerant of disturbance. • Trees along S. 144th St.: Most were excessively pruned. The Lombardy poplars, although mostly healthy, are short lived (about 75 -100 years) and are not the best candidates for retention for this reason. The London planes vary in condition, but they are long -lived (200+ years) and very tolerant of root and canopy damage. • South of S. 144th St.: The cedars adjacent to the barbershop have been excessively limbed up. The trunks are growing into the concrete bulkhead. They will tolerate these conditions, although the cut stumps of four adjacent cedars indicate the owner does not. Coast redwood #35 at the far southwest corner of the site is healthy. • West ROW along International Blvd: The hybrid Norway maples in the sidewalk vaults are healthy although drought stressed. Eventually they'll fill out to help soften the visual impact from the busy arterial. Two Red oaks are dying from drought, as noted on the site plan. • West on site: The Incense cedars are healthy with only two appearing stressed. They're a good choice for this location because they rarely damage sidewalks. They are small enough to transplant assuming they'll get water while being held for replanting. Details of Findings — Explanation of spreadsheet terms. Please see the following fields on the enclosed Excel spreadsheet. Tree #: Each tree is numbered corresponding to the site plan. Species: Common names are listed. Trunk diameter: I measured the trunk diameter inches at 4.5 feet from the ground if the survey didn't provide it. Health rating: Healthy = normal vigor and appearance for the species (these wiil be the best candidates for retention); Healthy fair = viable but not necessarily the best tree for retention; Poor = not healthy, in decline; Dying = will not survive another year. Structure: Characterizes the general shape of the tree. `Codominant' refers to having two or more trunks or tops that are parallel, versus a single trunk. Many species do this naturally. Comment: The comment provides an opinion regarding esthetics and in the case of the incense cedars, transplant information. Canopy radius: I measured the extent of the canopy (its radius) from the trunk to the outer edge. This is a rule of thumb for distance to place protection fencing and stay away from a tree during construction. Current status: Viable refers to being alive now and remaining so into the future, assuming it would be protected during the project. Non - viable means the tree will not survive long term, whether or not it's protected. Page 4 of 8 138 Retention info: This will help you decide /justify if a particular tree should be saved or not. If a tree is noted as Superior, it should be saved if possible. Tolerant species will accept root loss; sensitive species are likely to decline. Recommendations by Area East: The best trees on the site are near the east property line, adjacent to the irrigated King County Library lawn. I recommend saving maple #20 and cedar #21, and protect them as a group at their dripline radii. Fir #18 is also worth saving if the design will allow it. West: The incense cedars are small enough and worthy to transplant except for multi - trunked specimens, or trees that are stressed. The ROW hybrid Norway maples should be retained and protected during the project. Replace the two ROW Red oaks with maples because of their condition. Central/southwest: The two Coast redwoods #32 and #35 are worth saving if they will have enough space to grow. These are very young trees. Along 144th Street: The poplars are short-lived and not worth special design changes to accommodate them. If you decide to retain the most east poplars #23 and #24, they should be further inspected when the ivy is cleared. The London planes #36 -39 will tolerate nearly any amount of disturbance and can be retained except for #38, which leans towards the street. They're young but already provide shade along the street. Consider if they have enough root space during the design process because they're well known for buckling sidewalks. Conclusion There really aren't very many trees worth saving on this site. They've suffered