Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit PL17-0065 - DUWAMISH TOWERS - TREE PERMIT / NON-SHORELINEDUWAMISH TOWERS 0923049155 Associated Files: PL17-0065, L17-0079 This File: L17-0078 TREE PERMIT/SHORELINE DUWAMISH TOWERS 2925 S 112TH ST PL17-0065 L17-0078 L17-0079 L19-0078 TREE PERMIT EXPIRED Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 2:58 PM To: 'Kim_Merow@UHaul.com' Subject: Revised Comments on Landscape Modification and Shoreline Vegetation Removal Applications Attachments: sun-map-tile1.pdf; Muckleshoot Tribe Comments w attachment.pdf; L17-0078-0079 Comment Ltr-Revised.docx; Table 2 Response-Revised.docx Dear Kim, This email is a follow-up to our meeting on January 4, 2018, to discuss the correction letter sent to you regarding the Landscape Modification and Shoreline Vegetation Removal Applications submitted for the Duwamish Towers site on Tukwila International Blvd. at S. 112th St. You requested guidance on how to respond to the items identified in the letter, and Andrea and I agreed to review our comments and highlight those that must be addressed as part of moving forward with the two land use applications. I have attached our original comment letter, plus the response to Table 2 with the key items highlighted in yellow that must be addressed as part of a response to the City. I am also attaching again the comments received from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe just as a reminder that these must be addressed as well. The responses to our comments as well as the Tribe's are incorporated into the staff reports that we prepare as we evaluate the applications against City regulations and prepare a recommendation for the Director's review. Please let me know if you have any follow-up questions. Sincerely, Carol Caro(Lumb, .AICP, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 630o Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, 98188 206-431-3661 CaroC.Lumb@ Tukw a.gov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice **My incoming and outgoing email messages are subject to public disclosure requirements per RCW 42.56** 1 tt ikeivoLv- i' i N is ev .eve✓ 4,.4.- 1.1 - u td4/ -. -- Ca /VP 0 a -.itf r iU to pA&;: — l - Calf,✓ 2 t rain {-v✓ £ Avi)ct tv �o ✓CL _ice' L.. _ _ 1; - cAt.ku_ anti te,_4-yo )os140- L T5.6 A__ -- r--- -- cuttWuKo Wa W`�(L vQ<�G IUN __ _j "—i�` �k-t w e, „„te, • tt Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 5:01 PM To: 'Kim_Merow@UHaul.com' Subject: Comments on Landscape Modification Application Attachments: Muckleshoot Tribe Comments w attachment.pdf; sun-map-tilel.pdf Dear Kim, The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe has submitted comments on the shoreline tree removal, L17-0078, request and the landscape modification request, L17-0079, that you submitted on behalf of U-Haul for the Duwamish Towers site. I will attach these comments along with a map that the Tribe provided to supplement their comments. Today is the close of the public comment period on your projects. I have not received any other comments via email however, there may be additional comments received via U. S. mail. If so, I will forward those to you as soon as possible for response. Please review the Tribe's comments and provide a written response to the issues raised. If the information requested in the correction letter and the response to the Tribe's comments is not received within ninety days of the date of this email, the applications may be canceled doe to inactivity. (TMC 18.104.130) Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Carol CarolLumb, .2JCP, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of 'Tukwila 630o Southcenter Blvd., Suite i0o 7ukwita, %V.4 98188 206-43i-366i CaroL.Cum6@Tukivilanva.gov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice **My incoming and outgoing email messages are subject to public disclosure requirements per RCW 42.56** i Carol Lumb From: Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 11:16 AM To: Carol Lumb Subject: Duwamish Towers redevelopment, L17-0078 and L17-0079, Notice of Application Attachments: sun-map-tilel.pdf Carol, We have reviewed the Duwamish Towers redevelopment Notice of Application and associated Landscape Modification Assessment and plans as referenced above. We offer the following comments in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe's treaty -protected fisheries resources: Summary of Tree removal proposal We understand that the applicant is seeking to remove 148 existing trees out of 263 inventoried trees onsite. Per the Landscape Assessment report (Watershed Company Nov 2017), most of the proposed tree removals are due to the site conditions not readily accommodating the existing trees planted as the trees have grown too large for their planting areas and are in some cases threatening or affecting existing utilities, the bio-swale areas, and the existing elevated parking structure. The existing trees to be removed appear to be mostly non-native trees including those within 200 feet of the Duwamish River. Assessment of tree removal impacts, mitigation and riparian recommendations The Landscape Assessment report is a good start to assess existing and proposed conditions in a comparison to City codes; however, it should be modified to include a more detailed discussion about functions and values of these existing trees in particular for shade and future wood recruitment. As noted in King County's Green River Sun Map Tile 1 (attached), portions of this site have been identified as high, medium, and low for shade needs. Those areas that are identified as high and medium should be improved by planting native conifer tree species that will provide shade to the river over time. The project is proposing to remove 31 trees within the shoreline jurisdiction; however, only three trees will be mitigated on —site with the reset to be mitigated by a payment to the City's tree replacement fund. This is inadequate to address the project's mitigation needs as it is speculative and undefined and does not improve the conditions onsite where there is sufficient opportunity to do so. The few replacement plantings are non-native trees that will be too short to provide necessary shade and wood recruitment functions. The project needs to reevaluate its mitigation approach. The project should evaluate the outer most parking areas in the medium and high shade designations to see if some of this parking can be eliminated and restored with native trees as part of this project. This evaluation includes all areas within the 200 foot regulated shoreline area because this will provide better certainty in meeting the Washington Department of Ecology's (WDOE) implementation plan for the Green River TMDL for temperature at this site. If you recall, WDOE completed a Water Quality Improvement Report (TMDL) for the Green River for water temperature, which was approved by EPA in 2011. The TMDL study found that water temperatures are expected to occur at levels significantly above state standards set for salmon, including levels lethal to salmon, unless sufficient riparian vegetation is established and maintained for shade along the river. Per this report, it was determined that a 148 foot (45 meters) wide mature riparian corridor is needed to reduce water temperature and improve dissolved oxygen levels (see page 82 of https://fortress.wa.gov/ecv/publications/documents/1110046.pdf). As noted in the Landscape Assessment (page 18), approximately 50% of the 100-foot shoreline buffer is vegetated; the remainder of the buffer includes the Green River Trail and portions of the parking lot, a pollutant -generating surface. The Assessment also states that "water quality functions provided by the shoreline buffer are limited by narrow width of the vegetated areas, the steep gradient, the armored slopes, and the presence of pollutant generating surfaces in the buffer" (page 18). We agree. While, the project cannot address all of these existing conditions, this is the opportunity to expand the riparian buffer by reducing the pollutant generating surfaces in the buffer and plant these areas as we recommend. The assessment suggests reduction of parking areas is possible as "it is expected that far fewer vehicles will utilize the repurposed use as compared to the existing use" (page 42). Our recommendation to expand the existing riparian buffer onsite will better enable the project to meet its mitigation needs. It will also better serve the existing nearby mitigation sites at North Winds Weir; Chinook Winds, and the Duwamish Gardens restoration site. 1 If there is any further modifications to the site, then the project should also improve stormwater conditions by treating stormwater using "enhanced" treatment methods and oil treatment facilities as improving stormwater will benefit salmon in this river. Finally, if there are further modifications to the site along the shoreline areas, we will need to review these modifications for potential impacts to tribal fishing access. Tribal members fish in this area and may need access to these sites from land to do so in or near the project site. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City/applicants' responses as well as modifications that address these concerns. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program Phillip Starr Building 39015-A 172nd Ave SE Aubum, WA 98092 253-876-3116 2 Jest Seattle Erg Longfellow Ct'eek 'GS Nbrth Delrid lest Seattlee Iayfie iolf Course ^ ;amp _ong Cottage Grove Park i+. Terminal 18 Park Corporate Center at Terminal 102 Terminal -i,,,_ y r • 105P.Jk rrl r s ,;'ark x) ,y nal ark tiUwifrnt•h G Puget :irk Riverview Playfield ` Highland:Park Playground 1 • - Seattle Center Pend Natural *rea Steve Cbx MemoriaF:.' ' Park .y' _ White Gisnter Helots,.•,:.. 'Far sLai ewcod Park Green River Sun Map Map Tile 1 elfth A ue South Stevens ,l&ewpoint . Place III efferson I Park \,.King Memorial \. Park.. hFieasty GS;rhea Blvd. Mount Baker'Park"Lake Washington Mount Boulevard (3aker Bculevard Hunter .. Lake Washington Boulevard' York Sierra Pl ` Place YorkPark Laayg People P\roundk •(Xacuabs • Jeffersort Park Gold `\ Course 7 IA f; Cheasty IBoulSVard 8th ')u So Park Green River Sun Map • River Miles • Critical - MajorRoads • High Streams and Rivers O Medium Open water O Low ® Incorporated Areas River Facilities I Publicly Owned Lands Offset for clarity /// Easements Levee Revetment Dearborn Park • 'T f, ' Ira! Site 0 -.,. %-Tukwila `'=t aier Genesee Rn Pla field Park and. PlayfieId • Colu t bia Par. r. 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Stan Sayres Memorial .Park ewe Martha Washingt • Pail; P_ritchart Island Bec, Rainier Bear Urban Fam and W tlanc Atlantic City Boat Ramp Fletcht P City of Tukwila Man Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director December 14, 2017 Ms. Kim Merow 16219 22nd St. East Lake Tapps, WA 98391 RE: L17-0078 and L17-0079, Shoreline Tree Removal and Landscape Modification Applications Dear Ms. Merow: We have had an opportunity to review the above noted land use applications and as currently presented we do not believe the applications comply with the shoreline vegetation removal and landscaping modification sections of the City's Municipal Code. We will outline the concerns with the project below. Overall: • 148 trees are proposed for removal, 122 of which are large canopy trees. 89 trees are proposed for onsite replacement — 8 of which are large canopy (the landscape code considers columnar trees to be small canopy trees). The Assessment does not adequately address the landscape code requirements of 1:1 replacement and canopy goals. • Tree canopy comparison: The numbers being used for existing canopy coverage are current, but the numbers for replacement canopy are at 30 years. As some of the trees have not been in place for 30 years, this number does not truly reflect canopy loss. For example, on page 30, it states that the 6 redwoods to be removed in Vegetation Zone 7 have a combined canopy cover of 1,836 sf. However, using the City's tree list method of canopy estimate, 11r2 with radius being figured by width at 30 years, the canopy cover of a single redwood would be 962 sf, therefore 6 redwoods would have a canopy cover of 5,772 sf rather than the given 1,836 sf. Even if considering canopy cover of the group versus individual trees, the potential cover at 30 years would likely be considerably more than 1,836 sf. Replacing these six redwoods with 3 columnar maples, 6 vine maples, and 6 super -dwarf crabapples will create 3,126 sf of canopy resulting in a loss of 2,646 sf in this zone alone. Please check the canopy comparison numbers for consistency. Additionally, existing canopy coverage was done by using groupedor overlapping canopy cover, as stated on L-3, but proposed canopy radius was done on individual trees. This is an inconsistent comparison, as many of the proposed trees will be grouped and therefore have overlapping canopy coverage. Comparing Sheet L-3 (existing canopy — 22.6%) and L-5 (planting plan - 22.2%), the difference in canopy cover is visually striking, and considerably different than the Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southrenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov Ms. Kim Merow U-Haul L17-0078-L17-0079 estimate of -0.4% (or -0.5% depending on source) change discussed on page 38. With 122 large canopy trees being replaced with 8 large canopy trees, the canopy lost on -site will be substantial. • The analysis cites the presence of pine beetle as a reason for tree removal - which beetle is it? Did you get positive ID? Most, if not all identified pine beetles, will not kill shore pine in this area. In addition, the infestation is cited as a problem, but the affected trees are not proposed for removal and replacement, generally. • On the joint site visit, note was taken of the Western Hemlocks that had been planted in front of the signage at the corner of TIB and S. 112th St., and their removal was discussed but this is not reflected on the proposed plans. These will eventually grow to block the monument sign. What is the plan for these trees? • On the joint site visit, it was strongly suggested that a phased approach to any landscape modification be used, particularly along Tukwila International Blvd. This advice is not reflected in the proposal. • No structural engineering information has been provided to support the assertion that the trees growing on top of the parking structure are causing cracks to occur or will compromise the structural integrity of the garage in the future. This information is needed to support the contention that the trees are causing structural damage to the garage and that there may be additional issues with seismic stability of the structure and therefore the trees need to be removed. Please note that a structural engineering assessment would be sent to the City's structural engineering consultants for analysis, at the applicant's expense. • Plantings in the bioswales do not reflect low impact development plant material nor soil preparation requirements. If the drainage swales are to be counted towards formal landscaping, the criteria in TMC 18.52.100 E. must be addressed. • Appendix B provides a tree table describing the condition of 264 trees throughout the site. There is no site plan identifying the location of each numbered tree so a correlation can be made between tree condition and proposed removal. • The application is missing a site survey that clearly identifies the property boundaries, particularly along Tukwila International Boulevard (TIB). • The organization of the information is not helpful. The numbering system used to identify individual landscape areas on Sheet L-4 should have been carried over to Sheet L-5 so that comparison of plant material to be removed and plant material proposed for replacement could be easily made. L17-0078: Shoreline Vegetation and Tree Removal: 1. The replacement trees for shoreline mitigation (176 trees) is proposed to be off -site and conducted by the City via payment into the City's Tree Replacement Fund. TMC 18.44.080 B.6. prioritizes on -site mitigation where possible. On -site replacement of shoreline trees is possible, as the site contains approximately 1200 linear feet of unrestored shoreline, therefore the use of in -lieu fee payment is not justified. 2. Native plants are required to be used within the entire 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction. 3. Sheet L-4 shows trees being removed in Area 11 — however, Sheet L-5 shows these trees as remaining. Which sheet is correct? If these trees are being removed, why are replacement trees not indicated? CL Page 2 of 4 12/14/2017 10:36 AM L17-0078-0079 Comment Ltr. Ms. Kim Merow U-Haul L17-0078-L17-0079 L 17-0079: Landscape Modification Request 1. Sheet L-4, Area 1 shows the removal of all the trees on the entrance drive approaching the front door, and replacement in planting area 1. Please explain how this meets the requirement for 1:1 replacement. 2. Sheet L-5, Area 6 shows plantings in a drainage swale — the proposed plant material does not include plants that tolerate wet conditions. 3. No groundcover is proposed in any landscaped area, which is not to code. Slough sedge and soft rush are wetland plants intended to be grown in the bioswales. Why are they not included as groundcover in the other drainage swale? 4. Plant diversity requirements are not being met. 5. Tree removal is clearly not being determined by health of existing trees. According to the arborist assessment, of the 148 trees to be removed, 93 of them are considered in Fair health (#3) which is defined as minor problems, with relatively short life -span of 10 to 30 year. Twenty of the proposed tree removals are in Good health (#2) with long -life span expected". Therefore only 35 trees proposed for removal might be considered in bad condition. Conversely, 25 trees identified as Poor or Severe (#4 or #5) are proposed to be retained. 6. Please provide the reference for the rating system used for the tree inventory — is this a qualitative assessment associated with a Level 1 inspection by the ISA? Is this a scale used by the consultants on a comparative basis? 7. How do you mitigate for the temporal and seasonal loss (of at least 30 years) of canopy coverage and replacement of conifer trees with deciduous? 8. How will the soils be improved to bring it up to standard as no infrastructure is being changed? Need at least 12 inches of friable soil. Details are showing 8 inches. What is the proposal for mulching? 9. What is the rationale for not replacing the trees that are on top of the parking structure? TMC 18.52 requires that all trees removed be replaced at a ratio of 1:1. 10. It is asserted that the current trees along Tukwila International Blvd. may be planted over existing utilities which could interfere in the future — please provide as-builts that indicate the location of these utilities and information that indicates conflicts between the trees and the utilities. 11. Landscape modification criteria, TMC 18.52.100 C.: Revisions to existing landscaping may be approved only if the following criteria are met: 1. Modification does not reduce landscaping to point that activities on the site become a nuisance to neighbors: Staff response: Agree that modifications will not create a nuisance to neighbors. 2. Modification does not diminish the quality of site landscape: Staff response: as presented, the proposal does not meet this criteria. The proposed landscaping does not meet the 1:1 replacement requirement; it does not meet the species diversity requirement; and does not replace the overall tree canopy. And either: a. Proposed vegetation removal, replacement and mitigation are consistent with the purpose and intent given in this chapter; CL Page 3 of 4 12/14/2017 10:34 AM L17-0078-0079 Comment Ltr. eo Ms. Kim Merow U-Haul L17-0078-L17-0079 Staff response: The proposed revision to the landscaping is not consistent with TMC 18.52.010, Purpose of this chapter for the reasons stated above and on the Attachment. b. The granting of an exception or standard reduction will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. Staff response: The removal of the trees and lack of 1:1 replacement as well as lack of full canopy replacement will have a negative impact on the public health in this area based on the benefits trees, particularly conifers, provide in improving air quality. 3. Trees removed due to conflicts with utilities, these trees shall be replaced based on the tree replacement table (Table C) in TMC Chapter 18.52.110. Staff response: N/A. The Assessment states there may be utilities under the trees along Tukwila International Blvd., however, no plans have been provided to support the need to remove trees due to conflict with utilities. Staff has also compiled a response to Table 2, attached, which supplements the comments provided above. This information should be reviewed and responded to as well. Public comments on the project are due by close of business, December 19, 2017. If we receive any comments, these will be forwarded to you for review and a response. Please let me know if you have any questions about these comments, or would like to meet to discuss them. I can be reached at 206-431-3661 or by email at Carol.Lumb@Tukwilawa.gov. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner Attachment: City Response to Table 2 — Summary of Vegetation Zones cc: Marc Poulin, Sr. Manager, Real Estate, Boeing Jack Pace, Director Nora Gierloff, Deputy Director CL Page 4 of 4 12/14/2017 10:34 AM L17-0078-0079 Comment Ltr. LNV Uhaul-Boeing Landscape Modification proposal: • Removal of 148 trees are proposed for removal, 122 of which are large canopy trees. 89 trees are proposed for onsite replacement — 8 of which are large canopy. Please explain how code requirement of 1:1 replacement and canopy goals will be met. • Comparing Sheet L-3 (existing canopy — 22.6%) and L-5 (planting plan-22.2%), I don't see how they can say that canopy in 30 years will be only slightly less than it is now. It doesn't pass the straight -face test. • On -site replacement of shoreline trees is possible, as the site property contains approximately 1200 linear feet of unrestored shoreline therefore in -lieu fee payment is not justified. • Assessment of pine beetle as reason for removal -? Which beetle is it? Did you get positive ID? Most, if not all, will not kill shore pine in this area. You mention infestation and then aren't removing the trees... t `0-4-1-1 -144- r ,,- f �%w^ ►�. P �`"` r • The replacement trees for shoreline mitigation (176 trees) is proposed to be off -site and conducted by the City. The developer is placing the burden of canopy replacement on the City. Code prioritizes on -site mitigation where possible. • The site is in an area of extremely poor air quality, to the extent that Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has awarded grants to City partners for use to plant trees, in particular conifers, in the area. How does the proposal reconcile the removal of 87 mature, mostly healthy conifers with this environmental justice concern? • How is transplant of very large conifers on a parking garage to be achieved without damage to the buildings, structure or trees? Where is the transplant location? • No groundcover is proposed in any landscaped area, which is not to code. Slough sedge and soft rush are wetland plants intended to be grown in the bioswale. • Diversity requirements are not being met. • The numbers they are using for existing canopy coverage are current, but the number for replacement are at 30 years. For example, on page 30, they state that 6 redwoods have a canopy cover to be removed of 1836sf. However, using the quick and dirty method of estimate used in the tree list which they have adopted, a redwood would have a spread of 35 feet = canopy of 962sf, therefore 6 redwoods would have a canopy cover of 577 sf rather than the given 1836sf. Apples to oranges. I think, although I didn't do the math, this would follow for all of the trees... • Tree removal is clearly not being determined by health of existing trees. According to the arborist assessment, of the 148 trees to be removed, 93 of them are considered in Fair health (#3) which is defined as minor problems, with relatively short life -span of 10 to 30 year. 20 of the proposed removal are in Good health (#2) with 'long -life span expected". Therefore only 35 trees proposed for removal might be considered in bad condition. Conversely, 25 trees identified as Poor or Severe (#4 or #5) are proposed to be retained. • Please send reference for the rating system used for the tree inventory — Is this a qualitative assessment associated with a Level 1 inspection by the ISA? Is this a scale used by the consultants on a comparative basis? • How do you mitigation for the temporal loss (of at least 30 years) of canopy coverage? • Soil amendment? How will it be improved to bring it up to standard as no infrastructure is being changed? Need at least 12inch friable soil. Details are showing 8inches. City of Tukwila 'Rek1 °`v l czw ivw .fin l . Ova t I ntr, /A k - tu4& tf t{ (l8 l (re 1 Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director December 14, 2017 Ms. Kim Merow 16219 22nd St. East Lake Tapps, WA 98391 RE: L17-0078 and L17-0079, Shoreline Tree Removal and Landscape Modification Applications Dear Ms. Merow: We have had an opportunity to review the above noted land use applications and as currently presented we do not believe the applications comply with the shoreline vegetation removal and landscaping modification sections of the City's Municipal Code. We will outline the concerns with the project below. Overall: • 148 trees are proposed for removal, 122 of which are large canopy trees. 89 trees are proposed for onsite replacement — 8 of which are large canopy (the landscape code considers columnar trees to be small canopy trees). The Assessment does not adequately address the landscape code requirements of 1:1 replacement and canopy igoalsT. • Tree canopy comparison: The numbers being used for existing canopy coverage are current, but the numbers for replacement canopy are at 30 years. As some of the trees have not been in place for 30 years, this number does not truly reflect canopy loss. For example, on page 30, it states that the 6 redwoods to be removed in Vegetation Zone 7 have a combined canopy cover of 1,836 sf. However, using the City's tree list method of canopy estimate, Hr2 with radius being figured by width at 30 years, the canopy cover of a single redwood would be 962 sf, therefore 6 redwoods would have a canopy cover of 5,772 sf rather than the given 1,836 sf. Even if considering canopy cover of the group versus individual trees, the potential cover at 30 years would likely be considerably more than 1,836 sf. Replacing these six redwoods with 3 columnar maples, 6 vine maples, and 6 super -dwarf crabapples will create 3,126 sf of canopy resulting in a loss of 2,646 sf in this zone alone. Please check the canopy comparison numbers for consistency. Additionally, existing canopy coverage was done by using grouped or overlapping canopy cover, as stated on L-3, but proposed canopy radius was done on individual trees. This is an inconsistent comparison, as many of the proposed trees will be grouped and therefore have overlapping canopy coverage. Comparing Sheet L-3 (existing canopy — 22.6%) and L-5 (planting plan - 22.2%), the difference in canopy cover is visually striking, and considerably different than the Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov Commented [CL1]: We discussed at our meeting on 1/4/18, the requirement for 1:1 replacement — TMC 18.52 does not state this speccally, however replacement at 1:1 is implied through the requirement to maintain any required landscaping throughout the life of a project (TMC 18.52.080 A.). TMC 18.52.020 l.b. requires the use of large and medium stature tree species except where there is insufficient planting area — this would imply replacement of large canopy trees with large canopy trees to implement several of the purposes of TMC 18.52: the Urban Forestry Comprehensive Plan goals and policies; providing screening between incompatible land uses; and improving the visual environment for both residents and nonresidents. Finally, when requesting a modification of existing landscaping, one of the criteria to be met is that the modification does not diminish the quality of the site landscape as a whole. For a mature landscape such as found at the site at 112' and Tukwila International Blvd., the removal of so many large canopy trees, and the lack of anything close to replacement of this canopy on a 1:1 basis would also support this requirement. Ms. Kim Merow U-Haul L 17-0078-L 17-0079 estimate of -0.4% (or -0.5% depending on source) change discussed on page 38. With 122 large canopy trees being replaced with 8 large canopy trees, the canopy lost on -site will be substantial. • The analysis cites the presence of pine beetle as a reason for tree removal - which beetle is it? Did you get positive ID? Most. if not all identified pine beetles. will not kill shore pine in this area. In addition. the infestation is cited as a problem. but the affected trees are not proposed for removal and replacement, kenerallyy. • On the joint site visit, note was taken of the Western Hemlocks that had been planted in front of the signage at the corner of TIB and S. 112th St., and their removal was discussed but this is not reflected on the proposed plans. These will eventually grow to block the monument sign. What is the plan for these trees? • On the joint site visit, it was strongly suggested that a phased approach to any landscape modification be used, particularly along Tukwila International Blvd. This advice is not reflected in the proposal. • iNol structural engineering information has been provided to support the assertion that the trees growing on top of the parking structure are causing cracks to occur or will compromise the structural integrity of the garage in the future. This information is needed to support the contention that the trees are causing structural damage to the garage and that there may be additional issues with seismic stability of the structure and therefore the trees need to be removed. Please note that a structural engineering assessment would be sent to the City's structural engineering consultants for analysis, at the applicant's expense. • Plantings in the bioswales do not reflect low impact development plant material nor soil preparation requirements. If the drainage swales are to be counted towards formal landscaping, the criteria in TMC 18.52.100 E. must be addressed. • Appendix B provides a tree table describing the condition of 264 trees throughout the site. There is no site plan identifying the location of each numbered tree so a correlation can be made between tree condition and proposed removal. • The application is missing a site survey that clearly identifies the property boundaries, particularly along Tukwila International Boulevard (TIB). • The organization of the information is not helpful. The numbering system used to identify individual landscape areas on Sheet L-4 should have been carried over to Sheet L-5 so that comparison of plant material to be removed and plant material proposed for replacement could be easily made. L17-0078: Shoreline Vegetation and Tree Removal: 1 [Mel replacement trees for shoreline mitigation (176 trees) is proposed to be off -site and conducted by the City via payment into the City's Tree Replacement Fund. TMC 18.44.080 B.6. prioritizes on -site mitigation where possible. On -site replacement of shoreline trees is possible, as the site contains approximately 1200 linear feet of unrestored shoreline, therefore the use of in -lieu fee payment is not justified. 2. Native plants are required to be used within the entire 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction. 3. Sheet L-4 shows trees being removed in Area 11 — however, Sheet L-5 shows these trees as remaining. Which sheet is correct? If these trees are being removed, why are replacement trees not indicated? CL Page 2 of 4 1/9/2018 2:42 PM L17-0078-0079 Comment Ltr. Commented [CL2]: This comment relates to the shoreline vegetation removal permit— if you plan to restore shoreline vegetation, then tise needs to be addressed. Commented [CL3]: If this argument continues to be a reason for the removal of trees on top of the parking deck, then an engineering analysis must be provided to support this contention. Commented [CL4]: A plan to restore the shoreline should substitute for payment into the shoreline tree fund. Ms. Kim Merow U-Haul L17-0078-L17-0079 L17-0079: Landscape Modification Request 1. Sheet L-4, Area 1 shows the removal of all the trees on the entrance drive approaching the front door, and replacement in planting area 1. Please explain how this meets the requirement for 1:1 replacement. 2. ISheL-5, Area 6 shows plantings in a drainage swale — the proposed plant material does not include plants that tolerate wet conditions. 3. No groundcover is proposed in any landscaped area, which is not to code. Slough sedge and soft rush are wetland plants intended to be grown in the bioswales. Why are they not included as groundcover in the other drainage swale? 