from excessive pruning, trunk wounds, and drought. The superior trees clustered near the east property line should be considered for retention. The small incense cedars near the west property line are tolerating the dry conditions and should be used elsewhere on the project. If there will be space for the Coast redwoods, they would create quite a statement in the new landscape. Limits Unless expressed otherwise (1) 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 (2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without further dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. Loss or alteration of any part of a report invalidates the entire report. Notwithstanding the recommendations and conclusions made in this report, it must be realized that trees are living organisms and their health and vigor constantly change over time. They are not immune to changes in site conditions or seasonal variations in the weather. Page 5 of 8 �j PPPUPIST nTo 139 There is no warranty or guarantee expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the trees in question may not arise in the future. The report and conclusions expressed herein represent the opinion of Tina Cohen d/b is Northwest Arborvitae. Our fee is no way contingent upon any specified value, a result or occurrence of a subsequent event, or upon any finding to be reported. Respectfully submitted, Tina Cohen, ISA Certified Arborist #PN0245A American Society of Consulting Arborists, Registered Consulting Arborist #473 PNW ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor #194 tina @tinacohen.com Enclosures Excel spreadsheet `Tukwila Village Tree Data' Site plan via postal mail Page 6 of 8 140 annso a �eoarsr PHOTOS Trees near the east property line fence, north of S. 144th, are the healthiest because they receive irrigation from the adjacent library property. From the left the on site trees are #19 Lawson cypress, #20 Bigleaf maple, and #21 Western red cedar. Page 7 of 8 141 The left tree is Doug fir #41. It's dying because of damage from the asphalt poured over the roots. The right tree is Western red cedar #42 which has been excessively pruned. Many of the on site trees suffered extreme limbing and are unaesthetic. The tree in the distance, to the left of the salmon - colored building, is Coast redwood #35. It's in good health and should be retained assuming there's enough space for its roots and canopy. Page 8 of 8 142 •YSUCISi a f0 CO 0 siza) a) a) C) Co F- Site visit 9/13/11 U) O t_ Q v i= t a) U C- CU O U CD .a Retention info tolerant species [ tolerant species tolerant species [tolerant species remove unhealthy tolerant species remove unhealthy remove unhealthy � sensitive species sensitive species remove unhealthy sensitive species remove unhealthy I remove unhealthy remove unhealthy tolerant s ecies remove unhealthy SUPERIOR tree sensitive species SUPERIOR tree SUPERIOR tree tolerant species Short lived species Short lived species Short lived species Short lived species Short lived species Short lived species Current status , a) as 5 Viable Viable Viable Non - viable Viable Non - viable Non - viable Viable Viable I Non - viable Viable Non - viable I Non - viable Non - viable a) CO '> Viable a) a co '> Non - viable a) 33 CD 5 in CO '> viaole Viable m 25 CO '> Viable Viable Viable Viable Canopy RADIUS feet CI) C) C7) C) U) O CV T M T d., T CV T to T 14 co T CV T O dt T ,:t T CD T O Q) T OD T f 10 18 15 10 15 O T 15 Comment not esthetic poor esthetics, ugly dead top, drought ALL trunk wounded must save group or none dead top drought I (wounded impacted by buildin•; •oor color 16,17 stressed best of group basal wound ugly ivy prevented full inspection if saving recheck after clearing ivy Structure Cr) c 23 E U) W W codominant trunks as C 25 _E co x Knocked over [ codominant trunks Excess limbing Excess limbing Excess limbing Excess limbing Excess limbing Excess limbing [Excess limbing codominant trunks as C 25 E U) LLI Excess limbing broken top Y 0 codominant trunks codominant trunks [codominant trunks NO smunn iueuiw0000 Y 0 Excess limbing Excess limbing Excess limbing codominant trunks Excess