4. Plant diversity requirements are not being met. 5. Tree removal is clearly not being determined by health of existing trees. According to the arborist assessment, of the 148 trees to be removed, 93 of them are considered in Fair health (#3) which is defined as minor problems, with relatively short life -span of 10 to 30 year. Twenty of the proposed tree removals are in Good health (#2) with 'long -life span expected". Therefore only 35 trees proposed for removal might be considered in bad condition. Conversely, 25 trees identified as Poor or Severe (#4 or #5) are proposed to be retained. 6. Please provide the reference for the rating system used for the tree inventory — is this a qualitative assessment associated with a Level 1 inspection by the ISA? Is this a scale used by the consultants on a comparative basis? 7. How do you mitigate for the temporal and seasonal loss (of at least 30 years) of canopy coverage and replacement of conifer trees with deciduous? 8. How will the soils be improved to bring it up to standard as no infrastructure is being changed? Need at least 12 inches of friable soil. Details are showing 8 inches. What is the proposal for mulching? 9. What is the rationale for not replacing the trees that are on top of the parking structure? TMC 18.52 requires that all trees removed be replaced at a ratio of 1:1. 10. It is asserted that the current trees along Tukwila International Blvd. may be planted over existing utilities which could interfere in the future — please provide as-builts that indicate the location of these utilities and information that indicates conflicts between the trees and the .itilities� 11. Landscape modification criteria, TMC 18.52.100 C.: Revisions to existing landscaping may be approved only if the following criteria are met: 1. Modification does not reduce landscaping to point that activities on the site become a nuisance to neighbors: Staff response: Agree that modifications will not create a nuisance to neighbors. 2. Modification does not diminish the quality of site landscape: Staff response: as presented, the proposal does not meet this criteria. The proposed landscaping does not meet the 1:1 replacement requirement; it does not meet the species diversity requirement; and does not replace the overall tree canopy. And either: a. Proposed vegetation removal, replacement and mitigation are consistent with the purpose and intent given in this chapter; CL Page 3 of 4 1 /9/2018 2:42 PM LI7-0078-0079 Comment Ltr. Commented [CL5]: At the meeting on 1/4/18 it was noted that this travel lane needs to be widened to accommodate trucks — this information is not provided in the analysis submitted with the landscaping modification application and should be included in a narrative to explain the tree removal. Tree replacement in the vicinity of removal should be addressed if this row of trees is removed. Commented [CL6]: This comment must be addressed if this possible conflict is used to support not replacing removed trees along Tukwila International Blvd 1 Ms. Kim Merow U-Haul L17-0078-L17-0079 Staff response: The proposed revision to the landscaping is not consistent with TMC 18.52.010. Purpose of this chapter for the reasons stated above and on the Attachment. b. The granting of an exception or standard reduction will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. Staff response: The removal of the trees and lack of 1:1 replacement as well as lack of full canopy replacement will have a negative impact on the public health in this area based on the benefits trees, particularly conifers, provide in improving air quality. 3. Trees removed due to conflicts with utilities, these trees shall be replaced based on the tree replacement table (Table C) in TMC Chapter 18.52.110. Staff response: N/A. The Assessment states there may be utilities under the trees along Tukwila International Blvd.. however, no plans have been provided to support the need to remove trees due to conflict with utilities. Staff has also compiled a response to Table 2, attached, which supplements the comments provided above. This information should be reviewed and responded to as well. Public comments on the project are due by close of business, December 19, 2017. If we receive any comments, these will be forwarded to you for review and a response. Please let me know if you have any questions about these comments, or would like to meet to discuss them. I can be reached at 206-431-3661 or by email at Caro1.Lumb@Tukwilawa.gov. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner Attachment: City Response to Table 2 — Summary of Vegetation Zones cc: Marc Poulin, Sr. Manager, Real Estate, Boeing Jack Pace, Director Nora Gierloff, Deputy Director CL Page 4 of 4 l /9/2018 2:42 PM L17-0078-0079 Comment Ltr. City Response to Table 2 — Summary of Vegetation Zones VEGETATION ZONE NUMBER OF TREES INVENTORIED NUMBER OF TREES TO BE REMOVED NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES COMMENTS upper parking structure. At the joint site visit in November, it was suggested that a phased approach be used if tree replacement is desired in this area. In addition, the proposed replacement trees along TIB do not meet the tree canopy replacement requirements nor is replacement 1:1 being met. Ivy removal should be by hand and not by mechanical means to protect the tree roots. Shrubs can then be underplanted. 7 6 6 15 Was soil depth confirmed? The trees do not need more than 4 feet of soil depth for growth. Replacement trees are 3 medium stature trees and 12 small stature trees for the six large conifers, which is not a like -for -like replacement. No groundcover or shrubs are proposed. 8 19 4 0 on TIB • There is no slope along TIB — there is a grade change contained by a retaining wall to the west. The area below grade of TIB contains a drainage swale (identified as part of planting area 4). • The Assessment identifies health issues with several of the Tulip trees and the shore pines but none of these are proposed for removal. Rather, the Austrian Pines are proposed for removal. • The replacement area that is proposed for planting is well below grade and will be marginally visible from TIB as it is instead oriented to the lower parking lot and the building. The area CL L17-0078-0079 Table 2 Response Page 2 of 4 12/8/2017 2:05 PM City Response to Table 2 — Summary of Vegetation Zones VEGETATION ZONE NUMBER OF TREES INVENTORIED NUMBER OF TREES TO BE REMOVED NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES COMMENTS 1 26 26 0 We did not observe that most of the trees have outgrown the planting locations. Some trees have been poorly pruned in the past. If the proposal is to remove these trees, where are the replacement trees? 2 13 13 0 Nothing in the Notes indicates there are any problems with these trees. 3 8 8 0 We agree that these trees are not the right tree for this location. However, we did not observe conditions that indicate these trees have outgrown their planting area. 4 18 18* *Sheet L-4 only shows 17 trees as being removed, however Table 7 indicates 18 trees will be removed. 0 The stated purpose for the removal of these trees when the joint site visit was conducted in November was that the driveway needs to be enlarged to accommodate the U-Haul trucks. Sheet L-5 does not show a widened driveway, nor any replacement trees. Is it necessary to widen the drive on both sides or can the widening occur on just one side? No replacement vegetation is indicated. 5 23* *Sheet L-4 shows 24 trees in Area 5. 16* *Sheet L-4 shows 15 trees marked for removal. Table 7 indicates 16 trees will be removed. 4 Replacement trees proposed do not meet TMC 18.52 requirements for like canopy nor 1:1 replacement. A phased approach could be used to stagger tree replacement. The intent of the "monument backdrop" is not explained in terms of the landscaping goals for the area — why are conifers being replaced with deciduous? 6 13 13 5 While the trees have been limbed up allowing some view into the site and the lower portion of the parking structure, they still provide a mature streetscape and visual relief from the CL L17-0078-0079 Table 2 Response Page 1 of 4 12/8/2017 2:05 PM City Response to Table 2 — Summary of Vegetation Zones VEGETATION ZONE NUMBER OF TREES INVENTORIED NUMBER OF TREES TO BE REMOVED NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES COMMENTS is a drainage swale and the proposed plantings do not include plant material that can tolerate wet conditions. In addition, since this is a drainage swale, this may preclude planting of woody species due to ongoing maintenance required for the drainage system. 9 17 2 0 • Staff agrees that the two trees identified can be removed. There is also a cedar that is in poor health and a candidate for removal as well. • Why are trees that are being removed from the rear of the site being replaced in a planting area in Area 7, along S. 112th? 10 10 6 4 possibly transplanted — location not identified 6 • The Assessment notes that the trees in the eastern planting bed might be moved but does not describe how this could be accomplished without bringing heavy equipment into the planting area. Also, where would the trees be moved to? • The American Smoke Tree, proposed for the planting beds on either side of the patio area, is more like a large shrub, rather than a tree. We would not consider this a like -for -like replacement. No shrubs or groundcover are shown. 11 38 25 0 Sheet L-4 shows 25 trees in Area 11 being removed, however Sheet L-5 shows all of these trees as being retained. During our site visit, staff noted one tree that is a candidate CL L17-0078-0079 Table 2 Response Page 3 of 4 12/8/2017 2:05 PM City Response to Table 2 — Summary of Vegetation Zones VEGETATION ZONE NUMBER OF TREES INVENTORIED NUMBER OF TREES TO BE REMOVED NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES COMMENTS for removal, however the remaining trees appear to be in good condition. In addition, the presence of mushrooms is noted, however, the species is not identified. Identification would be required to justify mushrooms as a reason for tree removal. 12 6 6 0 • See comments for Area 4. In addition, widening of the entrance on the west will need to avoid the shoreline buffer area. • No replacement trees are shown. 13 14 1 5 • Staff agrees that the Birch tree should be removed. • Text indicates that the pines will be limbed up 1/3 — this would constitute removal. • How is there room to plant 5 new trees among the existing Austrian Pines? The Assessment notes that the growth space is fairly limited and that the retaining wall shows signs of cracking. CL L17-0078-0079 Table 2 Response Page 4 of 4 12/8/2017 2:05 PM City Response to Table 2 — Summary of Vegetation Zones VEGETATION ZONE NUMBER OF TREES INVENTORIED NUMBER OF TREES TO BE REMOVED NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES COMMENTS 1 26 26 0 We did not observe that most of the trees have outgrown the planting locations. Some trees have been poorly pruned in the past. If the proposal is to remove these trees, where are the replacement trees? 2 13 13 0 Nothing in the Notes indicates there are any problems with these trees. 3 8 8 0 We agree that these trees are not the right tree for this location. However, we did not observe conditions that indicate these trees have outgrown their planting area. 4 18 18* *Sheet L-4 only shows 17 trees as being removed, however Table 7 indicates 18 trees will be removed. 0 The stated purpose for the removal of these trees when the joint site visit was conducted in November was that the driveway needs to be enlarged to accommodate the U-Haul trucks. Sheet L-5 does not show a widened driveway, nor any replacement trees. Is it necessary to widen the drive on both sides or can the widening occur on just one side? No replacement vegetation is indicated. 5 23* *Sheet L-4 shows 24 trees in Area 5. 16* *Sheet L-4 shows 15 trees marked for removal. Table 7 indicates 16 trees will be removed. 4 Replacement trees proposed do not meet TMC 18.52 requirements for like canopy nor 1:1 replacement. A phased approach could be used to stagger tree replacement. The intent of the "monument backdrop" is not explained in terms of the landscaping goals for the area — why are conifers being replaced with deciduous? 6 13 13 5 While the trees have been limbed up allowing some view into the site and the lower portion of the parking structure, they still provide a mature streetscape and visual relief from the CL L17-0078-0079 Table 2 Response Page 1 of 4 12/8/2017 2:05 PM City Response to Table 2 — Summary of Vegetation Zones VEGETATION ZONE NUMBER OF TREES INVENTORIED NUMBER OF TREES TO BE REMOVED NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES COMMENTS upper parking structure. At the joint site visit in November, it was suggested that a phased approach be used if tree replacement is desired in this area. In addition, the proposed replacement trees along TIB do not meet the tree canopy replacement requirements nor is replacement 1:1 being met. Ivy removal should be by hand and not by mechanical means to protect the tree roots. Shrubs can then be underplanted. 7 6 6 15 Was soil depth confirmed? The trees do not need more than 4 feet of soil depth for growth. Replacement trees are 3 medium stature trees and 12 small stature trees for the six large conifers, which is not a like -for -like replacement. No groundcover or shrubs are proposed. 8 19 4 0 on TIB • There is no slope along TIB — there is a grade change contained by a retaining wall to the west. The area below grade of TIB contains a drainage swale (identified as part of planting area 4). • The Assessment identifies health issues with several of the Tulip trees and the shore pines but none of these are proposed for removal. Rather, the Austrian Pines are proposed for removal. • The replacement area that is proposed for planting is well below grade and will be marginally visible from TIB as it is instead oriented to the lower parking lot and the building. The area CL L17-0078-0079 Table 2 Response Page 2 of 4 12/8/2017 2:05 PM City Response to Table 2 — Summary of Vegetation Zones VEGETATION ZONE NUMBER OF TREES INVENTORIED NUMBER OF TREES TO BE REMOVED NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES COMMENTS is a drainage swale and the proposed plantings do not include plant material that can tolerate wet conditions. In addition, since this is a drainage swale, this may preclude planting of woody species due to ongoing maintenance required for the drainage system. 9 17 2 0 • Staff agrees that the two trees identified can be removed. There is also a cedar that is in poor health and a candidate for removal as well. • Why are trees that are being removed from the rear of the site being replaced in a planting area along S. 112th? 10 111 10 6 4 possibly transplanted — location not identified 6 • The Assessment notes that the trees in the eastern planting bed might be moved but does not describe how this could be accomplished without bringing heavy equipment into the planting area. Also, where would the trees be moved to? • The American Smoke Tree, proposed for the planting beds on either side of the patio area, is more like a large shrub, rather than a tree. We would not consider this a like -for -like replacement. No shrubs or groundcover are shown. 11 38 25 0 Sheet L-4 shows 25 trees in Area 11 being removed, however Sheet L-5 shows all of these trees as being retained. During our site visit, staff noted one tree that is a candidate CL L17-0078-0079 Table 2 Response Page 3 of 4 12/8/2017 2:05 PM City Response to Table 2 — Summary of Vegetation Zones VEGETATION ZONE NUMBER OF TREES INVENTORIED NUMBER OF TREES TO BE REMOVED NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES COMMENTS for removal, however the remaining trees appear to be in good condition. In addition, the presence of mushrooms is noted, however, the species is not identified. Identification would be required to justify mushrooms as a reason for tree removal. 12 6 6 0 • See comments for Area 4. In addition, widening of the entrance on the west will need to avoid the shoreline buffer area. • No replacement trees are shown. 13 14 1 5 • Staff agrees that the Birch tree should be removed. • Text indicates that the pines will be limbed up 1/3 — this would constitute removal. • How is there room to plant 5 new trees among the existing Austrian Pines? The Assessment notes that the growth space is fairly limited and that the retaining wall shows signs of cracking. LL L17-0078-0079 Table 2 Response Page 4 of 4 12/8/2017 2:05 PM City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director Affidavit of Distribution Project Name: BOEING SHORLINE TREE REMOVAL Project Number: L17-0078 & L17-0079 Associated File Number (s):PL17-0065 Date Mailed: 12/5/17 Mailing requested by: CAROL LU Mailer's signature: ❑ Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet ❑ Notice of Application for ❑ Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Shoreline Mgmt Permit ❑ Determination of Non -Significance ❑ Notice of Decision ❑ Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice ❑ Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Q Notice of Action ❑ Notice of Application Parties of Record: SEE ATTACHED LIST ❑ Notice of Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Public Meeting ❑ Official Notice ❑ Other: ❑ Shoreline Mgmt Permit ❑ Short Subdivision Agenda AGENCY LABELS ❑ Clerk Office — Ana Le PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS need to go to Ana to include in Digital Records Center ❑ US Corps of Engineers ❑ Federal HWY Admin O Federal Transit Admin, Region 10 ❑ Dept of Fish & Wildlife Section 1 FEDERAL AGENCIES ❑ US Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) ❑ US Dept of HUD ❑ National Marine Fisheries Service Section 2 WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ❑ Office of Archaeology 0 Dept of Social & Health Services ❑ Transportation Department (WSDOT NW) ❑ Dept of Ecology NW Regional Office, Shoreland Div. ❑ Dept of Natural Resources SHORELINE NOD REQUIRES RETURN RECEIPT ❑ Office of the Governor 0 Dept of Ecology, SEPA **Send Electronically ❑ WA State Department of Commerce (formerly Community Dev) 0 Office of Attorney General 0 WA Fisheries & Wildlife, MillCreek Office ❑ Office of Hearing Examiner ❑ WA Fisheries & Wildlife, Larry Fisher, 1775 12th Ave NW Ste 201, Issaquah WA 98027 Section 3 ❑ KC Boundary Review Board ❑ Fire District # 11 ❑ Fire District # 2 ❑ KC Wastewater Treatment Div ❑ KC Dept of Parks & Recreation ❑ KC Assessor's Office ❑ KC Watershed Coordination WRIA 9 KING COUNTY AGENCIES 0 Health Department ❑ Port of Seattle ❑ KC Dev & Environmental Services-SEPA Info Center ❑ KC Metro Transit Div-SEPA Official, Environmental Planning ❑ KC Dept of Natural Resources ❑ KC Dept of Natural Resources, Andy Levesque j.k1F<C Public Library System Oster Library ❑ Renton Library O Kent Library O Seattle Library Section 4 SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES ❑ Westfield Mall Library ❑ Tukwila School District ❑ Highline School District ❑ Seattle School District ❑ Renton School District ❑ Century Link 0 Seattle City Light ❑ Puget Sound Energy ❑ Highline Water District ❑ Seattle Planning &Dev/Water Dept ❑ Comcast Section 5 UTILITIES ❑ BP Olympic Pipeline ❑ Val-Vue Sewer District ❑ Water District # 20 ❑ Water District # 125 ❑ City of Renton Public Works O Bryn Mawr-Lakeridge Sewer/Water Dist ❑ Seattle Public Utilities ❑ Waste Management 0 Cascade Water Alliance ❑ Tukwila City Departments ❑ Public Works ❑ Police ❑ Planning ❑ Parks & Rec ❑ City Clerk (PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS) ❑ Fire ❑ Finance O Building O Mayor Section 6 CITY AGENCIES ❑ Kent Planning Dept DRenton Planning Dept ❑ City of SeaTac ❑ City of Burien ❑ City of Seattle ❑ Strategic Planning *Notice of all Seattle Related Projects Section 7 OTHER * send notice of all applications on Green/Duwamish River ❑ Duwamish River Clean Up Coalition * g Muckleshoot Indian Tribe * Cultural Resources ✓ Fisheries Program Wildlife Program Duwamish Indian Tribe * People for Puget Sound * J►�w�rn L3 0,\ H- ** send O Seattle Times L9CAL AGENCIES ✓� Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 0 Sound Transit/SEPA ❑ Puget Sound Regional Council O Washington Environmental Council ❑ Futurewise O Puget SoundKeeper SW KC Chamber of Commerce Tukwila Historical Society** notices for all Tukwi projects which require public notice — via email to: tukwilahistsociety@ tukwilahistory.orq and rcwieser@lcomcast.net ❑ Highline Times ` 0 t\ Y'WVI Si—) -1 LI yL 5 . i too — JA- 611 ISM' Section 8 MEDIA ❑ South County Journal ❑ City of Tukwila Website Pales of Record / Additional Conts • Write in here. 1023049059 AMALFI INVESTMENTS LLC `1023049011 APOLLO HOLDINGS LLC 0923049155L.-BOEING COMPANY THE PROPERTY TAX DEPT 0423049153 CARROSSINO HOLDINGS LLC 0223049066 EPROPERTY TAX INC DEPT 207. 10923049048 FRIEL RICK+ANNA KNOWLDEN i-0923049152 GEO'HEISER BODY CO INC 0923049278 KING COUNTY PARKS 0923049292 "'KING COULJTY-WLRD MRP L0923049098 MCGEE MARWL+KATCHEN JUDY 0423049148 S7 NEVSCO LLC '' L9923049391 NGuYEN NAM+Tu VIEN BO DE 0423049014 � Occupant 04'23049057 Occupant ,0423049097x Occupant (0423049148 Occupant '0423049153 Occupant 1-D423049163 Occupant 0423049193 Occupant _923049066 Occupant 0923049066 Occupant ._ [9923049066 Occupant 0923049066 Occupant 0923049066 Occupant 0923049066 Occupant r0923049066 Occupant - 0923049066 Occupant , 0923049066 Occupant 0923049066,--- Occupant 0923049098 0923049152 Occupant. - 0923049155 Occupant 0923049411 Occupant 1023049011 Occupant 1023049059 Occupant (t2843800005 Occupant 0923049411 RAMSDEN ANNE MARIE PR i0423049163 REES LLC .1023049056 SEATTLE CITY OF SCL 0323049065 SEATTLE CITY OF SPU-WTR L_ .0423949014 SEBCO INC 0423049097 SIX ROBBLEEINC ..,, S 0423049057 WE -STERN -Fa PO BOX 249 505 5TH AV S #900 PO 80X 3707 M/C 20-59 PO BOX 8229 MEDINA WA 98039 _ KCATable SEATTLE WA 98104 KCA Table SEATTLE--WA 98124 KCATable COVINGTON WA 98042 KCA Table 11232 26TH AVE S BURIEN WA 98168 KCA Table '11210TUKWILA INTL-`BLVD TUKWILA WA '98168 KCATable _ _ 201 S JACKSON ST #700 SEATTLE WA 98104 KCA Table _ NA NA `201 S JACKSON ST #600 SEATTiLE WA , 90.04. KcA Taber NA NA � _17992 E PRINCETON PL AURORA CO 80013 KCA Table NA NA 'PO BOX 80 -' MERCER ISLAND WA 9804Q KCA Ta�� !in nin 11416 26TH AVE S µ BURIEN WA 98168 KCA Table NA _ NA 0607UKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD ,� TUKWILA981688 KC=AdddressPoints DNA NA 10800 W MARGINAL PL S TUKWILA WA 98168 TukwilaAdddressPoints ADDR-12434 ACTIVE ML None 11010TUKWILAINTERNATIONALBLVD TUKWILA WA. 98168 KC-AdddressPoints NA NA 2922 S 112TH ST TUKWILA WA 98168 KC-AdddressPoints NA NA 11011T1)KWILAINTL:BLVD TUKWILA_ WA 98168. TukwilaAdddressPoints: ADDR-12466 ACTIVE-ML None TUKWILA WA 98168 TukwilaAdddressPoints ADDR-12469 ACTIVE-ML None TUKWILA WA 98168` TukwilaAdddressPoints ADDR-12474 ACTIVE-ML None TUKWILA WA 98168 TukwilaAdddressPoints ADDR-06983 ACTIVE-ML None 'TUKWILA WA 98168 TukwilaAdddressPoints` ADDR-06984 ACTIVE-ML None TUKWILA WA 98168 TukwilaAdddressPoints ADDR-06985 ACTIVE-ML None ~ TUKWILA WA . ` 98168! y TukwilaAdddressPoints ADDR-06986 ACTIVE -NIL None TUKWILA WA 98168 TukwilaAdddressPoints ADDR-06989 ACTIVE-ML None TUKWILA WA 98168 TukwilaAdddressPoints ADDR-06990 ACTIVE-ML None TUKWILA WA 98168 TukwilaAdddressPoints ADDR-06991 ACTIVE-ML None TUKWILA'WA 98168' _ TukwilaAdddressPoints ADDR-06992 ACTIVE -MI , None NA NA NA NA NA_ NA NA NA 1 — 11017 TUKWILA INTL BLVD 11061 TUKWILA INTL BW0 3215 S116TH ST 109 3215 S 116TH ST 114 3215S116THST121 3215 S 116TH ST'133 3225 S 116TH ST 109 3225 5 116TH ST 117- 3225 S 116TH ST 133 - 3225 5116TH ST 169, Occupant 3225 S 116TH ST 177 3225 S'116TH ST 181- 11204 26TH AVE S 11210 TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD D 2925 S 112TH ST 11234 TUKWILA INTL BLVD 3334 S 116TH ST 11231 E MARGINAL_WAY S 1101927THAVES 830 WALNUT ST 1011E MAIN ST #405 700 5TH AVE STE 3200-AP - PO BOX 34023 700 5TH AVE STE 4900-RPS PO BOX 34018 4020 E MADISON Si:#320 11010 TUKWILA INTER BLVD 7500 E 53RD PL #1108 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILAi"WA 98168 BURIEN WA 98168 TUKWILA `WA 98188`'� TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA - 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA'-WA Y� 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 EDMONDS WA 98020 PUYALLUP WA 98372 SEATTLE WA 98124 SEATTLE WA 98124 SEATTLE WA 98112 SEATTLE WA 98168 DENVER CO 80268 TukwilaAdddressPoints ADDR-06993 ACTIVE-ML None TukwilaAdddressPoints ` ADDR-06994 ACTIVE-ML None KC-AdddressPoints NA NA KC-AdddressPoints _ NA NA KC-AdddressPoints NA NA TukwilaAdddressPoints ADDR-67000 ACTIVE-ML None TukwilaAdddressPoints ADDR-06275 ACTIVE-ML None TukwilaAdddressPoints KC-AdddressPoints • KCA Table KCA Table .. KCA Table _ KCA Table KCA Table KCA Table ADDR-11834 ACTIVE-ML None NA NA NA `NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 1 City of Tukwila Notice Of Application Shoreline Tree Removal and Landscape Modification Duwamish Towers File Ws L17-0078 & L17-0079 Project Planner: Carol Lumb at 206.431.3661 or Carol.Lumb@Tukwilawa.gov File# L17-0078 & L17-0079 Applicant: Kim Merow, for U-Haul Property Owner: Boeing Company Project Location: 2925 S. 112th Street Project Description: Remove trees in the shoreline and modify the formal landscaping to remove 148 mature trees, many along Tukwila International Blvd. and replace with 89 trees, and pay into the Tree Replacement Fund for trees not accommodated on site. Your written comments on the project are requested and can be delivered to Dept. of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100, Tukwila WA 98188. Comments must be received by 5:oop.m. on December 19, 2017. You may view the application, request a copy of any decision, comment on the project, & learn your appeal rights by contacting the project planner listed above, or by visiting the Department of Community Development offices Monday -Friday, 8:00am to 5:00 pm City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Ste 100 Tukwila, WA. 98188 You are receiving this notice because you are a property owner or tenant within 500ft of this project. City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION November 27, 2017 Ms. Kim Merow U-Haul 16219 22nd St. E Lake Tapps, WA 908391 Subject: Duwamish Towers Landscaping Modification and Tree Removal Applications (L17-0078 and L17- 0079) Dear Ms. Merow, Your applications to remove trees in the shoreline jurisdiction and to modify the landscaping at the Duwamish Towers site (2925 S. 112th St., Tukwila) are considered complete on November 27, 2017 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. This notice of complete application applies only to the permits identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain all necessary permits issued by other agencies. Please feel free to contact me with any questions at 206-431-3661 or Carol.Lumb@Tukwilawa.gov. Sincerely, l✓ ti'N { U Carol Lumb Senior Planner Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX: (206) 431-3665 AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY STATE OF WASHINGTON ss COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at 2, a ZS So , k\ Z."i� 5t .1 Suc}4te-1 t t)1A 943103 for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. Non -responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. EXECUTED at 1,2v%A-c r\ (city), W A (state), on N O V Lrhb',r �, 20 (1 (Print Namea 635 o, rk Ai-v e . O tr it,,, (Address) 31 Lk— 23 2-- t ci 8 (Phone Number) On this day personally appeared before me A 4 , -pU Ifut ,,,, to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. (-0� g8051 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS ( MARY FULLER PRICE ( Notary Public 4 State of Washington ( My Appointment Expires Apr 28, 2020 ' NOTAR residing a Si_ ature) DAY OF f1 P/rr'-h Y ,20 0- My Commission expires on \ \ atystore\ City Common\ Teri - DCD\ Kirby\ 2016 Applications\ SiorelineTree and Veg Clearing Permit -March 2016.docx CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX (206) 431-3665 SHORELINE TREE REMOVAL AND VEGETATION CLEARING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Ty P-TREE Planner: File Number: Application Complete Date: Project File Number: 1_,ux-- Other File Numbers: Application Incomplete Date: NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: NA- k) Onl lS k 'Tow rs B EF DESC TION OF WORK TO BE DO LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. 3±. I tAk.Lotto. vJ 95(1142 LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). c v3y4 915E DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: NOV 062011 • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner/applicant in meetings with City staff, community • has full responsibilityfor identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping dvefooenfdards, and • is the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: 16 Yin A/Winn) Address: 1 lP a I'7 2-2 e( 51- . E LedoIt pps ' &Lcr13cii Phone: LP 0 W 01 3 U 2 4- FAX: E-mail: ) Z.-1 oA -) Date: ilt"` Signature: \ \ dtystore\ City Common\ Teri - DCD\ Kirby\ 2016Applications\ Shoreline Tree and Veg Clearing Permit -March 2016.docx DUWAMISH TOWERS LANDSCAPE MODIFICATION PLAN SHEET INDEX 1 L-1 2 L-2 3 L-3 4 L-4 5 L-5 6 L-6 7 L-7 8 L-8 9 L-9 10 L-10 5th S1 5 116th StN S 120th SI VICINITY MAP 510,'lh1 SI .:)IhgveS enezere PROJECT LOCATION Country Club -' S 12C1h SI ay rd.' Tukwila Family Fun Cemet ej Whisperwood O Apartments UUWAMISH ,`Chevron 0 -I1"111 .Dueumisu Hill Pre151. e �S1t� e PROJECT COVER SHEET PROJECT COVER SHEET EXISTING LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS TREE CANOPY ANALYSIS PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MODIFICATIONS OVERVIEW PLANTING AREA OVERVIEW PLANTING AREA 1 AND 2 PLANTING AREA 3 AND 4 PLANTING AREA 5-7 PLANTING AREA 8 PLANTING INSTALLATION DETAILS AND NOTES THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design PROJECT INFORMATION U+IAUL A PROJECT APPLICANT KIM MEROW AREA DISTRICT VICE PRESIDENT U-HAUL BUSINESS CONSULTANTS, INCE 5110 FRONTAGE ROAD NW AUBURN, WA 98001 (360)-607-3487 KIM_MEROW@UHAUL.COM SITE ADDRESS 2925 S 112TH ST TUKWILA, WA 98168 THE WATERSHED COMPANY PROJECT CONTACT: KENNY BOOTH, AICP THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 SIXTH STREET SOUTH KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (425) 822-5242 C NOV 06 2017 Community Development C/7-on78 PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0 Copyright- The Watershed Company J Z < < J O 0 Q w U� E. Ic o • cC w0 a"• u_ 0 0 U Z < Ja w CC a" TUKWILA, WA 98168 PARCEL # 0923049155 SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS m DESCRIPTION 0 z PERMIT SUBMITTAL SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-1 OF 10 DUWAMISH RIVER /i SCIENTIFIC NAME (COMMON NAME) NUMBER OF TREES INVENTORIED SUM OF TRUNK DIAMETERS (Inches) AVERAGE TRUNK DIAMETER (Inches) SMALLEST TRUNK SIZE RECORDED (Inches) LARGEST TRUNK SIZE RECORDED (Inches) Pinusnigra (Austrian pine) 75 1,329.1 17.7 10 28.5 Acer rubrum (Red maple) 37 528.9 14.3 6 25.2 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsura tree) 32 386.2 12.0 9,2 18.8 Moles sp. <fiowering> (Flowering crabapple) 21 170.4 8.11 5.6 12.2 Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) 18 385.80 21.4 12 26.9 Thuja plicata (Western red cedar) 17 241.3 14.2 5.8 21 Carpinus betulus (European hornbeam) 16 153.6 9.6 4.3 13.6 Pinus sp. <2 needles (Pine tree, 2 needle) 14 70.8 5.06 3.5 6.1 Pyrus calleryana (Callery pear) 13 102.2 7.9 7 9 Liriodendron tuliplfera (Tulip) 8 97.9 12.2 5 24 Pinus contorts (Shore pine) 4 24.8 6.2 4.2 11 Pinus monticola (Western white pine) 2 8.9 4.45 4.3 4.6 Sequoiadendron giganteum (Giant sequoia) 2 14.3 7.2 6.8 7.5 Cryptomeria japonica (Japanese cedar) 2 10.7 5.4 5.2 5.5 Betula pendulo (European white birch) 1 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 Pinus sylvestris (Scots pine) 1 17 17 17 17 Grand Total 263 3,555.6 13.5 3.5 28.5 LEGEND 0 -Xc EXISTING INVENTORIED TREES ASSESSED CANOPY DRIPLINE OHWM (PER SITE SURVEY) - - - SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION NOTES 1. TREES INVENTORIED AND ASSESSED BY THE WATERSHED COMPANY ON OCTOBER 24, 26, AND 30, 2017. REFER TO THE THE WATERSHED COMPANY LANDSCAPE MODIFICATION ASSESSMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 2. SITE SURVEY BY BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. RECEIVED NOV 0 0 2011 Community Development EXISTING LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS 0 25' 50' 100' 200' L / 7-OO?9' pi50 PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0 Copyright, The Watershed Comps 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 J a� Z I LL O O r Ow= LN 0 2 T- O 2 • • ci) w 0 N CL Q O N Ua (n LLl oCC Z < < a J w CC SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. 00 CO CO -J J PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-2 OF 10 DUWAMISH RIVER TREE CANOPY ANALYSIS SC ---------------------- 0 25' 50' t c) 100' 200'V AREA ESTIMATED EXISTING CANOPY COVERAGE PROPOSED CANOPY COVERAGE CANOPY FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS CANOPY AFTER REPLANTING Shoreline Buffer (113,681 SF) 40.3% (45,870 SF) 40.3% (45,870 SF) 40.3% (45,870 SF) Shoreline Jurisdiction (Outside of buffer) (114,120 SF) 29.4% (33,528 SF) 22.3% (25,462 SF) 31.7% (36,142 SF) Non -shoreline (333,437 SF) 14.3% (47,708 SF) 5.7% (19,225 SF) 12.8% (42,811 SF) Overall Site Canopy (561,238 SF) 22.6% (127,106 SF) 16.1% (90,557 SF) 22.2% (124,823 SF) LEGEND F ) CANOPY WITHIN SHORELINE BUFFER (OHWM-100') (45,870 SF) CANOPY WITHIN SHORELINE JURISDICTION (100'-200') (33,528 SF) CANOPY OUTSIDE OF SHORELINE JURISDICTION (47,708 SF) ASSESSED CANOPY DRIPLINE SURVEYED CANOPY DRIPLINE PROPOSED CANOPY REDUCTION BEFORE REPLACEMENT (36,549 SF) OHWM (PER SITE SURVEY) — — — SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION NOTES 1. TO DETERMINE CANOPY COVER, THE CANOPY RADIUS OF EACH ON -SITE TREE WAS SURVEYED IN THE FIELD BY A PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR. THE RADII FOR ALL TREES TO BE REMOVED WERE THEN VERIFIED IN THE FIELD BY AN ARBORIST. THESE MEASUREMENTS WERE CATALOGUED AND A TOTAL CANOPY COVER FOR THE SITE WAS CALCULATED. ADJACENT TREES WITH OVERLAPPING CANOPIES WERE FURTHER ASSESSED FOR ACCURACY PURPOSES. FOR EXAMPLE, A STAND OF TREES FORMING AN OVERLAPPING CANOPY WOULD NOT HAVE THE SAME CANOPY COVERAGE AS THE SAME NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL TREES, SHARING THE SAME CANOPY RADIUS, BUT GROWING INDIVIDUALLY. RECEIVED NOV 062017 Community Development / 7-04971r PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ® Copyright- The Watershed Company THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design J Z < < J Z O 0 I— O CC CI) w= 2N E 2 r w • 0 N CL Q O Cs) 00 co w ofr Z < w CL CC a TUKWILA, WA 98168 PARCEL # 0923049155 m z 0 0 1- 0 Z 4 SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-3 OF 10 -------------------- - t- rl, DUWAMISH RIVER S 112TH SREET '•Y i * _* %wax 771-71- LANDSCAPE1:50 MODIFICATIONS OVERVIEW SCALE 0 25' 50' 100' 200' 0 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS PER VEGETATION ZONE CD CD ZONE 1 CONSISTS OF 26 KATSURA TREES PLANTED WITHIN A RAISED PLANTER. ALL 26 TREES AND INTACT ROOTS ARE TO BE REMOVED. ZONE 2 CONSISTS OF 13 PEAR TREES PLANTED IN RAISED BEDS. ALL TREES AND THEIR INTACT ROOTS WILL BE REMOVED. ZONE 3 CONTAINS 8 LARGE COAST REDWOODS, ALL OF WHICH WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH SMALL TREES, SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVERS. ZONE 4 CONTAINS 6 KATSURA TREES AND 12 FLOWERING CRABAPPLES. ALL TREES AND THEIR INTACT ROOTS ARE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION. O ZONE 5 CONTAINS 16 AUSTRIAN PINE TREES. ALL 16 TREES AND THEIR INTACT ROOTS ARE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED ATA DIFFERENT LOCATION ON -SITE. ENGLISH IVY SHALL BE REMOVED AND THE UNDERSTORY WILL BE REPLACED WITH SMALL TREES AND SHRUBS. ZONE 6 CONTAINS 13 AUSTRIAN PINE TREES PLANTED VERY CLOSE TO THE EXISTING PARKING LOT AND RETAINING WALL. TREES SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH APPROPRIATE STREET TREES AND SHRUBS. 0 ZONE 7 IS A RAISED BED LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PARKING LOT. IT CURRENTLY CONTAINS 6 LARGE COAST REDWOOD TREES THAT WILL BE REMOVED.. ® ZONE 8 CONTAINS 4 AUSTRIAN PINE TREES PLANTED IN A RETAINED PLANTER BETWEEN THE ROAD AND A RETAINING WALL. TREES AND THEIR INTACT ROOTS SHALL BE REMOVED. THE UNDER STORY OF ENGLISH IVY WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH SHRUBS. 0 ZONE 9 IS A TURF BIO SWALE CONTAINING A GROUP RED MAPLES, AND WESTERN RED CEDAR. 2 RED MAPLES AND THE UNDER STORY TURF WILL BE REMOVED. THE GRADES WILL BE ADJUSTED TO FIX THE DRAINAGE FUNCTIONS OF THE SWALE. TURF WILL BE REPLACED WITH APPROPRIATE SHRUBS. 1I 1z 13 ZONE 10 CONTAINS 4 COAST REDWOODS, 2 JAPANESE CEDARS, 2 WHITE PINES, AND 2 GIANT SEQUOIA TREES. ALL COAST REDWOODS AND JAPANESE CEDARS ARE TO BE REMOVED. THE GIANT SEQUOIA AND WHITE PINES ARE TO BE TRANSPLANTED IN A MORE APPROPRIATE PLANTING LOCATION. ZONE 11 CONTAINS 17 AUSTRIAN PINES AND EIGHT EUROPEAN HORNBEAMS. ALL TREES ARE TO BE REMOVED. ZONE 12 CONTAINS 5 AUSTRIAN PINE TREES AND 1 RED MAPLE THAT ARE TO BE REMOVED. ZONE 13 CONTAINS 14 AUSTRIAN PINE AND 1 BIRCH TREE. THE BIRCH TREE WILL BE REMOVED AND ALL AUSTRIAN PINES WILL BE LIMBED UP ONE THIRD THEIR TOTAL HEIGHT. UNDERSTORY OF ENGLISH IVY WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACE WITH SHRUBS. LEGEND * * TREES TO BE REMOVED O * TREES TO BE RETAINED — — — VEGETATION ZONE BOUNDARY ASSESSED CANOPY DRIPLINE --- OHWM (PER SITE SURVEY) — — — SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION NOTES 1. REFER LANDSCAPE MODIFICATIONS ASSESSMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. RECEIVED NOV 06 201( Community Development L1?•-007k PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Copyright-T1re watershed Company THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design J z < i j 0FL O T— W • 0 N Q O N Ua W w z< W CC 0_ TUKWILA, WA 98168 PARCEL # 0923049155 to z 0 cc to co co Z SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB LL DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-4OF10� 0 O ------------------- [l 01 DUWAMISH RIVER PLANTING AREA OVERVIEW SC S 112TH SREET • 0 25' 50' 0 100' - 7 7-7 MASTER PLANTING SCHEDULE 1 RI LARGE TREES COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME i 0 dil 1 200'� I�l GREEN COLUMN MAPLE / ACER NIGRUM 'GREENCOLUMN' 491 SF CANOPY COVER RED MAPLE / ACER RUBRUM 1,257 SF OF CANOPY COVER MAGYAR GINKGO / GINKGO BILOBA 'MAGYAR' 491 SF OF CANOPY COVER MEDIUM TREES COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME 0 BOWHALL MAPLE /ACER RUBRUM 'BOWHALL' 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER WESTERN HAZELNUT / CORYLUS CORNUTA 707 SF OF CANOPY COVERAGE 0 CASCARA / RHAMNUS PURSHIANA 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER SMALL TREES COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME VINE MAPLE / ACER CIRCINATUM 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER CORNELIAN CHERRY DOGWOOD / CORNUS MAS 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER 3 AMERICAN SMOKE TREE / COTINUS OBOVATUS 491 SF OF CANOPY COVER U LANCELOT CRAB APPLE / MALUS X 'LANCELOT' TM 50 SF OF CANOPY COVER SHRUBS COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME • STRAWBERRY TREE SHRUB / ARBUTUS UNEDO RED TWIG DOGWOOD / CORNUS SERICEA 'BAILEYI' WINGED EUONYMUS / EUONYMUS ALATUS TWINBERRY/LONICERAINVOLUCRATA PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE / MYRICA CALIFORNICA GROUND COVERS COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME SLOUGH SEDGE / CAREX OBNUPTA SOFT RUSH / JUNCUS EFFUSUS LEGEND - - - - - OHWM (PER SITE SURVEY) — — — SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION — — — PLANTING AREA BOUNDARY NOTFS 1. CANOPY COVER SQUARE FOOTAGES FROM THE CITY OF TUKWILA APPROVED TREE LIST. CONT CAL QTY 5 GALLON 2.5 2 5 GALLON 2.5 8 5 GALLON 2.5 3 CONT CAL QTY 5 GALLON 2.5 10 2 GALLON 2.5 3 5 GALLON 2.5 7 CONT CAL QTY 5 GALLON 2.5 24 2 GALLON 2.5 8 5 GALLON 2.5 18 5 GALLON 2.5 6 CONT SPACING QTY 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 51 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 93 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 37 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 46 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 93 CONT SPACING QTY 1 GALLON 24" o.c. 221 1 GALLON 24" o.c. 171 RECEIVED NOV 06 2017 Community Development Gt7• 0077 PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ® Copyright- The watershed Company THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design J < J 1 d z Oo oLI ww CGC 01 G cC wp a. u_ ao Uw z CC za w cr a. TUKWILA, WA 98168 PARCEL # 0923049155 SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS DESCRIPTION 0 Z PERMIT SUBMITTAL SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-5 OF 10 PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 1 LARGE TREES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME ACRU RED MAPLE / ACER RUBRUM CONT CAL 5 GALLON 2.5 SHRUBS CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT O AU STRAWBERRY TREE SHRUB/ARBUTUS UNEDO 2GALLON O CB RED TWIG DOGWOOD / CORNUS SERICEA'BAILEYI' 2 GALLON EA WINGED EUONYMUS / EUONYMUS ALATUS MC PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE / MYRICA CALIFORNICA NOTES 1. ALL ENGLISH IVY AND UNDER STORY SHRUBS SHALL BE REMOVED IN THEIR ENTIRETY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL ROOTS, FOLIAGE, AND ASSOCIATED DEBRIS. 2. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 PLANTING AREA 1 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 LFGEND 2 GALLON 2 GALLON QTY REMARKS 4 1,257 SF OF CANOPY COVER SPACING QTY REMARKS 48" o.c. 15 48" o.c. 1 48" o.c. 12 48" o.c. 8 — — — — SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 2 LARGE TREES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL AG GREEN COLUMN MAPLE /ACER NIGRUM 'GREENCOLUMN' 5 GALLON 2.5 GM MAGYAR GINKGO / GINKGO BILOBA 'MAGYAR' SHRUBS CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME O CB RED TWIG DOGWOOD / CORNUS SERICEA'BAILEYI' MATCHLINE MC PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE / MYRICA CALIFORNICA NOTES 1. ALL ENGLISH IVY AND UNDER STORY SHRUBS SHALL BE REMOVED IN THEIR ENTIRETY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL ROOTS, FOLIAGE, AND ASSOCIATED DEBRIS. 2. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 PLANTING AREA 2 PLANTING PLAN SCA PLANLE AS NOTEDTING AREAS 1 AND 2 LEGEND 5 GALLON 2.5 CONT 2 GALLON 2 GALLON — — — — SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION QTY REMARKS 2 491 SF CANOPY COVER 3 491 SF OF CANOPY COVER SPACING QTY REMARKS 48" o.c. 22 48" o.c. 85 THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design RECEIVED NOV 0 6 2011 Community Development PERMIT SET L /7Oo?8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O Copyright- The Watershed Company cn O J zQ < J O > jO Uw E O • CC w0 d L.L. 0 w acc < za J w cc 0 TUKWILA, WA 98168 PARCEL # 0923049155 SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS r DESCRIPTION 0 0 Z PERMIT SUBMITTAL 4 SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-6 OF 10 PLANTING AREA 3 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 MATCHLINE PLANTING AREA 4 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 PLANTING AREAS 3 AND 4 PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 3 MEDIUM TREES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY REMARKS ABRU BO BOWHALL MAPLE /ACER RUBRUM 'BOWHALL' 5 GALLON 2.5 3 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER SMALL' TREEST�CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY REMARKS <:i ACCI VINE MAPLE / ACER CIRCINATUM 5 GALLON 2.5 6 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER ++�� ML LANCELOT CRAB APPLE / MALUS X'LANCELOT' TM 5 GALLON 2.5 6 50 SF OF CANOPY COVER NOTES 1. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 2. PRESERVE EXISTING UNDERSTORY LANDSCAPE. LEGEND ---- SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 4 MEDIUM TREES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY REMARKS ABRU BO BOWHALL MAPLE / ACER RUBRUM'BOWHALL' 5 GALLON 2.5 7 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER CW WESTERN HAZELNUT / CORYLUS CORNUTA 2 GALLON 2.5 3 707 SF OF CANOPY COVERAGE RHPU CASCARA / RHAMNUS PURSHIANA 5 GALLON 2.5 7 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER SMALL TREES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY REMARKS CM CORNELIAN CHERRY DOGWOOD / CORNUS MAS 2 GALLON 2.5 8 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER CO AMERICAN SMOKE TREE / COTINUS OBOVATUS 5 GALLON 2.5 7 491 SF OF CANOPY COVER SHRUBS CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT SPACING QTY REMARKS a AU STRAWBERRY TREE SHRUB / ARBUTUS UNEDO 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 18 EA WINGED EUONYMUS / EUONYMUS ALATUS 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 25 NOTES LEGEND 1. ALL ENGLISH IVY AND UNDER -STORY SHRUBS ---- SHORELINE BUFFER SHALL BE REMOVED IN THEIR ENTIRETY, 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL ROOTS, FOLIAGE, AND ASSOCIATED DEBRIS. 2. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 NOV 06 2011 Community Development PERMIT SET Lll-a 007f NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ® copyright- The watershed Company THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design z 0 z 0 0 0 c0 G W 0d 0) 4z J CC W LL 0 ec o_ TUKWILA, WA 98168 PARCEL # 0923049155 SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS DESCRIPTION 0 z PERMIT SUBMITTAL SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-7 OF 10 \Y `y I i ivy ®I 1 � (vl , PLANTING AREA 5 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 PLANTING AREA 6 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 PLANTING AREA 7 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 PLANTING AREAS 5-7 SCALE AS NOTED SHRUBS PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 5 SHRUBS 0 a NOTES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT SPACING QTY REMARKS CB RED TWIG DOGWOOD / CORNUS SERICEA'BAILEY!' 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 21 LI TWINBERRY / LONICERA INVOLUCRATA 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 21 1. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 2. PRESERVE EXISTING UNDERSTORY LANDSCAPE. LEGEND — — — — SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 6 SMALL TREES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME ACCI VINE MAPLE / ACER CIRCINATUM CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL 5 GALLON 2.5 CONT CB RED TWIG DOGWOOD / CORNUS SERICEA'BAILEYI' 2 GALLON GROUND COVERS CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CO2 SLOUGH SEDGE / CAREX OBNUPTA JE SOFT RUSH / JUNCUS EFFUSUS NOTES CONT 1 GALLON 1 GALLON QTY REMARKS 18 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER SPACING QTY REMARKS 48" o.c. 49 SPACING QTY REMARKS 24" o.c. 221 24" o.c. 171 1. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 7 LEGEND — — — — SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION SMALL TREES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME SHRUBS CONT CAL CO AMERICAN SMOKE TREE / COTINUS OBOVATUS 5 GALLON 2.5 CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT AU STRAWBERRY TREE SHRUB /ARBUTUS UNEDO 2GALLON QTY REMARKS 5 491 SF OF CANOPY COVER SPACING QTY REMARKS 48" o.c. 18 NOTES 1. ALL ENGLISH IVY AND UNDERSTORY SHRUBS SHALL BE REMOVED IN THEIR ENTIRETY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL ROOTS, FOLIAGE, AND ASSOCIATED DEBRIS. 2. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 LEGEND — — — — SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTIONNOV 0 6 2017 Community Development L / 7- 0078 PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C Copyright. The watershed Company THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design J Z < Q J 0_ 0 O O < U w 0 O • CC WO O 0 0 Cr Z < < O_ J W 0= 0.. H N_ 0) LC) N N TUKWILA, WA 98168 PARCEL # 0923049155 SUBMITTALS 8 REVISIONS DESCRIPTION 0 z PERMIT SUBMITTAL SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-8 OF 10 ET 0 —ems, ; ; I PLANTING AREA 8 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 PLANTING AREA 8 S PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 8 LARGE TREES COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY RED MAPLE / ACER RUBRUM 5 GALLON 2.5 4 1,257 SF OF CANOPY COVER SMALL TREES COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY AMERICAN SMOKE TREE / COTINUS OBOVATUS 5 GALLON 2.5 6 491 SF OF CANOPY COVER NOTES 1. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 2. PRESERVE EXISTING UNDER STORY LANDSCAPE. LEGEND — — — — SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION RECEDED NOV 06 2017 Community Development PERMIT SET L/7-00Af NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ® Copyright -The watershed Company THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design J Z < J ZI O ▪ OH U cc j W= ii Q 2 r O Y• • (1) cc W0c��I Q O N U0 W 0 CC Z < < J W CC a SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34'. SCALE ACCORDINGLY. TUKWILA, WA 98168 PARCEL # 0923049155 PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-9 OF 10 PLANT INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL NOTES QUALITY ASSURANCE 1. PLANTS SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE SPECIFICATIONS OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS REQUIRING INSPECTION FOR PLANT DISEASE AND INSECT CONTROL. 2. PLANTS SHALL BE HEALTHY, VIGOROUS, AND WELL -FORMED, WITH WELL DEVELOPED, FIBROUS ROOT SYSTEMS, FREE FROM DEAD BRANCHES OR ROOTS. PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM DAMAGE CAUSED BY TEMPERATURE EXTREMES, LACK OR EXCESS OF MOISTURE, INSECTS, DISEASE, AND MECHANICAL INJURY. PLANTS IN LEAF SHALL BE WELL FOLIATED AND OF GOOD COLOR. PLANTS SHALL BE HABITUATED TO THE OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS INTO WHICH THEY WILL BE PLANTED (HARDENED -OFF). 3. TREES WITH DAMAGED, CROOKED, MULTIPLE OR BROKEN LEADERS WILL BE REJECTED. WOODY PLANTS WITH ABRASIONS OF THE BARK OR SUN SCALD WILL BE REJECTED. 4. NOMENCLATURE: PLANT NAMES SHALL CONFORM TO FLORA OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST BY HITCHCOCK AND CRONQUIST, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON PRESS, 1973 AND/OR TO A FIELD GUIDE TO THE COMMON WETLAND PLANTS OF WESTERN WASHINGTON & NORTHWESTERN OREGON, ED. SARAH SPEAR COOKE, SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY, 1997. DEFINITIONS 1. PLANTS/PLANT MATERIALS. PLANTS AND PLANT MATERIALS SHALL INCLUDE ANY LIVE PLANT MATERIAL USED ON THE PROJECT. THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO CONTAINER GROWN, B&B OR BAREROOT PLANTS; LIVE STAKES AND FASCINES (WATTLES); TUBERS, CORMS, BULBS, ETC..; SPRIGS, PLUGS, AND LINERS. 2. CONTAINER GROWN. CONTAINER GROWN PLANTS ARE THOSE WHOSE ROOTBALLS ARE ENCLOSED IN A POT OR BAG IN WHICH THAT PLANT GREW. SUBSTITUTIONS 1. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN SPECIFIED MATERIALS IN ADVANCE IF SPECIAL GROWING, MARKETING OR OTHER ARRANGEMENTS MUST BE MADE IN ORDER TO SUPPLY SPECIFIED MATERIALS. 2. SUBSTITUTION OF PLANT MATERIALS NOT ON THE PROJECT LIST WILL NOT BE PERMITTED UNLESS AUTHORIZED IN WRITING BY THE RESTORATION CONSULTANT. 3. IF PROOF IS SUBMITTED THAT ANY PLANT MATERIAL SPECIFIED IS NOT OBTAINABLE, A PROPOSAL WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR USE OF THE NEAREST EQUIVALENT SIZE OR ALTERNATIVE SPECIES, WITH CORRESPONDING ADJUSTMENT OF CONTRACT PRICE. 4. SUCH PROOF WILL BE SUBSTANTIATED AND SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CONSULTANT AT LEAST 30 DAYS PRIOR TO START OF WORK UNDER THIS SECTION. INSPECTION 1. PLANTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AND APPROVAL BY THE RESTORATION CONSULTANT FOR CONFORMANCE TO SPECIFICATIONS, EITHER AT TIME OF DELIVERY ON -SITE OR AT THE GROWER'S NURSERY. APPROVAL OF PLANT MATERIALS AT ANY TIME SHALL NOT IMPAIR THE SUBSEQUENT RIGHT OF INSPECTION AND REJECTION DURING PROGRESS OF THE WORK. 2. PLANTS INSPECTED ON SITE AND REJECTED FOR NOT MEETING SPECIFICATIONS MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY FROM SITE OR RED -TAGGED AND REMOVED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 3. THE RESTORATION CONSULTANT MAY ELECT TO INSPECT PLANT MATERIALS AT THE PLACE OF GROWTH. AFTER INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE, THE RESTORATION CONSULTANT MAY REQUIRE THE INSPECTED PLANTS BE LABELED AND RESERVED FOR PROJECT. SUBSTITUTION OF THESE PLANTS WITH OTHER INDIVIDUALS, EVEN OF THE SAME SPECIES AND SIZE, IS UNACCEPTABLE. MEASUREMENT OF PLANTS 1. PLANTS SHALL CONFORM TO SIZES SPECIFIED UNLESS SUBSTITUTIONS ARE MADE AS OUTLINED IN THIS CONTRACT. 2. HEIGHT AND SPREAD DIMENSIONS SPECIFIED REFER TO MAIN BODY OF PLANT AND NOT BRANCH OR ROOT TIP TO TIP. PLANT DIMENSIONS SHALL BE MEASURED WHEN THEIR BRANCHES OR ROOTS ARE IN THEIR NORMAL POSITION. 3. WHERE A RANGE OF SIZE IS GIVEN, NO PLANT SHALL BE LESS THAN THE MINIMUM SIZE AND AT LEAST 50% OF THE PLANTS SHALL BE AS LARGE AS THE MEDIAN OF THE SIZE RANGE. (EXAMPLE: IF THE SIZE RANGE IS 12" TO 18", AT LEAST 50% OF PLANTS MUST BE 15" TALL.). SUBMITTALS PROPOSED PLANT SOURCES 1. WITHIN 45 DAYS AFTER AWARD OF THE CONTRACT, SUBMIT A COMPLETE LIST OF PLANT MATERIALS PROPOSED TO BE PROVIDED DEMONSTRATING CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED. INCLUDE THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL GROWERS AND NURSERIES. PRODUCT CERTIFICATES 1. PLANT MATERIALS LIST- SUBMIT DOCUMENTATION TO CONSULTANT AT LEAST 30 DAYS PRIOR TO START OF WORK UNDER THIS SECTION THAT PLANT MATERIALS HAVE BEEN ORDERED. ARRANGE PROCEDURE FOR INSPECTION OF PLANT MATERIAL WITH CONSULTANT AT TIME OF SUBMISSION. 2. HAVE COPIES OF VENDOR'S OR GROWERS' INVOICES OR PACKING SLIPS FOR ALL PLANTS ON SITE DURING INSTALLATION. INVOICE OR PACKING SLIP SHOULD LIST SPECIES BY SCIENTIFIC NAME, QUANTITY, AND DATE DELIVERED (AND GENETIC ORIGIN IF THAT INFORMATION WAS PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED). DELIVERY, HANDLING, & STORAGE NOTIFICATION CONTRACTOR MUST NOTIFY CONSULTANT 48 HOURS OR MORE IN ADVANCE OF DELIVERIES SO THAT CONSULTANT MAY ARRANGE FOR INSPECTION. PLANT MATERIALS 1. TRANSPORTATION - DURING SHIPPING, PLANTS SHALL BE PACKED TO PROVIDE PROTECTION AGAINST CLIMATE EXTREMES, BREAKAGE AND DRYING. PROPER VENTILATION AND PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO BARK, BRANCHES, AND ROOT SYSTEMS MUST BE ENSURED. 2. SCHEDULING AND STORAGE - PLANTS SHALL BE DELIVERED AS CLOSE TO PLANTING AS POSSIBLE. PLANTS IN STORAGE MUST BE PROTECTED AGAINST ANY CONDITION THAT IS DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR CONTINUED HEALTH AND VIGOR. 3. HANDLING - PLANT MATERIALS SHALL NOT BE HANDLED BY THE TRUNK, LIMBS, OR FOLIAGE BUT ONLY BY THE CONTAINER, BALL, BOX, OR OTHER PROTECTIVE STRUCTURE, EXCEPT BAREROOT PLANTS SHALL BE KEPT IN BUNDLES UNTIL PLANTING AND THEN HANDLED CAREFULLY BY THE TRUNK OR STEM. 4. LABELS - PLANTS SHALL HAVE DURABLE, LEGIBLE LABELS STATING CORRECT SCIENTIFIC NAME AND SIZE. TEN PERCENT OF CONTAINER GROWN PLANTS IN INDIVIDUAL POTS SHALL BE LABELED. PLANTS SUPPLIED IN FLATS, RACKS, BOXES, BAGS, OR BUNDLES SHALL HAVE ONE LABEL PER GROUP. WARRANTY PLANT WARRANTY PLANTS MUST BE GUARANTEED TO BE TRUE TO SCIENTIFIC NAME AND SPECIFIED SIZE, AND TO BE HEALTHY AND CAPABLE OF VIGOROUS GROWTH. REPLACEMENT 1. PLANTS NOT FOUND MEETING ALL OF THE REQUIRED CONDITIONS AT THE CONSULTANT'S DISCRETION MUST BE REMOVED FROM SITE AND REPLACED IMMEDIATELY AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 2. PLANTS NOT SURVIVING AFTER ONE YEAR TO BE REPLACED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. PLANT MATERIAL GENERAL 1. PLANTS SHALL BE NURSERY GROWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOOD HORTICULTURAL PRACTICES UNDER CLIMATIC CONDITIONS SIMILAR TO OR MORE SEVERE THAN THOSE OF THE PROJECT SITE. 2. PLANTS SHALL BE TRUE TO SPECIES AND VARIETY OR SUBSPECIES. NO CULTIVARS OR NAMED VARIETIES SHALL BE USED UNLESS SPECIFIED AS SUCH. QUANTITIES SEE PLANT LIST ON ACCOMPANYING PLANS AND PLANT SCHEDULES. ROOT TREATMENT 1. CONTAINER GROWN PLANTS (INCLUDES PLUGS): PLANT ROOT BALLS MUST HOLD TOGETHER WHEN THE PLANT IS REMOVED FROM THE POT, EXCEPT THAT A SMALL AMOUNT OF LOOSE SOIL MAY BE ON THE TOP OF THE ROOTBALL. 2. PLANTS MUST NOT BE ROOT -BOUND; THERE MUST BE NO CIRCLING ROOTS PRESENT IN ANY PLANT INSPECTED. 3. ROOTBALLS THAT HAVE CRACKED OR BROKEN WHEN REMOVED FROM THE CONTAINER SHALL BE REJECTED. PCALANTED INSTALLATION DETAILS AND NOTES SCALE AS NOT NOTES: 1. PLANTING PIT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN (2) TIMES THE WIDTH OF THE ROOT BALL DIA. 2. LOOSEN SIDES AND BOTTOMS OF PLANTING PIT 3. SOAK PLANTING PIT AFTER PLANTING REMOVE FROM POT OR BURLAP & ROUGH -UP ROOT BALL BEFORE INSTALLING. UNTANGLE AND STRAIGHTEN CIRCLING ROOTS - PRUNE IF NECESSARY. IF PLANT IS EXCEPTIONALLY ROOT -BOUND, DO NOT PLANT AND RETURN TO NURSERY FOR AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE SPECIFIED MULCH LAYER. HOLD BACK MULCH FROM TRUNK/STEMS r FINISH GRADE -III i��i�. ;111 %I-1ail I III_ III=1 2X MIN DIA. ROOTBALL -'- A TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING 2" X 2" WOODEN STAKES. STAKES SHALL BE UNTREATED PINE OR DOUGLAS-FIR. O TREE STAPLE PLAN VIEW I�IBEIIBIEIBIIwII°- I'11tI��I•��L1��f�,y\�\i I1I�C��l1-J1�1�2i\Ii�CE1i :1 ) e1 IPWm iAnLi =11=11=1L11�1�Al=m 111-=-IIE -II=l 1= =llEma!mllh - IEIEIIEITI-EIIE�lEI11E1E11 °\W W-W „W-W' REMOVE DEBRIS AND LARGE ROCKS FROM PLANTING PIT AND SCARIFY SIDES AND BASE. BACKFILL WITH SPECIFIED SOIL. FIRM UP SOIL AROUND PLANT. WIDTH SHALL VARY DEPENDING ON ROOT BALL SIZE. Scale: NTS SECURE CROSS MEMBER TO VERTICAL STAKES USING THREE INCH LONG WOOD SCREWS TWO UNTREATED PINE OR DOUGLAS FIR STAKES INSTALL 2" AWAY FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROOT BALL. SECTION VIEW Scale: NTS 4" COMPOST EXISTING STEP 1 2" COMPOST 2" MULCH STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 PLANTING AREA PREPARATION STEP 1 REMOVE UNDESIRABLE SPECIES. ADDRESS COMPACTION: COMPACTION LEVELS SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR ROOT GROWTH (75-85% PROCTOR DENSITY) OR AS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY DESIGNER. DRAINAGE RATE SHALL BE BETWEEN 1 - 5 INCHES PER HOUR OR AS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. WORK WITHIN EXISTING ROOT ZONES SHALL BE DONE BY HAND. PLACE FOUR (4) INCHES COMPOST. STEP 2 INCORPORATE COMPOST TO AN EIGHT (8) INCH DEPTH. STEP 3 PLACE TWO (2) INCH LAYER OF COMPOST. STEP 3 INSTALL MULCH LAYER TWO (2) INCHES DEEP AND INSTALL PLANTS. (SEE PLANTING DETAIL.) PLANTING AREA SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE (PLANTING ZONES 1-4,7-8) SEQUENCE OF WORK - NOT TO SCALE RECEIVED NOV 06 2017 Community Development PERMIT SET Z. Os- 007g NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION e Copyright- The Watershed Company THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design J z< D 1 O0 UQ0 w _ 0 G COY G CC w0 aLL 0 Uw 0ri z < qz J CC a H 2 1- N_ (1) LCD CV rn CV TUKWILA, WA 98168 PARCEL # 0923049155 SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS DESCRIPTION PERMIT SUBMITTAL SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-10 OF 10 DUWAMISH TOWERS 0923049155 Associated Files: PL17-0065, L17-0078 This File: 117-0079 TREE PERMIT/NON-SHORELINE DUWAMISH TOWERS 2925 S 112TH ST PL17-0065 L17-0078 L17-0079 L19-0079 TREE PERMIT EXPIRED Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 2:58 PM To: 'Kim_Merow@UHaul.com' Subject: Revised Comments on Landscape Modification and Shoreline Vegetation Removal Applications Attachments: sun-map-tile1.pdf; Muckleshoot Tribe Comments w attachment.pdf; L17-0078-0079 Comment Ltr-Revised.docx; Table 2 Response-Revised.docx Dear Kim, This email is a follow-up to our meeting on January 4, 2018, to discuss the correction letter sent to you regarding the Landscape Modification and Shoreline Vegetation Removal Applications submitted for the Duwamish Towers site on Tukwila International Blvd. at S. 112' St. You requested guidance on how to respond to the items identified in the letter, and Andrea and I agreed to review our comments and highlight those that must be addressed as part of moving forward with the two land use applications. I have attached our original comment letter, plus the response to Table 2 with the key items highlighted in yellow that must be addressed as part of a response to the City. I am also attaching again the comments received from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe just as a reminder that these must be addressed as well. The responses to our comments as well as the Tribe's are incorporated into the staff reports that we prepare as we evaluate the applications against City regulations and prepare a recommendation for the Director's review. Please let me know if you have any follow-up questions. Sincerely, Carol Caroflumb, .MCP, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of gukwila 630o Southcenter Blvd., Suite ioo 'Tukwila, 1N.4 98188 206-431-366i CaroCCumb@TukwiCativa.gov 'Yuk'wila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice **My incoming and outgoing email messages are subject to public disclosure requirements per RCW 42.56** 1 City of Tukwila Q-U l coww-e. — �°1 Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director December 14, 2017 Ms. Kim Merow 16219 22nd St. East Lake Tapps, WA 98391 RE: L17-0078 and L17-0079, Shoreline Tree Removal and Landscape Modification Applications Dear Ms. Merow: We have had an opportunity to review the above noted land use applications and as currently presented we do not believe the applications comply with the shoreline vegetation removal and landscaping modification sections of the City's Municipal Code. We will outline the concerns with the project below. Overall: • 148 trees are proposed for removal. 122 of which are large canopy trees. 89 trees are proposed for onsite replacement - 8 of which are large canopy (the landscape code considers columnar trees to be small canopy trees). The Assessment does not adequately address the landscape code requirements of 1:1 replacement and canopy boalst ,,.: • Tree canopy comparison: The numbers being used for existing canopy coverage are current, but the numbers for replacement canopy are at 30 years. As some of the trees have not been in place for 30 years, this number does not truly reflect canopy loss. For example, on page 30, it states that the 6 redwoods to be removed in Vegetation Zone 7 have a combined canopy cover of 1,836 sf. However, using the City's tree list method of canopy estimate, Ilr2 with radius being figured by width at 30 years, the canopy cover of a single redwood would be 962 sf, therefore 6 redwoods would have a canopy cover of 5,772 sf rather than the given 1,836 sf. Even if considering canopy cover of the group versus individual trees, the potential cover at 30 years would likely be considerably more than 1,836 sf. Replacing these six redwoods with 3 columnar maples, 6 vine maples, and 6 super -dwarf crabapples will create 3,126 sf of canopy resulting in a loss of 2,646 sf in this zone alone. Please check the canopy comparison numbers for consistency. Additionally, existing canopy coverage was done by using grouped or overlapping canopy cover, as stated on L-3, but proposed canopy radius was done on individual trees. This is an inconsistent comparison, as many of the proposed trees will be grouped and therefore have overlapping canopy coverage. Comparing Sheet L-3 (existing canopy - 22.6%) and L-5 (planting plan - 22.2%), the difference in canopy cover is visually striking, and considerably different than the Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov Commented [CL1]: We discussed at our meeting on 1/4/18, the requirement for 1:1 replacement — TMC 18.52 does not state this specifically, however replacement at 1:1 is implied through the requirement to maintain any required landscaping throughout the life of a project (TMC 18.52.080 A.). TMC 18.52.020 l.b. requires the use of large and medium stature tree species except where there is insufficient planting area — this would imply replacement of large canopy trees with large canopy trees to implement several of the purposes of TMC 18.52: the Urban Forestry Comprehensive Plan goals and policies; providing screening between incompatible land uses; and improving the visual environment for both residents and nonresidents. Finally, when requesting a modification of existing landscaping, one of the criteria to be met is that the modification does mot diminish the quality of the site landscape as a whole. For a mature landscape such as found at the site at 112' and Tukwila International Blvd., the removal of so many large canopy trees, and the lack of anything close to replacement of this canopy on a 1:1 basis would also support this requirement. Ms. Kim Merow U-Haul L 17-0078-L 17-0079 estimate of -0.4% (or -0.5% depending on source) change discussed on page 38. With 122 large canopy trees being replaced with 8 large canopy trees, the canopy lost on -site will be substantial. • The analysis cites the presence of pine beetle as a reason for tree removal - which beetle is it? Did you get positive ID? Most, if not all identified pine beetles. will not kill shore pine in this area. In addition, the infestation is cited as a problem, but the affected trees are not proposed for removal and replacement, kenerally3 • On the joint site visit, note was taken of the Western Hemlocks that had been planted in front of the signage at the corner of TIB and S. 112th St., and their removal was discussed but this is not reflected on the proposed plans. These will eventually grow to block the monument sign. What is the plan for these trees? • On the joint site visit. it was strongly suggested that a phased approach to any landscape modification be used. particularly along Tukwila International Blvd. This advice is not reflected in the proposal. • rikrud structural engineering information has been provided to support the assertion that the trees growing on top of the parking structure are causing cracks to occur or will compromise the structural integrity of the garage in the future. This information is needed to support the contention that the trees are causing structural damage to the garage and that there may be additional issues with seismic stability of the structure and therefore the trees need to be removed. Please note that a structural engineering assessment would be sent to the City's structural engineering consultants for analysis, at the applicant's expense. • Plantings in the bioswales do not reflect low impact development plant material nor soil preparation requirements. If the drainage swales are to be counted towards formal landscaping, the criteria in TMC 18.52.100 E. must be addressed. • Appendix B provides a tree table describing the condition of 264 trees throughout the site. There is no site plan identifying the location of each numbered tree so a correlation can be made between tree condition and proposed removal. • The application is missing a site survey that clearly identifies the property boundaries, particularly along Tukwila International Boulevard (TIB). • The organization of the information is not helpful. The numbering system used to identify individual landscape areas on Sheet L-4 should have been carried over to Sheet L-5 so that comparison of plant material to be removed and plant material proposed for replacement could be easily made. L17-0078: Shoreline Vegetation and Tree Removal: 1. IThel replacement trees for shoreline mitigation (176 trees) is proposed to be off -site and conducted by the City via payment into the City's Tree Replacement Fund. TMC 18.44.080 B.6. prioritizes on -site mitigation where possible. On -site replacement of shoreline trees is possible, as the site contains approximately 1200 linear feet of unrestored shoreline, therefore the use of in -lieu fee payment is not justified. 