limbing Health rating healthy healthy fair healthy healthy fair C 's, V healthy fair dying C '5, V healthy fair healthy fair h ealthy fair [ healthy poor ` oo a 8 oo a healthy fair poor healthy healthy fair I healthy healthy healthy healthy healthy healthy fair healthy fair healthy fair healthy fair Trunk diam inches O Z6 d' T CO N , Z6 14 CV- T �I' T Nd' T T ill T T N 29 43 N T Ui Tr OD Tr CO CO 36 CO Cn 36,24 H CD U a to Pear Pear Pear [ aO a CL Q cedar, w red Hornbeam cedar, w red cedar, w red cedar, w red cedar, w red cedar, w red cedar, w red cedar, w red cedar, w red I cedar, w red Doug fir Doug fir Doug fir 1 Lawson cypress maple bigleaf [cedar, w red Portuguese laurel Lombardy poplar Lombardy poplar Lombardy_ poplar Lombardy poplar Lombardy poplar Lombardy poplar qt Cn i FT CV COIt U) CO OT 0.-000)TT CV TT 01 N TT COhODC7)OT TTTTNCV CV N CO CV d N to N CO N N- N CO N See report for further explanation and summary of findings. 143 U) L O a) U-- t a) U c a) "co U r0 c F- Site visit 9/13/11 144 Retention info [remove unhealthy remove unhealthy tolerant species I SUPERIOR tree sensitive species sensitive species I SUPERIOR tree tolerant species tolerant species tolerant species [tolerant species remove unhealthy [ remove unhealthy [ sensitive species sensitive species [ remove unhealthy remove unhealthy remove unhealthy remove unhealthy SUPERIOR tree tolerant species tolerant species tolerant species_ tolerant species SUPERIOR tree SUPERIOR tree tolerant species Current status I Non - viable Non - viable CD .T3 mm 55 CD _TD m as mm >5 a) a) a ro 5 [Viable Non - viable 'Viable I Non - viable Non - viable [ Viable [Viable I Non - viable [ Non - viable [ Non - viable Non - viable Viable 1 a) a CO 5 Viable a) a m 5 Viable Viable I a) a m 5 Viable I Canopy RADIUS feet f0 15 1 10 .- N CO .-� CO CO 1- ID 15 in •-• In •-• CO CO 1,- 00 LC) •-1-11- LC) CO N CO In CO M co CO co 5.5 I Comment I suppressed basal wounds Itrunk wounds trunk wound 33,34 limbed, impacted by wall, u adja bldg, carp leans south canopy dieback 'canopy paving ugly. trunk wounded trunk wounded stump sprout [ extensive wounds, poor canopy drought, anthracnose transplant looks broken, NOT suitable to trans lant NOT suitable to transplant transplant NOT suitable to transplant transplant transplant transplant I Structure rn c E cc) cc) a) w Excess limbing 0 codominant trunks codominant trunks 0 !Excess limbing Excess limbing Trunk tore away codominant trunks v a) S codominant trunks Excess limbing Trunk tore away codominant trunks codominant trunks NO 0 codominant toe multiple trunks 0 multiple trunks OK 0 NO Health rating c v healthy fair healthy healthy healthy fair healthy fair healthy healthy healthy healthy fair healthy fair _ ,_ p a� O: c healthy fair healthy fair poor poor ` p a dying healthy healthy healthy healthy healthy healthy healthy healthy Trunk diam inches CO N MOB 0 07000 rM CO r.- F- -�MMM COrNN 18.18.18 NO MMCO N N CD CO LC) M CO CO d' CO CD Species ILawson cypress Lombardy poplar Copper beech Coast redwood cedar, w red cedar, w red L•oast redwoo d London plane London plane London plane London plane maple bigleaf Doug fir cedar, w red a) 0. o IT) U �Sweetgum Mt ash Mt ash o y 3 0 v W incense cedar I incense cedar incense cedar incense cedar incense cedar incense cedar incense cedar incense cedar 46 a) ACA I-N Or MMM CV C'M'CI' MM 3) MMMMC'Md'd• CD N-000)0 - NMd•Ln d'd•d'd' CD d' N-O d d• O) d• O = Lf) U) N LI) M LI) d• LC) LI) LC) See report for further explanation and summary of findings. M .1_I N .L. 0 Q L a) 4- L a) U c a) 0 U (0 C H Site visit 9/13/11 Retention info remove unhealthy tolerant species tolerant species tolerant species Current status Non- viable Viable Viable a) To a) Canopy RADIUS feet N V (NI c) Comment stunted, NOT suitable to transplant transplant NOT suitable to transplant thin canopy, NOT suitable to transplant tructure Y Y dominant tops Y 0 0 0 Health rating 0 0 o. healthy healthy fair healthy fair Trunk diam inches M L[) V Species incense cedar incense cedar incense cedar incense cedar a) It co co to See report for further explanation and summary of findings. 145