2. Native plants are required to be used within the entire 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction. 3. Sheet L-4 shows trees being removed in Area 11 — however, Sheet L-5 shows these trees as remaining. Which sheet is correct? If these trees are being removed, why are replacement trees not indicated? CL Page 2 of 4 I /9/2018 2:42 PM LI7-0078-0079 Comment Ltr. Commented [CL2]: This comment relates to the shoreline vegetation removal permit — if you plan to restore shoreline vegetation, then tise needs to be addressed. Commented [CL3]: If this argument continues to be a reason for the removal of trees on top of the parking deck, then an engineering analysis must be provided to support this contention. Commented [CL4]: A plan to restore the shoreline should substitute for payment into the shoreline tree fund. Ms. Kim Merow U-Haul L 17-0078-L 17-0079 L17-0079: Landscape Modification Request 1. Sheet L-4, Area 1 shows the removal of all the trees on the entrance drive approaching the front door, and replacement in planting area 1. Please explain how this meets the requirement for 1:1 replacement. 2. 1She4 L-5, Area 6 shows plantings in a drainage swale — the proposed plant material does not include plants that tolerate wet conditions. 3. No groundcover is proposed in any landscaped area, which is not to code. Slough sedge and soft rush are wetland plants intended to be grown in the bioswales. Why are they not included as groundcover in the other drainage swale? 4. Plant diversity requirements are not being met. 5. Tree removal is clearly not being determined by health of existing trees. According to the arborist assessment, of the 148 trees to be removed, 93 of them are considered in Fair health (#3) which is defined as minor problems, with relatively short life -span of 10 to 30 year. Twenty of the proposed tree removals are in Good health (#2) with 'long -life span expected". Therefore only 35 trees proposed for removal might be considered in bad condition. Conversely, 25 trees identified as Poor or Severe (#4 or #5) are proposed to be retained. 6. Please provide the reference for the rating system used for the tree inventory — is this a qualitative assessment associated with a Level 1 inspection by the ISA? Is this a scale used by the consultants on a comparative basis? 7. How do you mitigate for the temporal and seasonal loss (of at least 30 years) of canopy coverage and replacement of conifer trees with deciduous? 8. How will the soils be improved to bring it up to standard as no infrastructure is being changed? Need at least 12 inches of friable soil. Details are showing 8 inches. What is the proposal for mulching? 9. What is the rationale for not replacing the trees that are on top of the parking structure? TMC 18.52 requires that all trees removed be replaced at a ratio of 1:1. 10. It is asserted that the current trees along Tukwila International Blvd. may be planted over existing utilities which could interfere in the future — please provide as-builts that indicate the location of these utilities and information that indicates conflicts between the trees and the itilities1. 11. Landscape modification criteria, TMC 18.52.100 C.: Revisions to existing landscaping may be approved only if the following criteria are met: 1. Modification does not reduce landscaping to point that activities on the site become a nuisance to neighbors: Staff response: Agree that modifications will not create a nuisance to neighbors. 2. Modification does not diminish the quality of site landscape: Staff response: as presented, the proposal does not meet this criteria. The proposed landscaping does not meet the 1:1 replacement requirement; it does not meet the species diversity requirement; and does not replace the overall tree canopy. And either: a. Proposed vegetation removal, replacement and mitigation are consistent with the purpose and intent given in this chapter; CL Page 3 of 4 1 /9/2018 2:42 PM L17-0078-0079 Comment Ltr. Commented [CL5]: At the meeting on 1/4/18 it was noted that this travel lane needs to be widened to accommodate trucks — this information is not provided in the analysis submitted with the landscaping modification application and should be included in a narrative to explain the tree removal. Tree replacement in the vicinity of removal should be addressed if this row of trees is removed. Commented [CL6]: This comment must be addressed if this possible conflict is used to support not replacing removed trees along Tukwila International Blvd Ms. Kim Merow U-Haul L17-0078-L17-0079 Staff response: The proposed revision to the landscaping is not consistent with TMC 18.52.010. Purpose of this chapter for the reasons stated above and on the Attachment. b. The granting of an exception or standard reduction will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. Staff response: The removal of the trees and lack of 1:1 replacement as well as lack of full canopy replacement will have a negative impact on the public health in this area based on the benefits trees, particularly conifers, provide in improving air quality. 3. Trees removed due to conflicts with utilities, these trees shall be replaced based on the tree replacement table (Table C) in TMC Chapter 18.52.110. Staff response: N/A. The Assessment states there may be utilities under the trees along Tukwila International Blvd.. however, no plans have been provided to support the need to remove trees due to conflict with utilities. Staff has also compiled a response to Table 2, attached, which supplements the comments provided above. This information should be reviewed and responded to as well. Public comments on the project are due by close of business, December 19, 2017. If we receive any comments, these will be forwarded to you for review and a response. Please let me know if you have any questions about these comments, or would like to meet to discuss them. I can be reached at 206-431-3661 or by email at Carol.Lumbc Tukwilawa.gov. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner Attachment: City Response to Table 2 — Summary of Vegetation Zones cc: Marc Poulin, Sr. Manager, Real Estate, Boeing Jack Pace, Director Nora Gierloff, Deputy Director CL Page 4 of 4 1 /9/2018 2:42 PM LI 7-0078-0079 Comment Ltr. City Response to Table 2 — Summary of Vegetation Zones VEGETATION ZONE NUMBER OF TREES INVENTORIED NUMBER OF TREES TO BE REMOVED NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES COMMENTS 1 26 26 0 We did not observe that most of the trees have outgrown the planting locations. Some trees have been poorly pruned in the past. If the proposal is to remove these trees, where are the replacement trees? 2 13 13 0 Nothing in the Notes indicates there are any problems with these trees. 3 8 8 0 We agree that these trees are not the right tree for this location. However, we did not observe conditions that indicate these trees have outgrown their planting area. 4 18 18* *Sheet L-4 only shows 17 trees as being removed, however Table 7 indicates 18 trees will be removed. 0 The stated purpose for the removal of these trees when the joint site visit was conducted in November was that the driveway needs to be enlarged to accommodate the U-Haul trucks. Sheet L-5 does not show a widened driveway, nor any replacement trees. Is it necessary to widen the drive on both sides or can the widening occur on just one side? No replacement vegetation is indicated. 5 23* *Sheet L-4 shows 24 trees in Area 5. 16* *Sheet L-4 shows 15 trees marked for removal. Table 7 indicates 16 trees will be removed. 4 Replacement trees proposed do not meet TMC 18.52 requirements for like canopy nor 1:1 replacement. A phased approach could be used to stagger tree replacement. The intent of the "monument backdrop" is not explained in terms of the landscaping goals for the area — why are conifers being replaced with deciduous? 6 13 13 5 While the trees have been limbed up allowing some view into the site and the lower portion of the parking structure, they still provide a mature streetscape and visual relief from the CL L17-0078-0079 Table 2 Response Page 1 of 4 12/8/2017 2:05 PM City Response to Table 2 — Summary of Vegetation Zones VEGETATION ZONE NUMBER OF TREES INVENTORIED NUMBER OF TREES TO BE REMOVED NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES COMMENTS upper parking structure. At the joint site visit in November, it was suggested that a phased approach be used if tree replacement is desired in this area. In addition, the proposed replacement trees along TIB do not meet the tree canopy replacement requirements nor is replacement 1:1 being met. Ivy removal should be by hand and not by mechanical means to protect the tree roots. Shrubs can then be underplanted. 7 6 6 15 Was soil depth confirmed? The trees do not need more than 4 feet of soil depth for growth. Replacement trees are 3 medium stature trees and 12 small stature trees for the six large conifers, which is not a like -for -like replacement. No groundcover or shrubs are proposed. 8 19 4 0 on TIB • There is no slope along TIB — there is a grade change contained by a retaining wall to the west. The area below grade of TIB contains a drainage swale (identified as part of planting area 4). • The Assessment identifies health issues with several of the Tulip trees and the shore pines but none of these are proposed for removal. Rather, the Austrian Pines are proposed for removal. • The replacement area that is proposed for planting is well below grade and will be marginally visible from TIB as it is instead oriented to the lower parking lot and the building. The area CL L17-0078-0079 Table 2 Response Page 2 of 4 12/8/2017 2:05 PM City Response to Table 2 — Summary of Vegetation Zones VEGETATION ZONE NUMBER OF TREES INVENTORIED NUMBER OF TREES TO BE REMOVED NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES COMMENTS is a drainage swale and the proposed plantings do not include plant material that can tolerate wet conditions. In addition, since this is a drainage swale, this may preclude planting of woody species due to ongoing maintenance required for the drainage system. 9 17 2 0 • Staff agrees that the two trees identified can be removed. There is also a cedar that is in poor health and a candidate for removal as well. • Why are trees that are being removed from the rear of the site being replaced in a planting area in Area 7, along S. 112th? 10 10 6 4 possibly transplanted — location not identified 6 • The Assessment notes that the trees in the eastern planting bed might be moved but does not describe how this could be accomplished without bringing heavy equipment into the planting area. Also, where would the trees be moved to? • The American Smoke Tree, proposed for the planting beds on either side of the patio area, is more like a large shrub, rather than a tree. We would not consider this a like -for -like replacement. No shrubs or groundcover are shown. 11 38 25 0 Sheet L-4 shows 25 trees in Area 11 being removed, however Sheet L-5 shows all of these trees as being retained. During our site visit, staff noted one tree that is a candidate CL L17-0078-0079 Table 2 Response Page 3 of 4 12/8/2017 2:05 PM City Response to Table 2 — Summary of Vegetation Zones VEGETATION ZONE NUMBER OF TREES INVENTORIED NUMBER OF TREES TO BE REMOVED NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES COMMENTS for removal, however the remaining trees appear to be in good condition. In addition, the presence of mushrooms is noted, however, the species is not identified. Identification would be required to justify mushrooms as a reason for tree removal. 12 6 6 0 • See comments for Area 4. In addition, widening of the entrance on the west will need to avoid the shoreline buffer area. • No replacement trees are shown. 13 14 1 5 • Staff agrees that the Birch tree should be removed. • Text indicates that the pines will be limbed up 1/3 — this would constitute removal. • How is there room to plant 5 new trees among the existing Austrian Pines? The Assessment notes that the growth space is fairly limited and that the retaining wall shows signs of cracking. CL L17-0078-0079 Table 2 Response Page 4 of 4 12/8/2017 2:05 PM Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 5:01 PM To: 'Kim_Merow@UHaul.com' Subject: Comments on Landscape Modification Application Attachments: Muckleshoot Tribe Comments w attachment.pdf; sun-map-tilel.pdf Dear Kim, The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe has submitted comments on the shoreline tree removal, L17-0078, request and the landscape modification request, L17-0079, that you submitted on behalf of U-Haul for the Duwamish Towers site. I will attach these comments along with a map that the Tribe provided to supplement their comments. Today is the close of the public comment period on your projects. I have not received any other comments via email however, there may be additional comments received via U. S. mail. If so, I will forward those to you as soon as possible for response. Please review the Tribe's comments and provide a written response to the issues raised. If the information requested in the correction letter and the response to the Tribe's comments is not received within ninety days of the date of this email, the applications may be canceled doe to inactivity. (TMC 18.104.130) Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Carol CaroCCumb, MCP, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 630o Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, A. 98188 206-431-3661 CaroCLum6@'Thkwv itawa.gov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice **My incoming and outgoing email messages are subject to public disclosure requirements per RCW 42.56** 1 Carol Lumb From: Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 11:16 AM To: Carol Lumb Subject: Duwamish Towers redevelopment, L17-0078 and L17-0079, Notice of Application Attachments: sun-map-tilel.pdf Carol, We have reviewed the Duwamish Towers redevelopment Notice of Application and associated Landscape Modification Assessment and plans as referenced above. We offer the following comments in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe's treaty -protected fisheries resources: Summary of Tree removal proposal We understand that the applicant is seeking to remove 148 existing trees out of 263 inventoried trees onsite. Per the Landscape Assessment report (Watershed Company Nov 2017), most of the proposed tree removals are due to the site conditions not readily accommodating the existing trees planted as the trees have grown too large for their planting areas and are in some cases threatening or affecting existing utilities, the bio-swale areas, and the existing elevated parking structure. The existing trees to be removed appear to be mostly non-native trees including those within 200 feet of the Duwamish River. Assessment of tree removal impacts, mitigation and riparian recommendations The Landscape Assessment report is a good start to assess existing and proposed conditions in a comparison to City codes; however, it should be modified to include a more detailed discussion about functions and values of these existing trees in particular for shade and future wood recruitment. As noted in King County's Green River Sun Map Tile 1 (attached), portions of this site have been identified as high, medium, and low for shade needs. Those areas that are identified as high and medium should be improved by planting native conifer tree species that will provide shade to the river over time. The project is proposing to remove 31 trees within the shoreline jurisdiction; however, only three trees will be mitigated on —site with the reset to be mitigated by a payment to the City's tree replacement fund. This is inadequate to address the project's mitigation needs as it is speculative and undefined and does not improvethe conditions onsite where there is sufficient opportunity to do so. The few replacement plantings are non-native trees that will be too short to provide necessary shade and wood recruitment functions. The project needs to reevaluate its mitigation approach. The project should evaluate the outermost parking areas in the medium and high shade designations to see if some of this parking can be eliminated and restored with native trees as part of this project. This evaluation includes all areas within the 200 foot regulated shoreline area because this will provide better certainty in meeting the Washington Department of Ecology's (WDOE) implementation plan for the Green River TMDL for temperature at this site. If you recall, WDOE completed a Water Quality Improvement Report (TMDL) for the Green River for water temperature, which was approved by EPA in 2011. The TMDL study found that water temperatures are expected to occur at levels significantly above state standards set for salmon, including levels lethal to salmon, unless sufficient riparian vegetation is established and maintained for shade along the river. Per this report, it was determined that a 148 foot (45 meters) wide mature riparian corridor is needed to reduce water temperature and improve dissolved oxygen levels (see page 82 of https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1110046.pdf). As noted in the Landscape Assessment (page 18), approximately 50% of the 100-foot shoreline buffer is vegetated; the remainder of the buffer includes the Green River Trail and portions of the parking lot, a pollutant -generating surface. The Assessment also states that "water quality functions provided by the shoreline buffer are limited by narrow width of the vegetated areas, the steep gradient, the armored slopes, and the presence of pollutant generating surfaces in the buffer" (page 18). We agree. While, the project cannot address all of these existing conditions, this is the opportunity to expand the riparian buffer by reducing the pollutant generating surfaces in the buffer and plant these areas as we recommend. The assessment suggests reduction of parking areas is possible as "it is expected that far fewer vehicles will utilize the repurposed use as compared to the existing use" (page 42). Our recommendation to expand the existing riparian buffer onsite will better enable the project to meet its mitigation needs. It will also better serve the existing nearby mitigation sites at North Winds Weir; Chinook Winds, and the Duwamish Gardens restoration site. 1 If there is any further modifications to the site, then the project should also improve stormwater conditions by treating stormwater using "enhanced" treatment methods and oil treatment facilities as improving stormwater will benefit salmon in this river. Finally, if there are further modifications to the site along the shoreline areas, we will need to review these modifications for potential impacts to tribal fishing access. Tribal members fish in this area and may need access to these sites from land to do so in or near the project site. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City/applicants' responses as well as modifications that address these concerns. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program Phillip Starr Building 39015-A 172nd Ave SE Aubum, WA 98092 253-876-3116 2 Delrid Playfie fest Seattle: iolf Course, :amps. Cottage .ong Grove - Park w:( trHi_ '!c tlug laygro iiar:sw dod f Park • Corporate Cehter Terminal 102 .tininal iA ,•� ' 105P.jk •_- •; • S 4,nal •• ark i y S • i G #tdye bow m h G Playground If'uget ark Riverview Playfield White Center Pond a Natural Area Steve COX • •NiemorioF.. i5a'rk ' White Cents t{ Heights: y� °Park::,,' tLakevvc+od Park > . Ever' Green River Sun Map Map Tile 1 Spokane 8th SO 'Sark ewpoint P[;ice efferson`', Park ,; • r Jefferson Park Goll Course,\ Che`asty `+,Boulevard • Dearborn Hardy 1 4y B,u f1 r 01 n : (, asf•r• r Traci Site :• *Tukwila s !• rk 1 ,/ ‘zs., ukwll 1 fern 59 nt$ ! \i1 K. { ,rail: if1 Otirlt aker.' levard .Lake hington oulevard Bunter `BOtilevard Sierra Place nier Park and. Pia field Playfield Colo ' bia • John C. t..ittle, r. Park Lake Washington 4 Stan Sayres Memorial rPaF: Othelio: • aygtout d- Green River Sun Map • River Miles • Critical MajorRoads • High Streams and Rivers O Medium Open water O Low ® Incorporated Areas River Facilities Publicly Owned Lands Offset for clarity /// Easements Levee Non Revetment 0 2,000 4 DO Feet Martha Washirfgt Pail; ees Pritcha rt Island Beach Rainier Bea( Urban Farn and Wetanc Atlantic City Boat Ramp Fletcht 'Place rtevant Ine;. �, , Fred,-_ Pf ygrour City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director December 14, 2017 Ms. Kim Merow 16219 22nd St. East Lake Tapps, WA 98391 RE: L17-0078 and L17-0079, Shoreline Tree Removal and Landscape Modification Applications Dear Ms. Merow: We have had an opportunity to review the above noted land use applications and as currently presented we do not believe the applications comply with the shoreline vegetation removal and landscaping modification sections of the City's Municipal Code. We will outline the concerns with the project below. Overall: • 148 trees are proposed for removal, 122 of which are large canopy trees. 89 trees are proposed for onsite replacement — 8 of which are large canopy (the landscape code considers columnar trees to be small canopy trees). The Assessment does not adequately address the landscape code requirements of 1:1 replacement and canopy goals. • Tree canopy comparison: The numbers being used for existing canopy coverage are current, but the numbers for replacement canopy are at 30 years. As some of the trees have not been in place for 30 years, this number does not truly reflect canopy loss. For example, on page 30, it states that the 6 redwoods to be removed in Vegetation Zone 7 have a combined canopy cover of 1,836 sf. However, using the City's tree list method of canopy estimate, flr2 with radius being figured by width at 30 years, the canopy cover of a single redwood would be 962 sf, therefore 6 redwoods would have a canopy cover of 5,772 sf rather than the given 1,836 sf. Even if considering canopy cover of the group versus individual trees, the potential cover at 30 years would likely be considerably more than 1,836 sf. Replacing these six redwoods with 3 columnar maples, 6 vine maples, and 6 super -dwarf crabapples will create 3,126 sf of canopy resulting in a loss of 2,646 sf in this zone alone. Please check the canopy comparison numbers for consistency. Additionally, existing canopy coverage was done by using grouped or overlapping canopy cover, as stated on L-3, but proposed canopy radius was done on individual trees. This is an inconsistent comparison, as many of the proposed trees will be grouped and therefore have overlapping canopy coverage. Comparing Sheet L-3 (existing canopy — 22.6%) and L-5 (planting plan - 22.2%), the difference in canopy cover is visually striking, and considerably different than the Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov Ms. Kim Merow U-Haul L 17-0078-L 17-0079 estimate of -0.4% (or -0.5% depending on source) change discussed on page 38. With 122 large canopy trees being replaced with 8 large canopy trees, the canopy lost on -site will be substantial. • The analysis cites the presence of pine beetle as a reason for tree removal - which beetle is it? Did you get positive ID? Most, if not all identified pine beetles, will not kill shore pine in this area. In addition, the infestation is cited as a problem, but the affected trees are not proposed for removal and replacement, generally. • On the joint site visit, note was taken of the Western Hemlocks that had been planted in front of the signage at the corner of TIB and S. 112th St., and their removal was discussed but this is not reflected on the proposed plans. These will eventually grow to block the monument sign. What is the plan for these trees? • On the joint site visit, it was strongly suggested that a phased approach to any landscape modification be used, particularly along Tukwila International Blvd. This advice is not reflected in the proposal. • No structural engineering information has been provided to support the assertion that the trees growing on top of the parking structure are causing cracks to occur or will compromise the structural integrity of the garage in the future. This information is needed to support the contention that the trees are causing structural damage to the garage and that there may be additional issues with seismic stability of the structure and therefore the trees need to be removed. Please note that a structural engineering assessment would be sent to the City's structural engineering consultants for analysis, at the applicant's expense. • Plantings in the bioswales do not reflect low impact development plant material nor soil preparation requirements. If the drainage swales are to be counted towards formal landscaping, the criteria in TMC 18.52.100 E. must be addressed. • Appendix B provides a tree table describing the condition of 264 trees throughout the site. There is no site plan identifying the location of each numbered tree so a correlation can be made between tree condition and proposed removal. • The application is missing a site survey that clearly identifies the property boundaries, particularly along Tukwila International Boulevard (TIB). • The organization of the information is not helpful. The numbering system used to identify individual landscape areas on Sheet L-4 should have been carried over to Sheet L-5 so that comparison of plant material to be removed and plant material proposed for replacement could be easily made. L17-0078: Shoreline Vegetation and Tree Removal: 1. The replacement trees for shoreline mitigation (176 trees) is proposed to be off -site and conducted by the City via payment into the City's Tree Replacement Fund. TMC 18.44.080 B.6. prioritizes on -site mitigation where possible. On -site replacement of shoreline trees is possible, as the site contains approximately 1200 linear feet of unrestored shoreline, therefore the use of in -lieu fee payment is not justified. 2. Native plants are required to be used within the entire 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction. 3. Sheet L-4 shows trees being removed in Area 11 — however, Sheet L-5 shows these trees as remaining. Which sheet is correct? If these trees are being removed, why are replacement trees not indicated? CL Page 2 of 4 1/9/2018 9:02 AM L17-0078-0079 Comment Ltr. Ms. Kim Merow U-Haul L17-0078-L17-0079 L17-0079: Landscape Modification Request 1. Sheet L-4, Area 1 shows the removal of all the trees on the entrance drive approaching the front door, and replacement in planting area 1. Please explain how this meets the requirement for 1:1 replacement. 2. Sheet L-5, Area 6 shows plantings in a drainage swale — the proposed plant material does not include plants that tolerate wet conditions. 3. No groundcover is proposed in any landscaped area, which is not to code. Slough sedge and soft rush are wetland plants intended to be grown in the bioswales. Why are they not included as groundcover in the other drainage swale? 4. Plant diversity requirements are not being met. 5. Tree removal is clearly not being determined by health of existing trees. According to the arborist assessment, of the 148 trees to be removed, 93 of them are considered in Fair health (#3) which is defined as minor problems, with relatively short life -span of 10 to 30 year. Twenty of the proposed tree removals are in Good health (#2) with `long -life span expected". Therefore only 35 trees proposed for removal might be considered in bad condition. Conversely, 25 trees identified as Poor or Severe (#4 or #5) are proposed to be retained. 6. Please provide the reference for the rating system used for the tree inventory — is this a qualitative assessment associated with a Level 1 inspection by the ISA? Is this a scale used by the consultants on a comparative basis? 7. How do you mitigate for the temporal and seasonal loss (of at least 30 years) of canopy coverage and replacement of conifer trees with deciduous? 8. How will the soils be improved to bring it up to standard as no infrastructure is being changed? Need at least 12 inches of friable soil. Details are showing 8 inches. What is the proposal for mulching? 9. What is the rationale for not replacing the trees that are on top of the parking structure? TMC 18.52 requires that all trees removed be replaced at a ratio of 1:1. 10. It is asserted that the current trees along Tukwila International Blvd. may be planted over existing utilities which could interfere in the future — please provide as-builts that indicate the location of these utilities and information that indicates conflicts between the trees and the utilities. 11. Landscape modification criteria, TMC 18.52.100 C.: Revisions to existing landscaping may be approved only if the following criteria are met: 1. Modification does not reduce landscaping to point that activities on the site become a nuisance to neighbors: Staff response: Agree that modifications will not create a nuisance to neighbors. 2. Modification does not diminish the quality of site landscape: Staff response: as presented, the proposal does not meet this criteria. The proposed landscaping does not meet the 1:1 replacement requirement; it does not meet the species diversity requirement; and does not replace the overall tree canopy. And either: a. Proposed vegetation removal, replacement and mitigation are consistent with the purpose and intent given in this chapter; CL Page 3 of 4 I /9/2018 9:02 AM L 17-0078-0079 Comment Ltr. Ms. Kim Merow U-Haul L17-0078-L17-0079 Staff response: The proposed revision to the landscaping is not consistent with TMC 18.52.010, Purpose of this chapter for the reasons stated above and on the Attachment. b. The granting of an exception or standard reduction will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. Staff response: The removal of the trees and lack of 1:1 replacement as well as lack of full canopy replacement will have a negative impact on the public health in this area based on the benefits trees, particularly conifers, provide in improving air quality. 3. Trees removed due to conflicts with utilities, these trees shall be replaced based on the tree replacement table (Table C) in TMC Chapter 18.52.110. Staff response: N/A. The Assessment states there may be utilities under the trees along Tukwila International Blvd., however, no plans have been provided to support the need to remove trees due to conflict with utilities. Staff has also compiled a response to Table 2, attached, which supplements the comments provided above. This information should be reviewed and responded to as well. Public comments on the project are due by close of business, December 19, 2017. If we receive any comments, these will be forwarded to you for review and a response. Please let me know if you have any questions about these comments, or would like to meet to discuss them. I can be reached at 206-431-3661 or by email at Carol.Lumb@Tukwilawa.gov. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner Attachment: City Response to Table 2 — Summary of Vegetation Zones cc: Marc Poulin, Sr. Manager, Real Estate, Boeing Jack Pace, Director Nora Gierloff, Deputy Director CL Page 4 of 4 1 /9/2018 9:02 AM L17-0078-0079 Comment Ltr. City Response to Table 2 — Summary of Vegetation Zones VEGETATION ZONE NUMBER OF TREES INVENTORIED NUMBER OF TREES TO BE REMOVED NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES COMMENTS 1 26 26 0 We did not observe that most of the trees have outgrown the planting locations. Some trees have been poorly pruned in the past. If the proposal is to remove these trees, where are the replacement trees? 2 13 13 0 Nothing in the Notes indicates there are any problems with these trees. 3 8 8 0 We agree that these trees are not the right tree for this location. However, we did not observe conditions that indicate these trees have outgrown their planting area. 4 18 18* *Sheet L-4 only shows 17 trees as being removed, however Table 7 indicates 18 trees will be removed. 0 The stated purpose for the removal of these trees when the joint site visit was conducted in November was that the driveway needs to be enlarged to accommodate the U-Haul trucks. Sheet L-5 does not show a widened driveway, nor any replacement trees. Is it necessary to widen the drive on both sides or can the widening occur on just one side? No replacement vegetation is indicated. 5 23* *Sheet L-4 shows 24 trees in Area 5. 16* *Sheet L-4 shows 15 trees marked for removal. Table 7 indicates 16 trees will be removed. 4 Replacement trees proposed do not meet TMC 18.52 requirements for like canopy nor 1:1 replacement. A phased approach could be used to stagger tree replacement. The intent of the "monument backdrop" is not explained in terms of the landscaping goals for the area — why are conifers being replaced with deciduous? 6 13 13 5 While the trees have been limbed up allowing some view into the site and the lower portion of the parking structure, they still provide a mature streetscape and visual relief from the CL L17-0078-0079 Table 2 Response Page 1 of 4 12/8/2017 2:05 PM City Response to Table 2 — Summary of Vegetation Zones VEGETATION ZONE NUMBER OF TREES INVENTORIED NUMBER OF TREES TO BE REMOVED NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES COMMENTS upper parking structure. At the joint site visit in November, it was suggested that a phased approach be used if tree replacement is desired in this area. In addition, the proposed replacement trees along TIB do not meet the tree canopy replacement requirements nor is replacement 1:1 being met. Ivy removal should be by hand and not by mechanical means to protect the tree roots. Shrubs can then be underplanted. 7 6 6 15 Was soil depth confirmed? The trees do not need more than 4 feet of soil depth for growth. Replacement trees are 3 medium stature trees and 12 small stature trees for the six large conifers, which is not a like -for -like replacement. No groundcover or shrubs are proposed. 8 19 4 0 on TIB • There is no slope along TIB — there is a grade change contained by a retaining wall to the west. The area below grade of TIB contains a drainage swale (identified as part of planting area 4). • The Assessment identifies health issues with several of the Tulip trees and the shore pines but none of these are proposed for removal. Rather, the Austrian Pines are proposed for removal. • The replacement area that is proposed for planting is well below grade and will be marginally visible from TIB as it is instead oriented to the lower parking lot and the building. The area CL L17-0078-0079 Table 2 Response Page 2 of 4 12/8/2017 2:05 PM City Response to Table 2 — Summary of Vegetation Zones VEGETATION ZONE NUMBER OF TREES INVENTORIED NUMBER OF TREES TO BE REMOVED NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES COMMENTS is a drainage swale and the proposed plantings do not include plant material that can tolerate wet conditions. In addition, since this is a drainage swale, this may preclude planting of woody species due to ongoing maintenance required for the drainage system. 9 17 2 0 • Staff agrees that the two trees identified can be removed. There is also a cedar that is in poor health and a candidate for removal as well. • Why are trees that are being removed from the rear of the site being replaced in a planting area along S. 112th? 10 10 6 4 possibly transplanted — location not identified 6 • The Assessment notes that the trees in the eastern planting bed might be moved but does not describe how this could be accomplished without bringing heavy equipment into the planting area. Also, where would the trees be moved to? • The American Smoke Tree, proposed for the planting beds on either side of the patio area, is more like a large shrub, rather than a tree. We would not consider this a like -for -like replacement. No shrubs or groundcover are shown. 11 38 25 0 Sheet L-4 shows 25 trees in Area 11 being removed, however Sheet L-5 shows all of these trees as being retained. During our site visit, staff noted one tree that is a candidate CL L17-0078-0079 Table 2 Response Page 3 of 4 12/8/2017 2:05 PM City Response to Table 2 — Summary of Vegetation Zones VEGETATION ZONE NUMBER OF TREES INVENTORIED NUMBER OF TREES TO BE REMOVED NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES COMMENTS for removal, however the remaining trees appear to be in good condition. In addition, the presence of mushrooms is noted, however, the species is not identified. Identification would be required to justify mushrooms as a reason for tree removal. 12 6 • 6 0 • See comments for Area 4. In addition, widening of the entrance on the west will need to avoid the shoreline buffer area. • No replacement trees are shown. 13 14 1 5 • Staff agrees that the Birch tree should be removed. • Text indicates that the pines will be limbed up 1/3 — this would constitute removal. • How is there room to plant 5 new trees among the existing Austrian Pines? The Assessment notes that the growth space is fairly limited and that the retaining wall shows signs of cracking. CL L17-0078-0079 Table 2 Response Page 4 of 4 12/8/2017 2:05 PM City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION November 27, 2017 Ms. Kim Merow U-Haul 16219 22nd St. E Lake Tapps, WA 908391 Subject: Duwamish Towers Landscaping Modification and Tree Removal Applications (L17-0078 and L17- 0079) Dear Ms. Merow, Your applications to remove trees in the shoreline jurisdiction and to modify the landscaping at the Duwamish Towers site (2925 S. 112th St., Tukwila) are considered complete on November 27, 2017 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. This notice of complete application applies only to the permits identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain all necessary permits issued by other agencies. Please feel free to contact me with any questions at 206-431-3661 or Caroi.Lumb@Tukwilawa.gov. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov PREPARES FOR U-HAUL CONPANY RECEIVED LANDSCAPE MODIFICATIO0062017 ASSESSMENT Community Development DUWAMISH TOWERS - TU KW'I LA, WA NOVEMBER 2017 THE WATERSHED COMPANY watershedco.com TWC# 170931 LANDSCAPE MODIFICATION ASSESSMENT Duwamish Towers — Tukwila, WA Prepared for: Kim Merow UHAUL 5110 Frontage Road NW Auburn, WA 98001 Prepared by: THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland . WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 f 425.827.8I36 watershedco.com November 2017 The Watershed Company Reference Number: 170931 The Watershed Company Contact Person: Kenny Booth, AICP Cite this document as: The Watershed Company. November 2017. Landscape Modification Assessment. Duwamish Towers, Tukwila, WA. Prepared for UHAUL, Auburn, WA. Printed on 30% recycled paper. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # 1 Executive Summary 4 2 Introduction 5 2.1 Background and Purpose 5 3 Field Assessment 6 3.1 Study Area 6 3.2 Methods 7 4 Description of Project Area 8 4.1 Project Site 8 4.2 Site History 10 4.3 Critical Areas 11 5 Existing Tree Inventory 11 5.1 Tree Canopy • 15 6 Existing Ecological Functions ., 16 6.1 Habitat 17 6.1.1 Shoreline Buffer 17 6.1.2 Upland Areas 18 6.2 Water Quality 18 6.2.1 Shoreline Buffer 18 6.2.2 Upland Areas 19 6.3 Hydrology 19 6.3.1 Shoreline Buffer 19 6.3.2 Upland Areas 20 7 Project Description 20 7.1 Project Purpose 21 7.1.1 Inappropriate Species 21 7.1.2 Damage to Existing Infrastructure 23 7.1.3 Noncompliance with Existing Standards 23 7.2 Landscape Modifications 25 7.3 City of Tukwila Landscape Design Standards 26 7.3.1 Areas Outside of Shoreline Jurisdiction 26 7.3.2 Areas Within Shoreline Jurisdiction 29 7.4 Replacement Plantings 29 7.4.1 Canopy Replacement 30 7.4.2 1:1 Replacement 31 7.4.3 Shoreline Replacement / Tree Fund 31 7.4.4 Compliance with Current Standards 33 7.5 Pruning & Maintenance 35 7.6 Timing 35 7.7 Methods 36 8 Functional Analysis 36 8.1 Biodiversity 36 8.2 Canopy Coverage 37 9 Request for Landscape Modification 38 10 Summary 48 11 Disclaimer 49 Appendix A: Photos Appendix B: Tree Table Appendix C: Landscape Modification Plan LIST OF EXHIBITS Figure 1. Vicinity Map (King County iMap) 5 Figure 2. Study Area — outlined in red (King County iMap). 6 Figure 3. View of the subject parcel in 1936 (King County iMap). 10 Figure 4. View of the subject parcel in 1964 (historicaerials.com) 11 Figure 5. Existing weight limit sign at entrance to elevated parking structure. 22 Figure 6. View toward the project site from the E. Marginal Way bridge. Note the on -site buildings just visible in the background. (Google Maps) 39 Figure 7. Existing residential uses west of the project site. Note the on -site building visible within the extreme right portion of the photo. (King County iMap) 40 Figure 8. Identifying map of adjacent uses (keyed to Table 13). (Google Earth) 41 ii Landscape Modification Assessment LANDSCAPE MODIFICATION ASSESSMENT DUWAMISH TOWERS - TUKWILA, WA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Landscape modifications are proposed to provide a more appropriate and sustainable site landscape. Proposed modifications: • Are part of a formal request to revise existing on -site landscaping - pursuant to TMC 18.52.100.C; • Will comply with the criteria found in TMC 18.52.100.0 to authorize such a request; • Have been designed by a certified arborist, under the direction of a licensed landscape architect - consistent with TMC 18.52.090.B; • Will include landscape modifications outside of, and partially within shoreline jurisdiction; • Will not include work within the 100-foot shoreline buffer; • Will include new landscaping consistent with the City's current landscape design standards, including for perimeter and street frontage landscaping (TMC 18.52.020) and for species, sizing, and spacing standards (TMC 18.52.040, 060); • Will include on -site canopy and tree replacement for all trees removed outside of shoreline jurisdiction; • Will include payment into the City's tree replacement fund for removal of a portion of trees within shoreline jurisdiction - consistent with TMC 18.44.080.B.6; • Will maintain on -site tree canopy cover above 22% following modifications; and • Will increase City-wide tree canopy cover following modification and payment to the City's tree replacement fund. 4 The Watershed Company November 2017 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Background and Purpose The purpose of this report is to document existing tree and landscape conditions at the existing Duwamish Towers site at 2925 South 112th Street in Tukwila, WA (parcel #0923049155). The applicant proposes a future change from the existing office use to a storage and retail/office use. This report will describe tree and landscape modifications proposed ahead of the change in use. As detailed within this report, the site was screened by qualified personnel and a comprehensive landscape modification plan (Appendix C) has been prepared. This report is intended to document site tree conditions and provide justification to support applications for landscape modifications pursuant to a Tree Removal and Landscape Modification Permit and a Shoreline Tree Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit. The permits will request specific areas of tree removal and landscape modifications on the parcel. Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.52, Landscape Requirements, includes an allowance for revisions to existing landscaping. This report will describe compliance with the applicable compliance criteria for this provision. Figure 1. Vicinity Map (King County iMap). 5 1 i• 1 Landscape Modification Assessment 3 FIELD ASSESSMENT 3.1 Study Area The project site is located along the right bank of the Duwamish River, which has been designated as a 'shoreline of the state' and includes a 100-foot shoreline buffer. All significant trees on -site outside of the shoreline buffer were inventoried for this assessment. The shoreline buffer was assessed for ecological functions; however, because no tree removal is proposed within the buffer, individual trees within the buffer were not assessed. Several trees within the Tukwila International Boulevard right-of-way were also included in this assessment. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, the term 'study area' shall refer to all areas of the parcel outside of the 100-foot shoreline buffer plus the vegetated right-of-way along Tukwila International Blvd (Figure 2). Figure 2. Study Area — outlined in red (King County iMap). The Watershed Company November 2017 3.2 Methods Qualified Tree Risk Assessors and ISA-Certified Arborists Kyle Braun and Lucas Vannice visited the subject parcel on October 24, 26, and 30, 2017, to inventory and assess trees within the study area. In addition, Ecologist, Ryan Kahlo, PWS and Pete Heltzel, Fisheries Biologist, assessed the study area and shoreline buffer on October 24, 2017. The landscape modification plan (Appendix C) developed in conjunction with this report was prepared by an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist and under the direction of a licensed landscape architect pursuant to the applicable portions of TMC 18.52.090. Subject trees within the study area were assessed for meeting the definition of 'significant' in the City of Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section 18.06.775. The City of Tukwila defines a 'significant tree' as a tree (cottonwoods excluded) which is four inches or more in diameter as measured 4.5 feet above grade. In addition, pursuant to TMC 18.06.776, the definition of 'significant tree, shoreline' means a single-trunked tree that is four inches or more in diameter at a height of four feet above the ground or a multi-trunked tree with a diameter of two inches or more (such as willows or vine maple). Tree diameter was measured at four feet above the ground surface (diameter at breast height, or "dbh") using a graduated metal dbh tape. Trees with multiple trunks arising from the ground were measured using methodology from The Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition (Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers, 2000). The cross -sectional areas of stems contributing to the canopy were summed and used to generate a singular combined dbh for the tree. As per common ISA practice, the singular dbh number was used to allow for comparison to other single -stemmed trees. Per industry standards and the TMC, canopy radius is the average branch length from the trunk as measured with a tape measure. Tree height was visually estimated using a clinometer and standard trigonometry. A basic Level 1 visual assessment was used to evaluate the health and condition of trees at the site in accordance with the ISA standards. In addition, trees were assessed for position within the site landscape, including the area and depth of planting beds and proximity to adjacent infrastructure (parking lots, drive aisles, sidewalks and buildings). Both current damage to infrastructure and the propensity for future damage was also assessed. 7 Landscape Modification Assessment 4 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA 4.1 Project Site The project site is located at 2925 South 112th Street in Tukwila, WA (parcel #0923049155) (Figure 1). The parcel is located along the right (east) bank of the Duwamish River and totals 561,238 square feet (12.8 acres) in size. The parcel is zoned Manufacturing Industrial Center / Heavy Industrial (MIC/H) and is bordered by Tukwila International Boulevard to the east, with industrial uses further east and north. The Duwamish River is located to the south and west of the parcel, with State Route-99 located on the opposite side of the river. King County has recently acquired a shoreline property just east of the site and plans to turn the approximately 5-acre parcel into a restoration site, as part of its Mitigation Reserves Program. The site, referred to as Chinook Wind, proposes extensive shoreline and upland restoration with a backwater area. A second restoration site, also owned by King County and known as North Wind's Weir, is located north of the project site. Cecil Moses Memorial Park is located across the river from the subject parcel to the northwest. The Duwamish River is designated as a 'shoreline of the state' by the City of Tukwila, and as mentioned, includes a 100-foot shoreline buffer, measured from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The buffer extends approximately 15- feet into the rear parking lot of the parcel. Shoreline jurisdiction, measured 200- feet from the OHWM, extends to include nearly all of the rear parking lot. The Duwamish is amongst the most highly -modified rivers in Washington State. Historic modifications include loss and development of the majority of the original floodplain, channel straightening, bank armoring, bridging, and a significant reduction in flow from the diversion of the original outlet of the Cedar River to Lake Washington and the Hiram Chittenden Locks. In addition, the lower Duwamish River suffers from a legacy of industrial contamination and has been designated a federal Superfund cleanup site. The Green River Trail, managed by King County, runs along the west side of the parcel, roughly 30-feet landward of the river. The trail resides within an easement, dedicated to King County in 1994. The 12-foot-wide trail is paved and offers active recreational use for bikes and pedestrians. The trail is part of the County's regional trail network and extends for 19 miles, continuing north along WA-99 and south along the Duwamish/Green River. The parcel includes two separate five -story office buildings, attached near the middle of the site, via a ground level plaza. The structures, which total approximately 160,000 total square feet of floor space, were constructed in 1988. 8 The Watershed Company November 2017 The buildings have been utilized for office purposes, primarily by Boeing, since their construction. A two -level parking garage is located in the northeast property corner. Access is provided via two driveways off South 112th Street. The first driveway is located approximately 200-feet west of Tukwila International Boulevard and provides direct access to the elevated level of the parking garage. The parking area includes approximately 300 parking spaces and sits atop one level of on - grade parking. An access turnaround, directly in front of the office buildings, is also included atop the parking structure. The aforementioned driveway is the only ingress and egress for this parking area. A second driveway is located near the western terminus of South 112th Street, approximately 700-feet west of Tukwila International Boulevard. This driveway provides direct access to parking areas in the rear of the parcel and also to on -grade parking areas beneath the elevated parking structure. Landscaping includes trees, shrubs, and groundcover throughout parking medians, islands, and planting beds adjacent to buildings. Most of the landscaping is within the parking lots along the riverbank and public roads. Species in the parking islands and medians consist of red maple (Acer rubrum), Austrian pine (Pinus nigra), and a few western red cedar (Thuja plicata), typically underlain by mowed turf grass. Species along Tukwila International Boulevard consist of Austrian pine, tuliptree (Liriofendron tulipifera), a few groupings of burning fire bush (Euonomous asgata), and extensive monocultures of English ivy (Hedera helix), dominating the entire understory. The northeast corner of the site includes a monument sign, with a berm extending toward the south and the elevated parking structure. Thirteen pine trees (Pinus sp.) are rooted onto this berm. The easternmost driveway entrance is lined with groupings of flowering crabapple (Malus sp.) backed by a hedge of photinia (Photinia sp.) and an understory of azalea (Azalea sp.) and English Ivy. West of the driveway is a large stand of Austrian pine also planted atop a berm. Further west on South 112th Street, the road is lined with low growing pine species recently planted in the same locations of previously removed trees that had been obstructing the overhead utility lines. Understory in these locations consists almost entirely of English ivy and mowed turf grass. Atop the elevated parking structure, the main driveway is lined on both sides with a row of katsura trees (Cercidipyllum japonica). These trees are planted in a half berm retained by a wall on one side. The soil in each planting area is very limited due to the size and age of each tree. Parking islands on top of the 9 MEW 4110 IMO 1 1 1 1 1 i Tit Landscape Modification Assessment structure do not contain trees, but are rooted with several shrub species and various groundcovers. 4.2 Site History When constructed in 1988, the parcel was located outside the City of Tukwila within unincorporated King County. In 1989, the property was annexed into the City along with multiple other parcels extending north toward Boeing Field. The aerial view shown in Figure 3 indicates that the site had been cleared and was in agricultural use prior to 1936. Other, later aerial photos show the site in use as a drive-in movie theater (Figure 4). The theater use remained in place until at least 1980, with the current office use constructed in 1988. Because the site had not yet been annexed into the City of Tukwila, King County would have issued permits for the office building development. As part of the approval process, it is assumed that the County reviewed and approved a landscape plan for the site. Thus, any modifications to the landscaping must comply with the City's current standards related to 'revisions to existing landscaping'. This is discussed in more detail in Section 8. Figure 3 View of the subject parcel in 1936 (King County iMap). 10 The Watershed Company November 2017 Figure 4. View of the subject parcel in 1964 (historicaerials.com) 4.3 Critical Areas No wetlands or streams were identified on the subject parcel. However, the Duwamish River is directly adjacent to the property. A small fish and wildlife habitat conservation area (FWHCA) is designated north of the site within the North Wind's Weir restoration site. Based on an estimated distance on aerial photos, the FWHCA 100-ft buffer extends just onto the extreme northwest corner of the subject parcel. According to the City's GIS information (Tukwila iMap), the adjacent river channel and portions of the bank are designated as a seismic hazard area. Finally, the Duwamish River includes a floodway and floodplain per FEMA mapping. The floodplain roughly follows the banks of the river, whereas the floodway extends partially onto the site, in both the extreme northwest and southeast corners. No work is proposed within the shoreline buffer, floodway, floodplain, seismic hazard area or the estimated FWHCA buffer. 5 EXISTING TREE INVENTORY A total of 263 trees were inventoried within the study area (Table 1). Austrian pine is the most abundant significant tree, accounting for 75 total trees. These are mostly rooted along Tukwila International Boulevard on the eastern edge of the 11 Landscape Modification Assessment study area, on the southwest side of the building near the rear courtyard, and within the northwest corner of the study area. Table 1 includes a summary of all inventoried trees. Table 1 - Summary of Inventoried Tree Species SCIENTIFIC NAME (COMMON NAME) NUMBER OF TREES INVENTORIED SUM OF TRUNK DIAMETERS (Inches) AVERAGE TRUNK DIAMETER (Inches) SMALLEST TRUNK SIZE RECORDED (Inches) LARGEST TRUNK SIZE RECORDED (Inches) Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) 75 1,329.1 17.7 10 28.5 Acer rubrum (Red maple) 37 528.9 14.3 6 25.2 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsura tree) 32 386.2 12.0 9.2 18.8 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) 21 170.4 8.11 5.6 12.2 Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) 18 385.80 21.4 12 26.9 Thuja plicata (Western red cedar) 17 241.3 14.2 5.8 21 Carpinus betulus (European hornbeam) 16 153.6 9.6 4.3 13.6 Pinus sp. <2 needle> (Pine tree, 2 needle) 14 70.8 5.06 3.5 6.1 Pyrus calleryana (Callery pear) 13 102.2 7.9 7 9 Liriodendron tulipifera (Tulip) 8 97.9 12.2 5 24 Pinus contorta (Shore pine) 4 24.8 6.2 4.2 11 Pinus monticola (Western white pine) 2 8.9 4.45 4.3 4.6 Sequoiadendron giganteum (Giant sequoia) 2 14.3 7.2 6.8 7.5 Cryptomeria japonica (Japanese cedar) 2 10.7 5.4 5.2 5.5 Betula pendula (European white birch) 1 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 Pinus sylvestris (Scots pine) 1 17 17 17 17 Grand Total 263 3,555.6 13.5 3.5 28.5 For the purposes of this assessment, the study area was divided into multiple zones. Zones were selected based upon groupings of similar existing landscaping. Specifically, many areas of the site include trees and other plantings grouped within distinctive planting areas, such as parking island or planters, planting beds adjacent to buildings, or streetscape areas. Zones primarily consist of areas of proposed landscape modifications, and thus a significant number of trees on -site are not all included in zones. The table below provides a summary of each specific zone, including number of significant trees within the zone and details regarding information such as size of the planting zone, extent of adjacent infrastructure, and observed impacts to existing infrastructure. The landscape modification plan (Appendix C) that accompanies this assessment report includes a visual representation of each zone. 12 The Watershed Company November 2017 Table 2 - Summary of Vegetation Zones VEGETATION ZONE NUMBER OF TREES INVENTORIED NOTES Vegetation Zone 1 26 Zone 1 consists of 26 katsura trees planted in a raised planter, retained by a concrete wall. The trees have far outgrown the original planting locations. The planting bed shows signs of exposed roots, overflowing soil, and the retaining walls and curbs are cracked. The trunks of all trees are located approximately one -foot from the concrete retaining wall. Vegetation Zone 2 P' .-'''''' - • l'— 1 13 i '. ' `; r,Yvtic, Zone 2 consists of 13 pear trees planted in raised beds approximately four feet off the sidewalk. The trunks of these trees are located approximately five feet from a concrete retaining wall, and five feet from the window of the building. These trees have been consistently pruned over time to retain views from the lower windows. Understory contains entirely turf grass. — IN-1 M Vegetation Zone 3 -1. rt ' , +� , i 3 Zone 3 contains 8 medium size redwoods. These trees have far outgrown their planters, and are no long appropriate for their locations. These trees have also grown up to block all the windows above the planting locations. They are also rooted atop the parking structure with very limited room to grow, as they are approximately four feet from the side of both office buildings. Branches have been pruned back from the building causing all of the trees in this Zone to have an asymmetrical canopy. Understory vegetation consists of beauty bark mulch and several assorted understory groundcovers and shrubs. Lt 41 Y 8 - ! • , t • Vegetation Zone 4 18 Zone 4 contains 6 katsura trees situated on both sides of the eastern driveway entrance; three trees on each side. These trees are rooted approximately three feet from the sidewalk with an apparent upheave in the pavement, caused by the roots. There are also 12 flowering crabapple, six mirroring each other on both sides of the driveway. These are planted in retained planters approximately four feet off the ground. There are some cracks on the face of the planter wall, possibly from the limited growth area. Understory planting of the katsura trees consists of turf grass; the flowering crabapple understory consists of small azalea shrubs and English ivy. Both sides of the driveway are backed with a photinia hedge. Vegetation Zone 5 23 Zone 5 contains 14 pine trees of various species. These are planted to form a continuous canopy. These have been planted in a half berm that is retained by the north wall of the elevated parking structure. All of the pine trees vary in health and canopy. The interior of the contiguous canopy is very bare and sparse. If one tree were to be removed, it would open up large bare patches in the canopy making the stand very unattractive, which wouldn't fit with the intent of the monument planting backdrop. Several of the pines on the eastern edge of Zone 5 are retained by a concrete retaining wall that ranges from four to six feet in height. There are minor cracks in the wall possibly from the large pines retained behind the walls. In addition, there are 9 flowering crabapple trees planted behind the large monument sign. These have been pruned routinely to maintain canopy shape and the aesthetic value of the monument plantings. Understory planting consists of all English ivy, turf grass, and a few small groupings of random shrub species. Vegetation Zone 6 13 Zone 6 is the streetscape located along the east property boundary and adjacent to Tukwila International Boulevard. Tree species consist of 13 Austrian pines that have been planted some time ago. All of these trees are planted approximately four feet from the eastern portion of the on -grade parking lot. The trees are clearly upheaving the adjacent asphalt parking lot and some evidence of recent parking lot repair was noted. The trees are consistently pruned off of a fence line that runs along the street, separating the parking lot from the road. According to the site survey, the pine trees are also planted atop electrical and telephone utility lines. If the lines ever had to be maintained, the trees will have to be removed. There is no observable damage to the utilities now. The trees have also been limbed up approximately eight feet. The branch removal has allowed for a clear line of sight into the dark underground parking area; therefore, the trees do not screen the unsightly concrete structure from the road, which was likely the original intent in planting such species. Understory is entirely dominated by a thick mat of English ivy. The ivy has collected a large amount of garbage over the years, making it a nuisance to site aesthetics and a safety concern. If ivy is 13 Landscape Modification Assessment to be removed it must take into consideration the impacts to theroot zones of trees within this Vegetation Zone. Vegetation Zone 7 6 Zone 7, similar to Zone 3, is planted with 6 redwoods, spaced approximately six feet from one another. Planting depth seems to be limited to approximately four feet of soil atop the parking structure. The trees have formed a contiguous canopy with very sparse vegetation on the interior of the stand. Although these trees are in good health, the planting location is not appropriate to sustain these trees into the future. Allowing these trees to continue to grow in this location will almost certainly cause more property damage and they may also become a safety hazard over time, due to their limited growth areas. Vegetation Zone 8 19 Zone 8, similar to Zone 6, is also located on the eastern portion of the study area and also along Tukwila International Boulevard. This zone contains a total of 19 trees, consisting of three species - tuliptree, shore pine, and Austrian pine. All of the trees were planted on a slope that has an......------i approximate grade of 50%. The pine trees have been limbed up about one third of the way, allowing the lower parking lot to become visible from the road. The tulip trees are all in fairly good shape, however several are dying or dead. The shore pine look to have recently been planted. These should be removed due to the presence of Western Pine Beetle identified in the shoreline buffer on the parcel. The understory of the entire plant zone is infested with English ivy. The ivy is currently being removed from the trees through routine maintenance; however, if the maintenance on site does not continue these trees will almost certainly become engulfed in the invasive vine species. If the ivy groundcover is to be removed, the same consideration shall be taken into account to protect the roots of many of these trees as in Zone 6. There is also a consistent collection of tangled trash and garbage located throughout the entire understory. Safety of maintenance personal should be considered if ivy is to remain, due to the presence of trash and unknown objects buried and entangled in the ivy. Vegetation Zone 9 17 Vegetation Zone 9 consists of a bio swale. There are 17 trees rooted in this swale. Species consists of red maple and western red cedar. Nearly all of the red maple have overgrown their locations. The parking lot is upheaving on nearly all sides. There is also a stormwater outlet at the east end of the swale that drains into a larger vault across the parking lot. The inlet to this culvert is almost entirely engulfed in the roots of the red maple trees. The understory is planted entirely with turf grass. The curb cuts for the bio swale are plugged up and are no longer functioning properly. This is likely due to the large amount of organic matter that has built up in the swale. Root impacts to trees shall be considered when doing any work in this Zone. Vegetation Zone 10 10 Similar to Zones 3 and 7, Zone 10 is also planted atop the elevated parking structure. Presently there are 10 trees planted within contained concrete beds. The southeastern planter bed contains four recently planted trees - two giant sequoia and two western white pines. This is not the correct location for a species that can grow to such a large size. These trees can potentially be transplanted to another location. The northwestern planting bed contains redwood and Japanese cedar and are not appropriate sized species for the constrained planting area. Vegetation Zone 11 38 Zone 11 is one of the largest vegetation zones, in total there are 38 trees planted within this zone. Species consists of 30 Austrian pines and 8 European hornbeam. The Austrian pine is planted in a varying 5-15-foot-wide planter strip located between the parking lot and the rear of the building's elevated plaza. Some species are rooted less than three feet away from the plaza structure. The European hornbeams are planted in concreate planters situated near the back stairs of the plaza. They have approximately 100 square feet of growing area for four trees. The understory contains turf grass. It was also noted that there are numerous species of mushrooms around the root zones of many of the Austrian pine trees. In addition, the entire parking lot adjacent to where these trees are planted is upheaving. In some locations there is evidence that the parking lot had previously been replaced. Cracks were also observed on several retaining walls and the back foundation of the elevated plaza. Vegetation Zone 12 6 Vegetation Zone 12 is located in the northwest portion of the study area. In total, there are 5 Austrian pine trees and 1 red maple planted in planting islands near the back entrance at the end of S 112th St. These trees are 14 4 The Watershed Company November 2017 planted approximately 5 feet off the back driveway. There is evidence of asphalt and curb repair likely necessitated by root damage from tree roots. Vegetation Zone 13 8 Zone 13 consists of a stand of 8 Austrian pines and 1 birch tree. The pines form a contiguous canopy and have previously been limbed up due to their location adjacent to powerlines. Understory consists of English ivy and scattered photinia shrubs. The planter is retained on the south by the northern portion of the elevated parking structure and on the north by a concrete retaining wall, similar to a large planter. The growth space is fairly limited, and the walls show signs of cracking. As seen in Table 2 above, many of the vegetation zones includes trees that are planted within areas that are too small for the present species. This is resulting in impacts to existing adjacent infrastructure, as described in more detail in Section 6.1.2. 5.1 Tree Canopy TMC 18.06.130 and 135 define 'canopy' and 'canopy cover', respectively, as follows: "Canopy" means an area encircling the base of a tree, the minimum extent of which is delineated by a vertical line extending from the outer limit of a tree's branch tips down to the ground. "Canopy cover" means the cumulative areal extent of the canopy of all trees on the site. To determine canopy cover, the canopy radius of each on -site tree was surveyed in the field by a professional surveyor. The radii for all trees to be removed were then verified in the field by an arborist. These measurements were catalogued and a total canopy cover for the site was calculated. Adjacent trees with overlapping canopies were further assessed for accuracy purposes. For example, a stand of trees forming an overlapping canopy would not have the same canopy coverage as the same number of individual trees, sharing the same canopy radius, but growing individually. Table 3 below details the estimated canopy coverage for the site. Table 3 - Summary of Existing Canopy Coverage AREA NUMBER OF TREES ESTIMATED CANOPY COVERAGE Shoreline Buffer 211 40.3% Shoreline Jurisdiction (outside of buffer) 99 29.4% Non -shoreline 164 14.3% Total 474 22.6% 15 Landscape Modification Assessment 6 EXISTING ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS The project site was assessed for ecological functions, including habitat, hydrological, and water quality functions. Though the shoreline buffer extends only 100-feet from the Duwamish River, upland areas of the site outside of the buffer contribute to shoreline functions and were also assessed. The shoreline includes approximately 1,200 linear feet of shoreline frontage, consisting almost entirely of steep, rock -armored banks overgrown with dense Himalayan blackberry. The immediate vegetated bank extends approximately 20 feet landward from the OHWM and is then separated by the paved Green River Trail, which is approximately 12 feet wide. An additionalvegetated strip approximately 20 feet wide is located between the Green River Trail and the rear parking areas of the subject property. Vegetation adjacent to the shoreline includes an overstory of black cottonwood, Lombardy poplar and red alder. A Himalayan blackberry monoculture comprises nearly the entirety of the understory vegetation and extends all the way to the OHWM. Opposite the Green River Trail, the vegetation is mostly immature shore pine confined to an approximately 20-foot-wide planting strip. All of the shore pine within the shoreline buffer are infested with pine beetles, which are extremely damaging to their long-term viability. At the far southeast end of the property, the shoreline vegetation appears to have been restored with native vegetation. Willows, red -osier dogwood, and snowberry, all of which appear of similar age, are prevalent in this area and are mixed with scattered Lombardy poplar trees; non-native vegetation is relatively absent in this area. Several large (>36-inch) snags are present along the shoreline. Beyond the outer strip of vegetation in the buffer, the site transitions into an office complex and expansive parking lot. Landscape trees within the parking area are isolated from other vegetated areas. The landscape trees are mostly non- native ornamentals; prominent species present include Austria pine, katsura, red maple, Scots pine, and a few redwood trees. No understory, structural diversity, or special habitat features are present in the parking areas or adjacent to the buildings. Given the conditions above, the upland areas provide relatively little habitat and hydrologic function and only limited water quality function. This is due to the constrained nature of the river and its disconnection to the floodplain, lack of native species diversity and structure, proximity of established development improvements and lack of stormwater flow control and treatment. The following sections provide additional detail. 16 The Watershed Company November 2017 6.1 Habitat An on-line review of Priority Habitat and Species Data (PHS Data) from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for the study area and surrounding area was completed as part of this assessment. The Duwamish River, adjacent the site, is documented to contain Chinook, chum, coho, pink, and sockeye salmon, bull trout, steelhead, and resident cutthroat trout. Western pond turtle habitat is mapped at the Township level. Specific locations of western pond turtles are not available via on-line PHS Data, although there are no ponds, slow - moving small streams, or ponded wetlands within the study area or buffer that would provide habitat for western pond turtle. 6.1.1 Shoreline Buffer The shoreline buffer provides only low-level habitat functions, given its composition, lack of species and structural diversity, and fragmentation in the form of a steep, armored bank. The presence of a dense Himalayan blackberry monoculture in the understory precludes a variety of habitat niches necessary for a diversity of wildlife usage. Himalayan blackberry provides limited forage and cover opportunities for wildlife as it eliminates the diversity of food sources necessary to maintain a complex habitat system. Such monocultures further reduce the presence of low, overhanging vegetation along the shoreline, which could provide cover and refuge for resident and migrating fish. The armored banks and lack of woody debris along the shoreline further reduce quality fish habitat. The presence of the paved Green River Trail and the associated frequent human and domestic animal usage contribute to habitat fragmentation between the only vegetated areas within the shoreline buffer. This reduces the potential for the site to be used as a migratory corridor for urban wildlife. The general opportunity of the site to provide wildlife habitat is severely limited by fragmentation on a landscape level as well as a site -specific level. The surrounding landscape is extremely high -intensity commercial, industrial, and transportation uses that are not conducive to wildlife usage beyond common urban pest species such as mice and rats, along with occasional squirrels, raccoons, and possum. There are no large forests or other undisturbed areas in the vicinity that would function as a source or refuge for wildlife that would migrate through the area. Bird species are likely limited to common songbirds (chickadees, juncos, and American robins), crows, and starlings. Some of the larger cottonwood trees in the canopy could provide perching habitat for bald eagles and osprey, and these species are known to forage in the Green-Duwamish River system. However, no documented nests are present in the area. While they are typically large trees, Lombardy poplars are known for their lack of suitable perching opportunities due to near -vertical limb structure. The snags in the buffer likely provide 17 Landscape Modification Assessment foraging habitat for woodpeckers and sapsuckers, and some are large enough to provide potential nesting habitat for cavity -dwelling species in the future; no evidence of cavity nesting was observed currently. It should be noted that the snags and cottonwood trees are not unique to the site or particularly rare along the shoreline. The presence of the Duwamish River adjacent the property edge provides the opportunity for the property to be used by other common species that frequent large rivers in Western Washington. These include otters, beavers, and birds of shorelines and open water. These may include Vaux's swifts, belted kingfishers, several swallow species, various flycatchers, and other insectivores that could use the area for resting or foraging perches. However, as described above there is little potential for much wildlife usage given the limitations of the vegetation community, steep banks and lack of floodplain and complex structural diversity. 6.1.2 Upland Areas Habitat structure on the adjacent upland areas is relatively simple, with mostly ornamental trees planted in rows of raised planting beds between parking strips. The lack of structural diversity limits food and cover opportunities for most wildlife species. Special features such as snags and large woody debris, which provide habitat for birds and small mammals, are not present in the upland areas. There are also few, if any, nut- and fruit -producing plants on the site, which would provide a food source for songbirds and small mammals. The larger conifers in the upland areas (including redwood and western red cedar trees) do not provide quality perching and nesting opportunities for bald eagles and osprey, as they are generally separated from foraging areas by the existing structures. In addition, monocultures of some species, and a lack of native understory result in reduced biodiversity on -site. 6.2 Water Quality 6.2.1 Shoreline Buffer Water quality functions provided by the shoreline buffer are limited by the narrow width of the vegetated areas, the steep gradient, the armored slopes, and the presence of pollutant generating surfaces within the buffer. Approximately 50% of the 100-foot shoreline buffer is vegetated; the remainder of the buffer includes the paved Green River Trail and portions of the parking lot, a pollutant - generating surface. Additionally, much of the on -site areas that are vegetated are maintained, which likely includes regular applications of fertilizer and pesticide. The outer vegetated buffer areas are sparsely vegetated in the understory, and do not provide significant ability to trap and filter sediments that would otherwise enter the Duwamish River. The inner buffer has a substrate composed of riprap below the upper soil layer, and the area is very steep and narrow. Himalayan 18 The Watershed Company November 2017 blackberry is not an effective pollutant filter, and the gradient and riprap substrate do not allow for sufficient infiltration of stormwater runoff. Neither the trees in the canopy layer, nor the Himalayan blackberry, extend significantly over the river bank. This limits the allochthonous input functions that support species and habitat in the river. It also limits shade -producing functions that would reduce water temperatures and increase dissolved oxygen. These functions are further reduced by the location on the north side of the Duwamish River, as the sun is located in the southern sky, and the canopy does not overhang the river; thus, the vegetation provides virtually no shade to the river. As a whole, the shoreline buffer provides some water quality functions, as it is partially vegetated, but these functions are generally low as compared to native, undisturbed vegetated buffers. 6.2.2 Upland Areas The upland areas provide virtually no water quality functions. The net effect of the upland areas is likely a degradation of water quality in the Duwamish River. Nearly the entirety of the upland areas is composed of impervious surfaces, with the majority of those areas being pollutant -generating parking lots. An outfall directly into the Duwamish River is located in the northwest corner of the property, presumably discharging stormwater from adjacent streets and parking areas. A second outfall is located in the extreme southeast corner of the site, discharging flow from on -site paved areas. Most of the trees in the upland areas are in raised planting beds, leaving their root systems isolated from the surrounding parking areas. This condition reduces the ability of the limited vegetation to filter stormwater runoff from the parking lots, severely limiting the ability of the vegetation to provide the biological and chemical process that would improve water quality in the Duwamish River. This condition is especially critical for those trees located on top of the elevated parking structure, within confined spaces. Root systems for these trees provide no beneficial stormwater functions for the adjacent parking areas. 6.3 Hydrology 6.3.1 Shoreline Buffer Similar to the limitations specific to water quality functions, hydrology functions of the shoreline buffer are limited by the narrow width of the vegetated buffer, the lack of vegetative structure, the armored banks, absence of complexity such as broad floodplains and large woody debris to provide roughness, and the presence of significant impervious surfaces in the buffer. Approximately 50% of the 100-foot shoreline buffer is composed of impervious surfaces, which increase runoff velocities. There is essentially no groundcover or dense herbaceous vegetation that can slow surface water runoff velocities, and the steep slope of 19 Landscape Modification Assessment the inner buffer combined with the armored banks increase runoff velocities into the Duwamish River. The shoreline buffer has the opportunity to provide substantial hydrologic functions given its location between the Duwamish River and a large impervious area. However, the potential to provide these functions is degraded given the existing conditions of the buffer itself. 6.3.2 Upland Areas The upland areas provide no hydrology functions. The extent of impervious surfaces and the lack of vegetation and infiltration soils at or below ground level results in increased runoff from the site into the municipal stormwater system and the Duwamish River. There is no existing ecological structure that functions to reduce stormwater velocities, quantities, or erosive flows into the adjacent river. As with water quality, most of the trees in the upland areas are in raised planting beds, leaving their root systems isolated from the surrounding parking areas. This condition essentially eliminates the ability of the trees reduce stormwater velocities from adjacent parking area. This condition is especially critical for those trees located on top of the elevated parking structure, within confined spaces. Root systems for these trees provide no beneficial hydrological functions for the adjacent parking areas. Finally, no flow control facilities are present between the surrounding streets and parking lots and the stormwater outfalls. 7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes a future change in use for the property. Specifically, the existing office use will be changed to a storage and retail/office use. The existing buildings will be retained and re -purposed for the new use. Storage facilities will be installed within both office building, with direct access likely to occur from the rear. Retail and office uses will be small, taking up only several thousand square feet of the structures. Parking areas will be retained and access will continue from the two driveways on South 112th Street. Existing established landscaping will be modified throughout several areas of the site, including on top of the elevated parking structure, along the road frontage of Tukwila International Boulevard and South 112th Street, and at the rear of the buildings. Landscaping modifications will include the removal of existing significant trees, and the removal of non-native and invasive groundcover. Replacement plantings, including trees, shrubs, and in some areas, groundcover, are proposed for all areas of removal. This section will provide detail regarding the purpose of the proposed landscape modifications, as well as a detailed description of all landscape removal and replacement. 20 The Watershed Company November 2017 7.1 Project Purpose Modifications to the existing landscaping are proposed in order to provide for a more sustainable site landscape, including species, sizing, and spacing more appropriate for the existing development. Much of the existing landscaping, which was installed around 1988, included species inappropriate for the existing planting areas over the long term. As the site landscaping has matured since the time of planting, many of the selected species have grown too large for their original planting areas. The subsections below detail the extent of how the existing landscaping is no longer suited for the developed site. 7.1.1 Inappropriate Species Many areas of the site were planted nearly 30 years ago with species, that upon maturity, are or no longer will be compatible with site layout and configuration. As an example, redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum), western white pine (Pinus monticola), and Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) were planted on top of the elevated parking structure, with some of the trees also directly adjacent to the office buildings. All of these species can exceed 100-feet in height and, in the case of the sequoias, are amongst the oldest, tallest and volumetrically- largest living tree species. Some of these trees have now grown to block views from all five levels of the building. In addition, their canopy extends to touch the building. While still healthy, these trees ideally require more space, and their presence does not fit within the scale of the y C„,1' planting area. Further, the root systems for these trees, confined within planters VA ors Pub' r V""�, c separated from adjacent paved areas, provide no beneficial stormwater functions j for the paved areas. The trees provide functions associated with their canopy, including cooling of paved surfaces, and air quality benefits; however, water quality and hydrological functions are absent. As an additional issue, the placement of these trees atop the elevated parking structure is concerning, as these trees will continue to become larger. There is a concern that the parking structure may not be able to safely support the additional weight of these trees as they continue to grow. Weight restrictions are resently posted for vehicles driving onto the on -site parking structure (Figure 5). Further evaluation may lead to a conclusion that these tree species, which can grow so large, may be ill -suited for this specific location and application, supported as they are by an elevated parking structure. A straightforward solution would be to remove these large -growing trees and replace them with specimens of more suitable species which do not grow as large and are so better suited for the setting. 21 Landscape Modification Assessment Figure 5. Existing weight limit sign at entrance to elevated parking structure. To address this question and evaluate the issue, it was undertaken to estimate the weight of the existing trees and the soil they are growing in and compare it to a future condition when the trees can be expected to have grown larger. As mentioned, the diameters and heights of the existing trees of concern were determined by measurements taken in the course of conducting the commissioned site tree survey. For volume calculations, each tree trunk was approximated as a cone shape and an estimate was added (20%) to account for branches and foliage. For weight calculations, green or wet wood density was estimated based on an internet literature search to be 50 pounds per cubic foot, moderately less than the density of water (62 pounds per cubic foot). Water - saturated soil density for the areas planted with the trees was estimated at 120 pounds per cubic foot, similar to saturated, loose sand. Actual more organic, topsoil -type soils may be slightly to moderately less dense, however, the sand density used in the calculations provides a conservative estimate for use. Finally, a future estimated tree size for the redwoods was set at 4-foot dbh by 100-feet tall. Corresponding estimates for giant sequoia, western white pine, and Japanese Cedar were 4.5-feet dbh by 120-feet tall, 3.5-feet dbh by 90-feet tall, and 3 feet dbh by 80-feet tall, respectively. Five areas of concern were identified atop the elevated parking structure and were assessed for area, approximate soil depth, soil weight, and present and future wood weight. These findings are summarized in Table 4 below. As shown, the planting areas atop the elevated parking structure may experience an average of a 16 percent increase in combined soil and live tree weights over time, reaching a total approximate weight of 2,085 tons. The posted weight limit is presumed to be for a vehicle live load as opposed to the static load of a tree. Regardless, the tree and soil weight is significantly large. It is highly unlikely 22 The Watershed Company November 2017 that this extra weight was factored into the design of the structure during the original design. Also, given newer seismic understanding since 1988 and ensuing building requirements for structures, this weight is likely even more problematic in the case of an earthquake. These calculations were conducted using good -faith estimates and assumptions to arrive at approximate figures and to illustrate, as would commonly be expected, the fact the trees are far too large for the parking structure. These calculations have not been performed or evaluated by a structural engineer. Table 4 - Summary of Potential Weight Increases on the Parking Structure PLANTING AREA (SQ FT) SOIL DEPTH (FT) SATURATED SOIL DENSITY (LB/FT3) SOIL WEIGHT (TONS) PRESENT SOIL AND WOOD WEIGHT (TONS) FUTURE SOIL AND WOOD WEIGHT (TONS) PERCENT INCREASE . 7,360 4-5 120 1,765 1,802 2,085 16 7.1.2 Damage to Existing Infrastructure Much of the existing site landscaping is situated within planting areas that are now too small for the selected species. Subsection 6.1.1 above describes this situation for the planted redwood and sequoia trees on top of the elevated parking structures. Additional examples can be found throughout the parcel, including the most eastern parking spaces facing perpendicular to Tukwila International Boulevard, the parking stalls perpendicular to the rear elevated plaza, and nearly all parking islands in the rear parking lot. Many of these areas include trees with root systems that have grown too large for their planting areas and are now damaging either the retaining wall system containing the planting area or other adjacent infrastructure including curbs, paved parking areas, fire hydrants and other buried utilities, or stormwater outlets. In addition, existing bio-swale areas in the rear parking area have effectively been rendered useless tr t '"'° -IA' through extensive root growth and soil upheaving. This prevents stormwater runoff from parking areas from entering the bio-swale areas. Some of the trees proposed for removal may also be in conflict with utilities. Specific conflicts would most likely occur with existing underground power and telephone lines along Tukwila International Boulevard. The precise depth of these utility lines in unknown at this time. However, it's possible that the root systems of the Austrian pine within this area are already in conflict with the utility lines. 7.1.3 Noncompliance with Existing Standards Much of the existing site landscaping was installed in 1988 and pre -dates existing City landscape design standards. While it may be preferred that existing mature 23 \\ Landscape Modification Assessment 24 landscaping remain on developed sites, several City provisions and goals specifically intend for landscaping to account for site appropriateness. Specifically, TMC 18.52.090.A provides a requirement that newly created plans take species maturity into consideration such that damage to site development does not occur. Specifically, it reads: Landscape plan design shall take into consideration the mature size of proposed landscape materials to minimize the future need for pruning (i.e. placement such that mature trees and shrubs will not cause problems for foundations, obscure signage, grow too close to overhead or underground utility lines, obstruct views of traffic, etc.). In addition, TMC 18.52.020.F accounts for this situation, as well. d. Planting and lighting plans shall be coordinated so that trees are not planted in locations where they will obstruct existing or planned street or site lighting, while maintaining appropriate spacing and allowing for their size and spread at maturity. e. Planting plans shall consider the location of existing or planned signage to avoid future conflicts with mature trees and landscaping. Finally, several polices from the City's Comprehensive Plan policies speak to this, as well: • 4.14.7: Establish minimum standards and landscape specifications to ensure long-term tree health for street trees, required landscape trees and required replacement trees, including minimum soil volume, soil quality, plant quality, planting techniques, irrigation, mulching, tree pruning, and prohibition of topping. • 4.14.8: Develop an approved/recommended tree list for street trees, landscape perimeter planting and parking lots that recognizes the importance of the concept of "right tree, right place", taking into account available planting space and infrastructure/utility conflicts, and that considers the importance of species diversity, climate conditions, canopy coverage goals, allergy issues, urban wildlife benefits, and tolerance of urban conditions. As seen above, the City's municipal code and Comprehensive Plan account for suitable landscape design, with the desire that landscaping be appropriate to the site and the development. Accordingly, it is the intent of the proposed project to provide for a more suitable site landscape while simultaneously bringing much of the site more into compliance with the City's existing landscaping standards. The Watershed Company November 2017 7.2 Landscape Modifications Modifications will provide for a more appropriate and sustainable site landscape. The attached landscape modification plan (Appendix C) includes details regarding these modifications. Proposed activities are also summarized below (see Table 2 for a description of existing conditions within each vegetation zone). Table 5 - Summary of Proposed Landscape Modifications Planting Area Total Trees Trees to be Removed Notes Vegetation Zone 1 26 26 Zone 1 consists of 26 Katsura trees planted within a raised planter that is too small for this species. All 26 trees and intact roots are to be removed. Vegetation Zone 2 13 13 Zone 2 consists of 13 pear trees planted in raised beds. All trees and their intact roots will be removed and replaced in a different location. Vegetation Zone 3 8 8 Zone 7 contains 8 redwoods, all of which will be removed and replaced with new canopy coverage elsewhere on -site. Vegetation Zone 4 18 18 Zone 4 contains 6 katsura trees and 12 flowering crabapples. All trees and their intact roots are to be removed and replaced in a different location. Vegetation Zone 5 23 16 Zone 5 contains 16 Austrian pine trees. All 16 trees and their intact roots are to be removed and replaced at a different location on -site. English ivy to be removed and the understory will be replaced with small trees and shrubs. Vegetation Zone 6 13 13 Zone 6 contains 13 Austrian pine trees planted to close to the existing parking lot and retaining wall. Trees to be removed and replaced with more appropriate street trees and shrubs. Trees are currently planted atop the sites underground power connection. New trees will be planted 5 feet away from any utilities. Vegetation Zone 7 6 6 Zone 7 is a raised bed located on the east side of the parking lot. It currently contains 6 large redwood trees that will be removed. They will be replaced with new canopy coverage elsewhere on -site. Vegetation Zone 8 19 4 Zone 8 contains 4 Austrian pine trees planted in a retained planter between the road and a retaining wall. Trees and their intact roots are to be removed. Trees will be replaced with small trees and shrubs. Vegetation Zone 9 17 2 Zone 9 is a turf bio swale containing a group red maples and western red cedar. Two red maples and the understory turf will be removed. The grades will be adjusted to fix the drainage functions of the swale. Turf will be replaced with appropriate shrubs. Vegetation Zone 10 10 10 Zone 10 contains 4 coast redwoods, two Japanese cedars, two white pines, and two giant sequoia trees. All coast redwoods, and Japanese cedars are to be removed. The giant sequoia and white pines are to be transplanted in a more appropriate planting location. Vegetation Zone 11 38 25 Zone 11 contains 16 Austrian pines, 1 shore pine, and 8 European hornbeams that are to be removed and replaced elsewhere on -site or through payment to the City's tree replacement fund. Vegetation Zone 12 6 6 Zone 12 contains 5 Austrian pine trees and 1 red maple that are to be removed. Trees are to be replaced through payment to the City's tree replacement fund. Vegetation Zone 13 8 1 Zone 13 contains 8 Austrian Pine and 1 Birch tree. The Birch tree will be removed and all Austrian pines will be limbed up one third of their total height. Total 205 148 25 Landscape Modification Assessment 7.3 City of Tukwila Landscape Design Standards The project site includes an existing office use with established landscaping. The site is adjacent to the Duwamish River, and thus includes 200-feet of shoreline jurisdiction. Those areas of the site outside of shoreline jurisdiction would be subject to the landscape design standards of TMC 18.52. Conversely, those areas of the site within shoreline jurisdiction would be subject to the landscape design standards of TMC 18.44.080. This section is intended to present the design standards for each of these two scenarios. 7.3.1 Areas Outside of Shoreline Jurisdiction Chapter 18.52 of the TMC includes landscape requirements applicable to the project site — for areas outside of shoreline jurisdiction. The project site is zoned Manufacturing Industrial Center / Heavy Industrial (MIC/H), and as such, if newly planted today, would be subject to the Type II - Moderate Perimeter Screening requirements of TMC 18.52.020.C. Part of the purpose of the screening standards is to enhance Tukwila's streetscapes and allow views to building entryways and signage. Perimeter plantings are to consist of a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees, one shrub per 4 linear feet, and groundcover. The location and spacing of perimeter trees is subject to the requirements of TMC 18.52.020.F.1 and TMC 18.52.060.B.2 and 3, including the following: 18.52.020.F.1 c. Street trees in the public frontage shall be planted using the following general spacing standards: (1) At least 3-1/2 feet back from the face of the curb. (2) At least 5 feet from underground utility lines. (3) At least 10 feet from utility poles. (4) At least 7-1/2 feet from driveways. (5) At least 3 feet from pad -mounted transformers (except 10 feet in front for access). (6) At least 4 feet from fire hydrants and connections. 18.52.060.B 2. Trees shall be provided adequate spacing from new and existing trees according to the following standards wherever possible: a. Trees categorized as small stature on the tree list shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet on center and not closer than 15 feet on center from other newly planted or existing trees. 26 The Watershed Company November 2017 b. Trees categorized as medium stature on the tree list shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet on center and not closer than 20 feet on center from other newly planted or any existing trees. c. Trees categorized as large stature on the tree list shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet on center and not closer than 30 feet on center from other newly planted or existing trees. d. Any tree determined to have a mature spread of less than 20 feet (a columnar or fastigiate variety) is discouraged except under specific conditions and shall be considered a small stature tree and spaced accordingly. 3. Trees shall be placed according to the following standards: a. Small stature trees shall be planted with the center of their trunks a minimum of 2 feet from any hard surface paving. b. Medium stature trees shall be planted with the center of their trunks a minimum of 2.5 feet from any hard surface paving. c. Large stature trees shall be planted with the center of their trunks a minimum of 3 feet from any hard surface paving. d. Trees shall generally be planted a minimum of (1) 4 feet on center from any fire hydrant, above -ground utility or utility pole; (2) 2 feet on center from any underground utility; (3) 5 feet on center from a street light standard; (4) 20 feet from a street intersection; however, a greater or lesser corner setback may be required based on an analysis of traffic and pedestrian safety impacts. (5) 5 to 10 feet from building foundations depending on species. TMC 18.52.040.B includes standards for visibility as follows: 1. Design of new landscaping and maintenance of existing landscaping shall consider Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principals and visibility for safety and views. Appropriate plant species shall be specified to avoid the need for excessive maintenance pruning. 2. Landscaping shall not obstruct views from or into building windows, the driveway, sidewalk or street. Landscape design shall allow for surveillance from streets and buildings and avoid creating areas that might harbor criminal activity. 3. Landscaping at crosswalks and other locations where vehicles and pedestrians intersect must not block pedestrians' and drivers' views. 27 Landscape Modification Assessment 4. In general, deciduous trees with open branching structures are recommended to ensure visibility to retail establishments. More substantial shade trees or evergreens are recommended in front of private residences. Additional applicable regulations include TMC 18.52.060.A: 2. Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of 6 feet in height at time of planting. 3. Deciduous trees shall have at least a 2-inch caliper at time of planting as measured 4.5 feet from the ground, determined according to the American Standard for Nursery Stock as it now reads and as hereafter amended. 4. Shrubs shall be at least 18 inches in height, and full and bushy at time of planting. 5. New plant materials shall include native species or non-native species with lower water requirements and that are adapted to the climatic conditions of the Puget Sound Region. There must be a diversity of tree and shrub genus and species in the site landscaping, taking into account species in existing development around the site. a. If there are more than 8 required trees, no more than 40 percent may be of one species. b. If there are more than 24 required trees, no more than 20 percent may be of one species. c. If there are more than 25 required shrubs, no more than 50 percent may be of one species. Finally, according to the review criteria for a Tree Removal and Landscape Modification Permit, the following criteria shall apply: • Tree Replacement in Landscaped Areas 1) Each tree removed will be replaced on a one-to-one basis with a species that will attain a similar size and canopy coverage at maturity as the removed tree would have attained. 2) Exceptions will be considered if there are utility, overhead electrical, lines, or other space limitations. 3) Replacement Tree Quality and Size. Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate through the Tree Replacement Plan that replacement trees will meet the following minimum standards: a. Minimum sizes shall be 2.5-inch caliper for deciduous trees, 6 to 8 feet in height for evergreen trees, 24 inches in height for shrubs, and 1 gallon for groundcover. b. Replacement plants shall meet current American Standard for Nursery Stock (American Nursery and Landscape Association —ANLA); 28 The Watershed Company November 2017 c. Trees shall be species suited to and adapted to the local climate. d. Planting and maintenance of required replacement trees shall be in accordance with best management practices which ensure the tree's long- term health and survival. • Impacts to Surrounding Environment - The timing of, and methods to be used in any proposed vegetation removal shall be such that impacts to protected vegetation, wildlife, fisheries and the surrounding environment are minimized. • Tree Relocation - Tree relocation shall be carried out according to best management practices, and trees proposed for relocation shall have a reasonable chance of survival. 7.3.2 Areas Within Shoreline Jurisdiction Vegetation within shoreline jurisdiction (within 200-feet of the Duwamish River) is subject to the requirements of TMC 18.44.080 — Vegetation Protection and Landscaping. According to TMC 18.44.080.B.2, factors that will be considered in approved tree removal include, but are not limited to: tree condition and health, age, risks to structures, and potential for root or canopy interference with utilities. When approved for removal from shoreline jurisdiction, trees must be replaced according to the replacement ratios established in TMC 18.44.080.B.4. If the site cannot accommodate the required number of replacement trees, off -site tree replacement within shoreline jurisdiction may be allowed. If off -site replacement is not feasible, a payment into the City's tree replacement fund may be allowed (TMC 18.44.080.B.6). The current rate for tree replacement, via the City's tree fund, is $124.00 per replacement tree. Pursuant to TMC 18.44.080.C.3, parking lot landscape perimeters require one native tree for each 20 lineal feet of required perimeter landscaping, one shrub for each 4 lineal feet of required perimeter landscaping, and native groundcovers to cover 90% of the landscape area within 3 years, planted at a minimum spacing of 12 inches on -center. Plant sizes, for areas outside of the shoreline buffer, shall be as established in TMC 18.44.080.C.1.j. 7.4 Replacement Plantings Following removal of existing vegetation, as described in Section 6.2 above, replacement plantings will be installed. It is the intent of the proposed project to install replacement plantings more suitable to the existing on -site infrastructure, while seeking to comply with the City's current landscape design standards. Proposed replacement species all come from the City's approved tree list. Large trees include green column maple (Acer nigrum), red maple (Acer rubrum), and Magyar gingko (Gingko biloba). Medium trees include bowhall maple (Acer rubrum), and cascara (Rhamnus purshiana). Small trees include vine maple (Acer 29 Landscape Modification Assessment circinatum), American smoke tree (Cotinus obovatus), cornelian cherry dogwood (Cornus mas), and lancelot crabapple (Malus). Shrubs include strawberry tree shrub (Arbutus unedo), red -twig dogwood (Cornus sericea), winged euonymus (Euonymus alatus), twinberry (Lonicera involucrate), and pacific wax myrtle (Myrica californica). Groundcovers include slough sedge (Carex obnupta) and soft rush (Juncus effuses). Replacement plantings follow three general methods — canopy replacement, 1:1 replacement, and shoreline replacement/tree fund replacement. 7.4.1 Canopy Replacement Trees removed from areas outside of shoreline jurisdiction are subject to replacement on -site at a 1:1 ratio in order to attain a similar size and canopy coverage (per the Tree Removal and Landscape Modification Permit requirements). However, as mentioned, existing trees located on top of the elevated parking structure provide limited functional benefits. These trees are planted in raised beds, leaving their root systems isolated from the surrounding parking areas. This condition eliminates most water quality and hydrological functions. Thus, the only meaningful benefits provided by these threes are ,\(\t,,b t related to their canopy coverage, including cooling of paved surfaces, and air quality and carbon sequestration benefits. For these reasons, and rather than /replacing at a rigid 1:1 ratio, the removal of these trees will include the �1✓ replacement of an equivalent amount of canopy coverage. All replacement trees have been selected from the City's approved tree list. Replacement trees are to be planted in proposed 'Planting Areas' as designated in Table 6 below and as shown graphically on the landscape modification plan (Appendix C). Within Table 6, the column labeled 'Existing Canopy' includes the square footage of canopy cover for each removed tree based upon the surveyed canopy data. The column labeled 'Proposed Canopy Cover' is based upon the square footage of canopy cover provided for each tree species in the City's approved tree list. Table 6 - Summary of Proposed Replacement Plantings — Canopv Replacement VEGETATION ZONE TREES TO BE REMOVED CANOPY COVER TO BE REMOVED (SF)' PROPOSED REPLACEMENT AREAS PROPOSED REPLACEMENT TREES PROPOSED CANOPY COVER (SF)2 Vegetation Zone 1 26 - katsura 5,667 Planting Area 1 4 — red maple 5,028 Vegetation Zone 2 13 — pear 2,637 Planting Area 2 2 - Green column maple 3— Magyar ginkgo 982 1,473 Vegetation Zone 3 8 - redwood 2,126 Planting Area 8 4—red maple 6—smoke trees 5,028 2,946 Vegetation Zone 7 6 — redwood 1,836 Vegetation Zone 10 4 — redwood 2—Japanese cedar 2 — white pine 2 — giant sequoia 1,161 Total 13,427 15,457 ' Canopy cover calculated using individual tree radius data from arborist field assessment. 2 Canopy cover calculated using square footage from City's approved tree list. 30 The Watershed Company November 2017 As seen in Table 6 above, 13,427 square feet of canopy cover will be lost through removal of trees atop the elevated parking structure. However, a greater amount of canopy cover (15,457 square feet) will be provided through replacement plantings to offset the removal of these trees. 7.4.2 1:1 Replacement As mentioned above, trees removed from areas outside of shoreline jurisdiction are subject to replacement on -site at a 1:1 ratio in order to attain a similar size and canopy coverage (per the Tree Removal and Landscape Modification Permit requirements). Thus, for all trees to be removed from areas outside of shoreline jurisdiction and not on top of the elevated parking structure, 1:1 replacement will be provided. Table 7 below includes additional details regarding this replacement approach, including the areas of proposed plantings, referred to a 'Planting Areas'. These areas can also be seen on the landscape modification plan (Appendix C). Table 7 - Summary of Proposed Replacement Plantings — 1:1 Replacement VEGETATION ZONE TREES TO BE REMOVED REQUIRED REPLACEMENT TREES PROPOSED REPLACEMENT AREAS PROPOSED REPLACEMENT TREES Vegetation Zone 4 6 — katsura 12 — crabapple 18 Planting Area 4 32 Vegetation Zone 5 16 — pine 16 Vegetation Zone 6 13 — pine 13 Planting Area 6 18 Vegetation Zone 8 4 — pine 4 Vegetation Zone 9 2 — red maple 2 Planting Area 7 5 Vegetation Zone 13 1- birch 1 Total 54 54 55 As seen in Table 7 above, a total of 54 trees will be removed from areas outside of shoreline jurisdiction and not within the elevated parking structure. These trees will be replaced at slightly greater than 1:1 ratio in three separate planting areas. 7.4.3 Shoreline Replacement / Tree Fund Trees removed from within shoreline jurisdiction are subject to replacement at ratios based upon the diameter of the tree to be removed. However, as allowed by TMC 18.44.080.B.6, if the site is unable to accommodate full replacement at the specific ratios, a payment can be made to the City's tree replacement fund. Removal of 31 trees from within shoreline jurisdiction (but outside of the buffer) will include 25 trees near the rear of the buildings and an additional 6 trees near the northwest driveway entrance. Removal will require replacement with 191 trees. Trees to be removed are not suitable for their given location, both based upon the species present and the size of the planting area. However, on -site replacement at the specified ratios is not feasible, as there is not enough area to 31 Landscape Modification Assessment accommodate the required number of trees. Specifically, existing infrastructure, including paved parking areas, building, and vegetated areas to remain prevent the planting of trees necessary to fulfill shoreline replacement requirements. A total of 15 replacement trees will be provided on -site, within Planting Area 3. Table 8 - Shoreline Tree Replacement On -site VEGETATION ZONE TREES TO BE REMOVED DIAMETER INCHES (DBH) REQUIRED REPLACEMENT TREES PROPOSED REPLACMENT AREA PROPOSED REPLACEMENT TREES Vegetation Zone 11 —3 trees to be removed Austrian pine 23 8 Planting Area 3 15 European hornbeam 8 4 European hornbeam 4 3 Total 15 15 For the remainder of proposed tree removal within shoreline jurisdiction, it is proposed that payment be made to the City's tree replacement fund. Table 9 below includes additional details regarding this replacement approach. Table 9 - Summary of Proposed Replacement Plantings — Tree Fund VEGETATION ZONE TREES TO BE REMOVED DIAMETER INCHES (DBH) REQUIRED REPLACEMENT TREES Vegetation Zone 11— 22 trees to be removed Austrian pine 17 6 Austrian pine 15 6 Austrian pine 14 6 Austrian pine 20 6 Austrian pine 20 6 Austrian pine 13 6 Austrian pine 15 6 Shore pine 11 6 Austrian pine 18 6 Austrian pine 22 8 European hornbeam 10 6 European hornbeam 9 6 European hornbeam 7 4 European hornbeam 9 6 European hornbeam 10 6 European hornbeam 13 6 Austrian pine 18 6 Austrian pine 13 6 Austrian pine 20 6 Austrian pine 21 8 32 The Watershed Company November 2017 Austrian pine 22 8 Austrian pine 13 6 Vegetation Zone 12 — 6 trees to be removed Red maple 19 6 Austrian pine 24 8 Austrian pine 14 6 Austrian pine 26 8 Austrian pine 18 6 Austrian pine 10 6 Total 176 As seen in Tables 8 and 9 above, a total of 31 trees will be removed from within shoreline jurisdiction. Replacement for three of these trees will occur on -site, while the remaining 28 trees will be replaced through payment to the City's tree replacement fund. Utilizing the replacement ratios of TMC 18.44.080.B.4, a total of 191 replacement trees are required. 15 replacement trees are being provided on -site and, because the site is unable to accommodate the remainder, a payment in the amount of $124.00 per tree for the remaining 176 trees will be made to the City's tree replacement fund. This equates to a total payment of $21,824.00. 7.4.4 Compliance with Current Standards As described above, the City's current regulations include provisions for new landscaping, both within and outside of shoreline jurisdiction. It is the intent of the proposed project to ensure that replacement plantings are consistent with these standards. Tables 10 and 11 below summarize the applicable standards and document project compliance. Table 10 - Summary of Provisions Outside of Shoreline Jurisdiction REGULATORY STANDARD REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED COMPLIANCE — YES/NO? Perimeter Landscaping (18.52.020.C) Tree Type • Mix of evergreen & deciduous Yes; a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees are provided in the landscape modification plan. Shrub Spacing • 1 shrub per 4 linear feet Yes; where shrubs are proposed, they have been clustered, though do not constitute more than 4 linear feet per shrub for the length of each planting area. Groundcover • Yes Yes; groundcover is provided in the landscape modification plan. Street Trees (TMC 18.52.020.F) Tree Location • 3.5-ft from face of curb • 5-ft from utilities • 10-ftfrom utility poles • 7.5-ft from driveways • 3-ft from transformers • 4-ft from fire hydrants Yes; replacement trees have been located to account for existing infrastructure. 33 Landscape Modification Assessment Tree Standards (TMC 18.52.060.B) Tree Location • 4-ft from fire hydrant, utility pole • 2-ft from underground utilities • 5-ft from street lights • 20-ft from street intersection • 5-10-ft from building foundations • 3-ft from transformers • 4-ft from fire hydrants Yes; replacement trees have been located to account for existing infrastructure. Tree Spacing • Small trees: > 15-ft but less than 20-ft 2-ft from paved surfaces • Medium trees: >20-ft but less than 30-ft 2.5-ft from paved surfaces • Large trees: < 30-ft but less than 40-ft 3-ft from paved surfaces Yes; replacement trees have been located to account far appropriate spacing standards. Visibility (TMC 18.52.040.B) CPTED • Consider visibility for safety Yes; visibility considerations have been taken while selecting replacement species and locations. Views • Do not block views from or into building windows, the driveway, sidewalk, or street Yes; view considerations have been taken while selecting replacement species and locations. Crosswalks/Intersections • Do not block vehicle or pedestrian views Yes; vehicle and pedestrian view considerations have been taken while selecting replacement species and locations. Tree type • Deciduous trees recommended for retail uses Yes; while there will be a mix of evergreen and deciduous replacement trees, the majority of species will be deciduous. Plant Material (TMC 18.52.060.A) Evergreen Trees • Minimum 6-ft height 1 Yes; all proposed evergreen trees will be a minimum of 6-ft in height. Deciduous Trees • Minimum 2-inch caliper, measured 4.5-ft ' above ground Yes; all proposed deciduous trees will be a minimum of 2-inch caliper. Shrubs • Full and bushy, at least 18-inches in height Yes; all proposed shrubs will be a minimum of 18-inches in height and full and bushy. Species • Native or non-native with lower water requirements and adapted to the region; diversity in tree and shrub species Yes; all proposed replacement species will be either native or have lower water requirements. Diversity • No more than 20% of one tree species • No more than 50% of one shrub species Yes; proposed tree and shrub species will meet diversity requirements. Tree Replacement (Tree Removal and Landscape Modification Permit) Ratio • 1:1 with similar size and canopy coverage (exceptions for space limitations) Yes; all removed trees will be replaced at either a 1:1 ratio or at an equivalent canopy cover. Sizes • Minimum 2.5-inch caliper for deciduous • 6 to 8-ft height for evergreen • 24-inches height for shrubs Yes; all proposed replacement plantings will meet size requirements. 34 The Watershed Company November 2017 Table 11 - Summary of Provisions Within Shoreline Jurisdiction REGULATORY STANDARD REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED COMPLIANCE — YES/NO? Replacement Ratios (18.44.080.B.4) 4-6 inches 6 —8 inches 8 — 20 inches Over 20 inches • 3 trees • 4 trees • 6 trees • 8 trees Yes; required replacement trees have been calculated at the specified ratios. Replacement Location (TMC 18.44.080.6.6) Tree Location • On -site (within or outside of shoreline jurisdiction) or through payment to the City's tree replacement fund Yes; replacement will occur on -site and through payment into the City's tree replacement fund. Landscaping Requirements (TMC 18.44.080.C.3) Perimeter • 1 native tree per 20 lineal feet • 1 shrub per 4lineal feet • 90% groundcover — 12-inch spacing Yes; where vegetation is proposed in shoreline jurisdiction and where appropriate, the spacing requirements will be met. Plant Size (TMC 18.44.080 C.1.j) Deciduous • 2-inch caliper Yes; all proposed deciduous trees will be a minimum of 2-inch caliper. Conifers • 6 — 8 foot height Yes; all proposed conifers will be a minimum of 6-ft in height. Shrubs • 24-inch height Yes; all proposed shrubs will be a minimum of 24-inches in height. Groundcover • 4-inch or 1-gallon container Yes; all proposed groundcover will be a minimum of4-inch or 1-gallon in size. As demonstrated above, the proposed landscape modifications will result in compliance with the City's current landscape design standards, both outside and inside of shoreline jurisdiction. Thus, all replacement plantings will provide for a site landscape consistent with the City's current intentions for developed sites. 7.5 Pruning & Maintenance Trees that are to be retained may be pruned and/or have their canopy raised to avoid aerial conflicts. Specifically, trees to remain along South 112th Street and Tukwila International Boulevard may be limbed up to a minimum height of 8 to 18 feet depending on the location of the tree to allow adequate visibility and clearance for vehicles. Trees may be pruned to improve views of signage and entryways by using such techniques as windowing, thinning, and limbing up; however, no more than 1/4 of the canopy may be removed within any 2-year period (TMC 18.52.080.F). Topping, coppicing, or pollarding are not acceptable treatments for retained trees. 7.6 Timing Proposed landscape modifications will be conducted immediately upon issuance of all required permits by the City of Tukwila. As described in this report, landscape modifications will be undertaken prior to the proposed change in use 35 Landscape Modification Assessment of the site. Thus, following landscape modifications, the office use would be converted into the proposed storage and retail/office use. Timing of modifications shall adhere to all permit conditions of approval. In addition, modification activities shall comply with the City's construction noise provisions, pursuant to TMC 8.22.110. This results in all activities occurring between the hours of 7am and 10pm, Monday through Friday, and 8am and 10pm, Saturday, Sunday, and State -recognized holidays. 7.7 Methods In areas where replanting conflicts are minimal, trees proposed for removal should be flush cut to minimize root zone disturbance of adjacent vegetation to be retained. Pushing over or mechanically felling trees with machinery or equipment is not an acceptable method. Stumps of removed trees should be mechanically ground to allow room for replacement plantings. The attached landscape modification plan (Appendix C) includes additional detail regarding removal and replacement methods. 8 FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS As mentioned, removal of significant trees will occur. However, as described in the previous section, replacement trees are proposed and will comply with all applicable replacement provisions, both inside and outside of shoreline jurisdiction. This section is intended to address the project's impacton on -site biodiversity as a result of the proposed landscape modifications. In addition, this section will address the issue of canopy coverage. 8.1 Biodiversity Biodiversity is the variability of species and forms within a given area. A diversity of plant species contributes to a variety of habitat niches by providing for increased forage, cover and perching opportunities for wildlife. TMC 18.52.060.A.5 mentions species diversity as follows: New plant materials shall include native species or non-native species with lower water requirements and that are adapted to the climatic conditions of the Puget Sound Region. There must be a diversity of tree and shrub genus and species in the site landscaping, taking into account species in existing development around the site. The existing site landscape is lacking in biodiversity with stands of invasive monoculture species in areas of the site. This includes extensive Himalayan blackberry within the shoreline buffer as well as Austrian pine along Tukwila 36 The Watershed Company November 2017 International Boulevard and infestations of English ivy beneath many of the trees. Additionally, diversity is limited in parking medians by the presence of mowed turf grass. Proposed landscape modifications will improve plant species diversity through the planting of eight new tree species, two new shrub species and two new groundcover species. Of these species, ten are native to the Pacific Northwest and the remainder are both drought tolerant and are not listed as noxious or invasive. Total removed species judged unsuitable to the site total just five (katsura, redwood, pear, Japanese cedar, and scots pine). New, replacement species will number 17, for a total improvement in diversity of 12 species. Therefore, overall, biodiversity is expected to increase as a result of this proposal. 8.2 Canopy Coverage The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan includes several goals related to tree canopy coverage within the City. Specifically, Goal 4.13 calls for a City-wide increase in the tree canopy from 25% (as measured in 2012) to 29% by 2034. Within Heavy Industrial Zones, the Comprehensive Plan sets of goal of increasing canopy coverage from 9% to 10%, over the same timeframe. Additionally the Comprehensive Plan includes the following policy: • 4.13.4: Ensure that required replacement trees at maturity will have equivalent or larger canopies than the removed tree(s), except where existing or future infrastructure and/or public or private utilities impede the planting of large trees. The 2012 canopy coverage statistics described above come from the December 2012 City of Tukwila Washington Urban Tree Canopy Assessment, prepared by Davey Resource Group. The assessment concluded that land cover within the Manufacturing Industrial Center / Heavy Industrial (MIC/H) zone consisted off 72% impervious, 13% pervious, 9% canopy cover, 4% open water, and 2% bare soil. As described in Section 4.1 above, the project site includes an estimated canopy cover of 22.6% based upon surveyed and measured canopy radius. In order to assess canopy coverage following proposed. landscape modifications, the City's approved tree list was utilized. Specifically, the list includes a square footage figure for each tree. For example, vine maple includes a canopy cover of 314 square feet, while beaked hazelnut includes a cover of 707 square feet. Utilizing the method described above, Table 12 below details proposed canopy coverage compared to existing coverage. As can be seen, following 37 1 Landscape Modification Assessment implementation of landscape modifications, canopy cover will decrease from 22.6% to 16.1°10. However, upon installation of replacement plantings, and utilizing the canopy cover square footages from the City's approved tree list, canopy coverage for the entire parcel will be 22.2%. Table 12 - Proposed Canopy Coverage AREA ESTIMATED EXISTING CANOPY COVERAGE PROPOSED CANOPY COVERAGE CANOPY FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS CANOPY AFTER REPLANTING Shoreline Buffer (113,681 SF) 40.3% (45,870 SF) 40.3% (45,870 SF) 40.3% (45,870 SF) Shoreline Jurisdiction — outside of buffer (114,120 SF) 29.4% (33,528 SF) 22.3% (25,462 SF) 31.7% (36,142 SF) Non -shoreline (333,437 SF) 14.3% (47,708 SF) 5.7% (19,225 SF) 12.8% (42,811 SF) Overall Site Canopy (561,238 SF) 22.6% (127,106 SF) 16.1% (90,557 SF) 22.2% (124,823 SF) As seen above, on -site canopy coverage will slightly decrease (<0.5%) following implementation of landscape modifications. However, an important factor should be considered. A majority of the trees to be removed within shoreline jurisdiction are being replaced through payment to the City's tree replacement fund. A total of 31 trees are being removed from within shoreline jurisdiction, with the replacement requirements for three trees being met on -site. The remaining 28 trees, at the replacement ratios of TMC 18.44.080.B.4, will require the need to pay for 176 replacement trees. Therefore, it is assumed that the City will utilize these funds to plant this number of trees elsewhere within the City. Utilizing a conservatively low canopy coverage area of 314 square feet per tree (consistent with medium sized trees in the City's approved tree list and also with TMC 18.54.140.B.2) results in an additional 55,264 square feet of canopy coverage within the City. If this total is added to the post -landscape modification site total, then a significant overall net gain in canopy coverage within the City will result from the proposed project. 9 REQUEST FOR LANDSCAPE MODIFICATION 38 Modifications to the City's landscaping requirements can occur pursuant to the standards of TMC 18.52.100 - Request for Landscape Modifications. TMC 18.52.100.0 provides specific criteria for revisions to existing landscaping. As mentioned, development of the site in 1988 would have included an approved landscape plan. Thus, the site is considered to have 'existing landscaping' and therefore, modifications to the landscaping are subject to the standards of TMC The Watershed Company November 2017 18.52.100.C. This section is intended to demonstrate project compliance with this regulatory provision. C. Revisions to existing landscaping may be approved only if the following criteria are met: 1. The modification or revision does not reduce the landscaping to the point that activities on the site become a nuisance to neighbors; and Response: The site, and surrounding parcels, are currently zoned Manufacturing Industrial Center / Heavy Industrial (MIC/H). The nearest residential uses within the City of Tukwila are located approximately 1,700 feet southeast of the project site, east of E. Marginal Way. The project site is just visible from the E. Marginal Way bridge (Figure 6), but is likely not visible from the residential lots located just east of the bridge. Additional residential uses are located approximately 500 feet west of the project site, across the Duwamish River and within the City of Burien. This area includes several homes situated on large lots (> 0.5 acre), with views of the on -site buildings (Figure 7). ): .-114SMlf[R+rlk A a= Figure 6. View toward the project site from the E. Marginal Way bridge. Note the on -site buildings just visible in the background. (Google Maps) 39 timY Landscape Modification Assessment Figure 7. Existing residential uses west of the project site. Note the on - site building visible within the extreme right portion of the photo. (King County iMap) Immediately adjacent uses all lie within the same zoning district as the project site. However, no property directly abuts the subject parcel, as it is technically bounded by the Duwamish River to the west and south, and by the rights -of -way for Tukwila International Boulevard to the east and South 112th Street / Seattle pipeline to the north. Thus, for the purposes of analyzing compliance with this provision, 'neighbors' includes those parcels immediately adjacent to the rights -of -way along the north and east boundaries of the subject parcel. This is consistent with. the City's definition of 'adjacent' found in TMC 18.06.018: ss "Adjacent" means lying near or close to; sometimes, contiguous; neighboring. Adjacent implies that the two objects are not widely separated, though they may not actually touch. Table 13 includes a summary of each of these parcels. In addition, it should be noted that each of the neighboring uses are located on parcels that are generally void of any vegetation. The table describes existing vegetation for each parcel. The uses described in the table are shown graphically on Figure 8. 40 The Watershed Company November 2017 Table 13 - Summary of Neiahborina Uses NEIGHBORING USE ADDRESS USE EXISTING LANDSCAPING? MAP KEY North Wind's Weir 11025 Tukwila International Boulevard King County restoration site Naturally vegetated 1 Pacific Strapping, Inc. 2922 South 112thIndustrial Street manufacturer of woven strapping No 2 Vacant 11061 South 112th Street Vacant No 3 Horizon Ford 11000Tukwila International Boulevard Auto dealer No 4 Heiser Body Company 11210 Tukwila International Boulevard Truck equipment distributor Several shrubs near the office entrance 5 Jet Fuel Espresso 11234 Tukwila International Boulevard Drive-thru coffee shop No 6 Lifestyle Landscapes 11234 Tukwila International Boulevard Corporate office for landscape design firm Several ornamental shrubs and four conifers along southern boundary 7 Chinook Wind 11244 Tukwila International Boulevard King County restoration site Currently cleared, expected to be graded lower and restored with natural vegetation 8 Figure 8. Identifying map of adjacent uses (keyed to Table 13). (Google Earth) 1 1 1 1 p ICJ a. 41 Landscape Modification Assessment As described in detail in previous sections, the project site includes landscaping, much of which was installed around 1988. Landscaping includes trees, shrubs, and groundcover planted throughout areas of the site, including parking medians, islands, and planting beds adjacent to buildings. In addition, trees exist along both Tukwila International Boulevard and South 112th Street. The site is currently utilized as an office use. Employee vehicles enter and exit the site throughout the day, utilizing both driveways located on South 112th Street. The existing office use can accommodate approximately 600 employee vehicles in on -site parking areas. This number exceeds the City's requirement to provide three parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space (TMC 18.56.050). As an office use, vehicles would generally arrive in the morning and exit in the evening. Following landscape modifications, the on -site buildings will be repurposed into a storage and retail/office use. Activities associated with the proposed use would include ingress and egress of customer vehicles and rental trucks. Retail and storage uses would occur inside the existing buildings. Access to the storage uses are likely to occur from the rear of the buildings. The re -purposed use, utilizing the City's parking standards, will require a minimum of approximately 110 parking spaces. Of this, the storage use will generate demand for approximately 100 parking spaces, while the retail./office use will generate demand for approximately 10 spaces. Thus, as evidenced by a significantly smaller margin of required parking spaces, it is expected that far fewer vehicles will utilize the repurposed use, as compared to the existing use. The proposed landscape modifications include removal of existing significant trees, many of which have been determined to not be adequate for their current planting areas. Removed trees will be replaced with new species more suited to the overall site landscape, while some trees removed from behind the buildings will be replaced through a payment to the City's tree replacement fund. Proposed modifications will change the aesthetic look of site landscaping along the edges of several portions of the buildings, including the rear of the buildings. However, the changes at the rear of the buildings will not be visible to any neighboring use. Changes at the front of the buildings may be partially visible from Uses through 7. However, these changes will simply result in more of the on -site buildings being visible, and will not result in any specific on -site activity becoming a nuisance to neighboring uses. 42 The Watershed Company November 2017 Other landscape modifications include removal of smaller stature trees from within the top of the elevated parking structure. This would include removal of katsura and pear trees. However, these trees are currently only visible from within the top of the parking structure and thus, their removal will not be visible to adjacent properties and therefore, will not create a nuisance. Finally, trees will be removed from along both Tukwila International Boulevard and South 112th Street. Removal includes Austrian pine, katsura, and crabapple. These trees are currently visible from drivers on both aforementioned roadways as well as from adjacent Uses 2 through 7. The trees will be replaced with red maple, American smoke tree, green column maple, vine maple, and Magyar ginkgo. Replacement plantings have been designed to be consistent with the City's current landscape design standards, including species, size, and spacing. The removal of these trees and replacement with new plantings will change the view from these roadways and properties. However, the replacement trees will continue to provide an aesthetically pleasing view, as intended by the City's current street tree standards. In addition, the proposed 1:1 replacement of street trees will help to maintain perimeter landscaping, such as it was intended by the City's current street tree standards. For the purposes of this analysis, it is worth noting that the term 'nuisance' is not defined by the TMC. However, as established by TMC 18.06.005, the customary meaning of the word shall be utilized. Per Meriam-Webster's online dictionary, 'nuisance' is defined as 'harm, injury'; and 'one that is annoying, unpleasant, or obnoxious'. Activities conducted on -site under the proposed use - storage and retail/office - will not be significantly different from either the existing on -site use or the use of neighboring properties. Thus, the proposed use will not create a nuisance to neighbors. In addition, as demonstrated above, the proposed landscape modifications will not significantly alter views or aesthetics from neighboring uses, nor would they result in a reduction of landscaping to a point inconsistent with the landscaping of neighboring uses. Therefore, as required by this provision, the proposed landscape modifications will not reduce the landscaping to the point that activities on the site become a nuisance to neighbors. 43 Landscape Modification Assessment 2. The modification or revision does not diminish the quality of the site landscape as a whole; and either Response: Existing site landscape quality could best be described as inappropriate or oversized. As described elsewhere in this document, a significant number of the existing trees proposed for removal are no longer suited for their position in the site landscape. Specifically, trees were planted in areas too small to account for their full maturity or an inappropriate species was chosen for a specific location. This has resulted in trees too close to the existing buildings, trees without adequate planting area volume or depth, trees too close to existing utilities, and trees too large to maintain adjacent infrastructure. In addition, the site includes numerous areas of extensive English ivy growth, with other areas of the site landscaping void of any understory vegetation. Thus, while the site enjoys a significant number of trees, the quality of the overall landscape is diminished by the lack of native understory and inappropriate tree species and size. Ecological functions provided by the existing site landscaping (described in detail in Section 5), particularly within the upland areas of the site, are diminished, including habitat, water quality, and hydrological functions. In addition, monocultures of some species, and a lack of native understory result in reduced biodiversity on -site. The proposed landscape modifications will include removal of inappropriate trees and replacement with species more suited for the developed site and more consistent with the City's current landscaping standards. Further, native understory plantings will be added to some areas of the site, resulting in a more aesthetically pleasing look, while also increasing the biodiversity of the site. Therefore, the quality of the site landscape will not be diminished, rather uponmaturity, quality will be maintained, or may improve, over the existing condition. a. Proposed vegetation removal, replacement, and any mitigation measures proposed are consistent with the purpose and intent given in this chapter; or Response: Pursuant to TMC 18.52.010, the purpose of Chapter 18.52 to establish minimum requirements for landscaping. A response to relevant minimum requirements is included below. • Implement the Urban Forestry Comprehensive Plan goals and policies by increasing tree canopy throughout the City to improve 44 The Watershed Company November 2017 air quality; promote the health of residents, visitors and employees; and reduce heat islands and stormwater flows. Element 4 of the City's Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies for Urban Forestry, including a goal to increase tree canopy coverage throughout the City. More specifically, Goal 4.13 calls for an increase in canopy coverage within the City's heavy industrial zones from 9% to 10%. As detailed in Section 7.3 above, the project site currently includes 22.6% canopy cover. Utilizing the City's canopy cover figures from its approved tree list, the project site will include 22.2% canopy cover following proposed landscape modifications. This equates to an approximate 2,283 square foot reduction in on -site canopy coverage. However, including the canopy cover provided by 176 replacement trees that will be part of the City's tree replacement fund (utilizing a conservatively low canopy coverage area of 314 square feet - consistent with medium sized trees in the City's approved tree list and also with TMC 18.54.140.B.2), an additional 55,264 square feet of canopy cover will be provided elsewhere in the City. Therefore, an overall significant net gain in canopy coverage within the City will result from the proposed landscape modifications. • Support the low impact development goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the City's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit. Element 4 of the City's Comprehensive Plan includes a goal (4.1.5) related to low -impact development, as follows: o Develop and implement programs that encourage Tukwila residents and businesses to take active measures to protect and enhance Tukwila's natural environment. Such measures could include the use of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques, natural streambank restoration, non -toxic lawn care, composting and recycling, among others. An implementation strategy can also be found in Element 4: o Encourage the use of LID for surface water management for new development or redevelopment, where appropriate. 45 Landscape Modification Assessment The proposed landscape modifications will include the enhancement of existing stormwater bio swales which are located within Vegetation Zone 9 on the southwest side of the parcel. Enhancement of the bio swale would include the removal of existing turf, soil amendment, regrading to fix over grown curb cuts, and the planting of appropriate shrub species. These actions will provide additional water retention and groundwater infiltration and help reduce the burden of high water flows on the existing stormwater outfalls that drain directly into the adjacent Duwamish River. • Promote safety. Proposed landscape modifications will improve sight distance concerns in several areas, as well as removal of several trees now too large for their original planting area. Some of these trees, including the redwood and sequoia, if not removed, would continue to grow taller while their root systems remained confined within small planting areas. Thus, the risk of failure with these trees would increase, if not removed. In this regard, the proposed landscape modifications will improve safety. The remainder of proposed landscape modifications, while not necessarily improving safety, will not detract from or worsen safety. • Provide screening between incompatible land uses. As described above in Table 13, the project site is surrounded by other uses within the Manufacturing Industrial Center / Heavy Industrial (MIC/H) zone. All of these uses are compatible with the existing on -site use (office) as well as the proposed change in use (storage and retail/office). The nearest non -industrial zone within the City is located approximately 1,700 feet southeast of the project site. Thus, while adjacent properties may change use in the future, it is likely that any new uses would remain compatible with uses at the project site. As for adjacency, it is worth noting that no adjacent use directly abuts the project site. That is, the site is directly bounded by only the Duwamish River and the rights -of -way for Tukwila International Boulevard and the South 112th Street / Seattle pipeline. Therefore, any potential conflicts with adjacent land uses are further minimized. As for proposed landscape modifications, some existing perimeter 46 The Watershed Company November 2017 landscaping will be replaced. However, proposed replacement plantings have been designed consistent with the City's current landscape design standards, including for perimeter screening and street trees in the public frontage. Therefore, compatibility with adjacent uses will be ensured. • Mitigate the adverse effects of development on the environment. Proposed landscape modifications will occur at a developed site; no new development is proposed. The site includes two existing office buildings, along with paved parking areas. The proposal involves removal of existing landscaping that is no longer suitable to the site. All areas of landscape removal will include replacement plantings. Thus, while no new development is planned, landscaped areas will remain on -site and will continue to 'mitigate' for any adverse effects of the existing development. • Improve the visual environment for both residents and nonresidents. Proposed landscape modifications will result in improved aesthetics at the project site, both for residents and non- residents. Specifically, areas of monoculture species (some of which have been poorly pruned/limbed), that have grown too large for their original planting areas, will be removed and replaced with a more diverse arrangement of species. This will include the addition of native understory, which is currently lacking throughout the site. A more diverse and complex landscape will provide more visual variation, including a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, as well as more flowering and colorful species. It will also provide an increase in habitat value at the site. All proposed replacement plantings will comply with the City's current landscape design standards, which have taken into account visual parameters. Therefore, proposed landscape modifications will result in an improvement of the visual environment. • Regulate the protection of existing landscaping. The project site includes existing landscaping, much of which was installed at the time of site development (circa 1988). The proposal seeks to modify the existing landscaping as allowed by TMC 18.52.100.C; however, landscaping will remain on -site following implementation of the proposed modifications. 47 Landscape Modification Assessment • Establish requirements for the long-term maintenance of required landscaping. The project site will be maintained following implementation of all proposed landscape modifications. Maintenance will be carried out in compliance with TMC 18.52.080 and 18.44.080.D. The proposed landscape modifications will result in a site landscape more suitable to the size and layout of on -site planting areas, will decrease the impact on existing adjacent infrastructure, will provide for improved aesthetics, will result in an increase in on -site biodiversity, and will comply with the City's current landscape design standards. Overall, the proposed landscape modifications are consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 18.52. b. The granting of an exception or standard reduction will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. Response: The proposed landscape modification project is not requesting an exception or standard reduction. 3. In addition, if trees are removed due to conflicts with utilities, these trees shall be replaced based on the tree replacement table (Table C) in TMC Chapter 18.52.110. Response: Some of the trees proposed for removal may be in conflict with utilities. Specific conflicts would most likely occur with the underground power and telephone lines along Tukwila International Boulevard. However, these conflicts have not been confirmed. Thus, trees are to be removed for the reasons discussed in prior sections of this report. O SUMMARY The applicant proposes a change in use of the property, from office to storage and retail/office. Ahead of the formal change in use, the applicant proposes landscape modifications to portions of the site. Modifications include the removal of 148 significant trees on -site. Of that total, 31 trees will be removed within shoreline jurisdiction (but outside of the shoreline buffer). Trees are to be removed and replaced with more appropriate species to provide for a more sustainable site landscape, including species, sizing, and spacing more suitable for the existing development and also consistent with the City's current landscape design standards. In addition to providing for a more appropriate and sustainable site landscape, proposed species will provide for an increase in 48 The Watershed Company November 2017 on -site biodiversity. Finally, proposed modifications will comply with the City's provisions for revisions to existing landscaping found in TMC 18.52.100.C. DISCLAIMER The information contained in this report is based on the application of technical guidelines currently accepted as the best available science. All discussions, conclusions and recommendations reflect the best professional judgment of the author(s) and are based upon information available to us at the time the study was conducted. All work was completed within the constraints of budget, scope, and timing. The findings of this report are subject to verification and agreement by the appropriate local, State and Federal regulatory authorities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Although the tree assessment information in this report is based on sound methodology, internal physical flaws (such as cracking or root rot) or other conditions that are not visible cannot be detected with this limited basic visual screening. Trees are inherently unpredictable. Even vigorous and healthy trees can fail due to high winds, heavy snow, ice storms, rain or other factors. This report is based on the current observable conditions and may not represent future conditions at the site. Changes in site conditions, including clearing and grading, will alter the condition of remaining trees in a way that is not predictable. The conclusions contained within this report have been made for permitting purposes only and are not intended for tree risk assessment purposes. 49 The Watershed Company November 2017 APPENDIX A Photos Photo 1. Limited rooting space for Katsura trees in Zone 1. Photo 2. Katsura trees in Zone 4. Photo 3. Cracks in retaining wall in Zone 4. Photo 4. Austrian pines (background) and flowering crabapple (left foreground) in Zone 5. Photo 5. Zone 5, northeast corner of site. Photo 6. Thick English ivy surrounding Austrian pines in Zone 5. Photo 7. Cracked trunk in Zone 5. Photo 8. Evidence of boring pests in Zone 5. Photo 9. Evidence of boring pests in Zone 5. Photo 10. Evidence of boring pests, sparse interior canopy in Zone 5. Photo 11. View of upper parking lot and building from Northeast corner of upper parking lot. Photo 12. Westward view from northeast corner of upper parking lot. 1 Photo 13. Redwood trees in Zone 7. Photo 14. Redwood trees in Zone 7 creating cracks in parking structure. Photo 15. Redwood trees in Zone 3. Photo 16. View of building, Zone 8, and Tukwila International Boulevard from southeast corner of site. Photo 17. View of building's south side, Zone 9, and parking lot from southeast corner of site. Photo 18. Elevated rear plaza on southwest side of towers. B Photo 19. Topped tree (center) in Zone 11. Photo 20. Roots causing pavement to crack/uplift in parking lot, southwest of buildings. r Psi i i 1 1 1 a r Pholo 21. Tree with very sparse canopy (second from right) in rear parking lot. Photo 22. Trees planted too close to retaining wall in Zone 11. Photo 23. Trees planted too close to retaining wall in Zone 11. Photo 24. Tree roots causing curb and parking lot to crack/uplift in Zone 11. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Photo 25. Tree roots causing curb and parking lot to crack/uplift in Zone 11. Photo 26. Tree roots causing curb and parking lot to crack/uplift in Zone 11. Photo 27. Thick understory of English ivy in Zone 8. Photo 28. Root growth into outfall in Zone 9. Photo 29. Trees in Zone 6 planted dose to fence and retaining wall. Photo 30. Drainage swale west of building. 1 1 1 Photo 31. Limited rooting space, roots growing into curb in Zone 9. Photo 32. Roots causing parking lot to crack/uplift in Zone 12. Photo 33. Parking lot previously re -surfaced due to cracks caused by tree roots (Zone 12). Photo 34. Roots causing parking lot to crack/uplift in Zone 12. Photo 35. Roots causing major crack in parking lot southwest of building. Photo 36. Tree planted very close to fire hydrant in rear parking lot. r.� ii Ind f1 Photo 37. Tree roots significantly constricted by parking island in rear parking lot. Pholo 38. Roots causing parking lot and curb to crack/uplift in Zone 11. Photo 39. Trees planted close to retaining wall in Zone 11. Photo 40. Trees planted close to retaining wall in Zone 11. ff la 1 Photo 41. Trees planted close to retaining wall in Zone 11. Photo 42. View of Zone 14. Photo 43. Spore growth near tree base in Zone 11. Photo 44. Group of redwood trees planted atop the parking structure. Photo 45. Evidence of parking lot repair near Zone 6. Photo 46. Katsura planted near sidewalk. Photo 43-47: View of stormwater outfall to river (upper left), buffer edge along the river (upper right), stormwater outfall area (bottom left), and view north along Tukwila International Boulevard (bottom right). Landscape Modification Assessment APPENDIX B Tree Table Appendix B - II Glossary The information collected for each tree is organized into a spreadsheet format. In an effort to keep the spreadsheet concise and clear, terms and descriptions are brief. This glossary offers a more thorough explanation of the terms and descriptions used. • Boring pests: Evidence of animals or insects boring into trunk, indicated by groupings of small holes. • Can rad: Canopy radius, the distance from the trunk to the furthest branch tips. Commonly referred to as "drip line." • Chlorosis: The yellowing of plant leaves due to iron deficiency. This nutrient deficiency results in a weakened tree that is vulnerable to disease and insect attack. • Codominant: Trunk diverges into multiple leaders. • Comb DBH: In instances of trees with 2 or more trunks, the multiple DBH measurements are entered into a formula which produces a "Combined DBH" figure. • Common name: the widely -used, common name of each tree species. • Condition: An overall rating of the tree's health, on a scale of 1 (Excellent) to 5 (Severe). o 1: "Excellent" • Healthy crown, symmetrical canopy, balanced branch growth. • Sound trunk, normal bark growth. • Absence of root, insect, and disease problems. • Long-term lifespan expected, attractive tree. o 2: "Good" ■ Mostly healthy crown, balanced branch growth (minor dieback okay). • Sound trunk, normal bark growth. • No root problems, no or insignificant insect or disease problems. • Long-term lifespan expected. o 3: "Fair" • Crown has some branch loss, slow branch growth, minor or major twig dieback. • Partly unsound trunk, slow diameter growth, low bark growth. • Minor root, insect, or disease problems. • Short-term lifespan expected (10-30 years). o 4: "Poor" • Major branch loss creating asymmetrical crown, majorly reduced branch growth, loss of several structurally important branches. • Trunk has bark loss and/or significant decay, poor bark growth. ■ Root, insect, or disease problems requiring immediate attention. • Short-term lifespan expected (1-10 years). o 5: "Severe" • Lacks sufficient crown growth for survival. • Major branch dieback. • Unsound trunk, significant bark loss, very poor bark growth. ■ Severe root, insect, or disease problems. • Mortality expected within the next few years. • Constricted root mass: Tree's roots are unable to extend naturally, blocked by hardscape or other barrier. • Crown: The crown is the uppermost 25 percent of a tree's canopy. The crown condition is an important indicator of overall tree health, as it is one of the first areas to reflect stress and pathogenic attack. • DBH: Diameter at Breast Height: A tree's trunk diameter, measured at approximately 4.5 feet above the average ground level of the tree base. • DEC: A Deciduous tree, which loses its foliage in the fall and winter season. • Dieback: The Toss of foliage in the tree canopy, signifying a tree in declining health. • Epicormic shoots: Shoots which emerge from the roots of a tree in response to stress, indicating that a tree isn't producing enough energy to survive, and is therefore attempting to do so through these new shoots. • EV: An Evergreen tree, which maintains its foliage throughout the year. • Exfoliating bark: The loss of bark cover on the tree trunk. • Foliage: A description of the tree's leaves, twigs, and branches relative to an ideal specimen of a specific tree species. • Girdling roots: Occurs when a tree's roots wrap themselves partially or entirely around the trunk, choking off the flow of water and nutrients between the roots and the tree's branches and leaves. • Hardscape damage: the expansion and strengthening of the tree's roots is putting pressure on the parking lot and curb, causing concrete to crack and lift. • Height: The height of the tree's uppermost point above the surface of the ground. • Intertwined with irrigation: The tree roots are wrapping around the buried irrigation system. • Kink: A shift in growth direction along the tree trunk. • LCR: The percentage of Live Crown Ratio —the proportion of green crown to tree height, an important gauge of tree health. A high percentage indicates that the tree is generating enough photosynthetic activity to support the tree. A lower percentage of LCR (less than 30 to 40 percent) indicates a shortage of photosynthetic activity and can be an indication of declining tree health. • Leader: The primary trunk(s) supporting the tree's upper branches and leaves. o Crossing leader: A tree with two or more leaders has crossover or intertwining of the trunks. o Lost leader: The leader has been broken from the tree, preventing further growth and usually resulting in death of the tree. • Limbed: A tree's lower branches have been removed. • Notes: Any additional details pertaining to tree health and structure. • Out -shaded: Another tree is blocking the sunlight that the tree would otherwise receive, which stunts that tree's growth. • Phototrophic lean: The leaning of a tree's trunk caused by growth toward sunlight. • Poor bud presence: The tree has less buds present than a healthy tree of its species should. • Poor trunk flare: The area where the trunk enters the ground and the buttress roots disperse inward towards the truck as opposed to away from the trunk and into the soil. • Root collar: The area where the trunk enters the ground and the buttress roots disperse away from the trunk and into the soil. • Roots: The below -ground portion of a tree that lacks buds and leaves, extending in many directions to absorb water and nutrients from the soil. • Scaffold branches: The largest of a tree's branches, which emerge directly from its trunk. • Scientific name: the officially accepted scientific name of each tree, consisting of its genus and species. • Self -corrected lean: An initially angled growth of the trunk's base is righted; the tree continues its growth straight up. • Solid root mass: Roots grow in an intertwined bundle, frequently in response to a limited rooting space. • Sparse canopy: Branches and twigs exist at a lower density than an ideal tree of the same species. • Spore: Mushroom or other fungi emerging from part of the tree. • Staked: The tree trunk has been secured to stakes to promote straight upward growth. • Stems: The amount of leaders emerging at the tree's base. • Stressed cone crop: A tree's overproduction of cones in response to stress. • Symmetry: The overall shape or evenness of the tree's canopy and crown. o Symm: A generally symmetrical canopy. Branches are evenly spacedboth vertically and radially. o Asymm: An imbalance of canopy cover on one side of the tree. This decreases the tree's stability and health, and elevates its hazard potential. • Tag: the unique numbered tag affixed to each tree. • Topped: The tree's crown has been removed, often to avoid impacting aerial structures such as power lines. • Trunk: The main axis of a tree, which emerges from the roots and supports the tree's canopy. The "trunk" section notes any defects that may impact the tree's stability or hazard potential. • Trunk rot: Decay within the trunk. • Water cavity: A fungal or bacterial attack has created a cavity in the trunk where water pools. • Water sprouts: Shoots emerging from the tree's trunk or branches from latent buds. • Witch's broom: A deformity in the tree's shape, demonstrated by clumped growth of many branches in the tree canopy. • Wound: a significant impact has permanently altered the trunk and its bark. I Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 S 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 CV1t+L PAN t TAGS TREE NAME u w p! `. w 1 (n w u— 1 r n m W p p m z E D °v 2.. H = 2 s w a z p � z . o m ° p z l O8 w z 2 acc o �E _ w E E 1 ,-, w ci 1 — w v z 1. m ° z F 3 p cc O x z cc _ �_ ^_ _ . , - i CX o v F a �n i--. ae 1573 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 12 35 13 2 11 No Hardscape damage, roots 60% covered. 1574 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 12. 13 13 3 11 No Asymm Sparse interior. Poor trunk flare. 1575 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 22 15 15 3 11 No Sparse canopy. Codominant at 12 ft. Mushroom spores around base. 1576 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 17 13 13 3 11 Yes Poor trunk flare. Hardscape damage. 1577 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 15 14 14 3 11 Yes Asymm Hardscape damage, girdling roots. 1578 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 14 13 13 3 11 Yes Over -extended branches, included bark. Hardscape damage, girdling roots. 1579 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 20 15 15 3 11 Yes Included bark. Codominant at 20 ft. Hardscape damage, girdling roots. 1580 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 20 15 15 3 11 Yes Sparse canopy. Poor trunk flare. Hardscape damage. 1581 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 13 12 12 3 11 Yes Sparse canopy. Included bark. Codominant at 12 ft. Hardscape damage. 1582 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 15 10 10 3 11 Yes Asymm Codominant at 20 ft. Enlarged buttress. Hardscape damage. 1583 Pinus contorta (Shore pine) E 1 11 25 10 4 11 Yes Top broken. Kink at 12 ft. Hardscape damage, limited root zone. 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 1 OF 24 HE WATERSHED OMPA Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 S 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 TAG # IvNC1 1P TREE NAME Iw^OO'__OOOw a E 'Z , 1 _ m W t I mZ 2 m 18 P. ;: 2a 35 • w a Z p' z D 12 Z O F O Z 3 w Z 11 —1a > 0 2 Yes cc F w E Y>i w O a O w V Z a z Included bark. z O p Z z O j oc Codominant at 10 ft. aJ O_ ~ 0 OCC Vfx p O CC 1584 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) 1585 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 22 45 15 3 11 Yes Codominant at 18 ft. Hardscape damage. 1586 Carpinus betulus (European hornbeam) D 1 10 35 10 2 11 Yes 1587 Carpinus betulus (European hornbeam) D 1 9 35 10 2 11 Yes 1588 Carpinus betulus (European hornbeam) D 1 7 30 8 2 11 Yes 1589 Carpinus betulus (European hornbeam) D 1 9 25 8 2 11 Yes 1590 Carpinus betulus (European hornbeam) D 1 8 22 11 3 11 Yes Included bark. 1591 Carpinus betulus (European hornbeam) D 2 4 14 6 3 11 Yes 1592 Carpinus betulus (European hornbeam) D 1 10 18 10 2 11 Yes 1593 Carpinus betulus (European hornbeam) D 1 13 22 15 2 11 Yes 1594 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 18 45 12 3 11 Yes Included bark. Codominant at 8 ft. Poor trunk flare. Spores near base. 750 both Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 2 OF 24 THE 'WATERSHED HE COMPANY Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 S 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 TAG # TREE NAME --. -- - - -_ ..WJ.3t W . I > E N J. 1 m W co m Z O O CJ C,.. 23 2 w S 45 W Q ? 2 z 0 0 rL 10 Z O O O CJ 3 W O N 11 Q E w .K�_.__.J Yes u cc i— E • > LA Asymm W Q O -_. ...W H W Q < j.. z O O Z —CJ_z. .. - -1--. _ ___. i. _. _ Codominant at 8 ft. J O O _.. 1 _ 0 — _._—_.. -!!. LA F.' 0 C. Spores near base. 1595 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) 1596 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 13 30 10 4 11 Yes Sparse canopy. Codominant at 6 ft. Spores near base. 1597 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 20 25 16 4 11 Yes Sparse canopy, chlorosis. Topped. Hardscape damage. 1598 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 21 40 13 3 11 Yes Chlorosis. Codominant at 10 ft. Poor trunk flare. 1599 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 22 40 14 3 11 Yes Sparse interior. Spores in roots. 1600 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 13 35 12 4 11 Yes Asymm Topped. Poor trunk flare. Spores in roots. 1601 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 22 40 13 4 11 No Sparse canopy. Poor trunk flare. Spores in roots. 1602 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 18 35 12 4 11 No Asymm Sparse canopy. Self -corrected lean. Spores in roots. 1603 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 13 35 10 4 11 No Lean away from building. Girdling roots. 1604 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 15 38 10 4 11 No Included bark. Codominant at 12 ft. Hardscape damage, girdling roots. 1605 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 16 35 15 4 11 No Asymm Sparse canopy. Spores in roots. 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 3 OF 24 HE WATERSHED COMPANY Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 S 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 TAG # ___..._ TREE NAME . 0 tuL3L,.0 E uJ 1-- �^ 1 --7. z m to- z 2O 0 0 C.. 21 1. = w w _ 35 it z' aO it 0 - 0 m 15 o o z O U 4 to z O �. NCR'-. 11 .------ O 2 w .,. No - i ce , u � .. • z a 2 V}1 �. Q - ___-_ - Sparse canopy. — w z ¢ C m __. 0 3 0 0z O z > i z 1! — a 0 F 0 O _ ! CC _.... 1- 0 O .. _ _K.. _. Harsdscape damage, girdling roots. _.._. Codominant at 18 ft. 1606 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) 1607 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 14 40 12 3 11 No Sparse canopy. Codominant at 20 ft. Spores in roots, limited rooting space. 1608 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 18 45 15 3 11 No Lower canopy dieback. Hardscape damage, girdling roots, limited rooting space. 1609 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 17 40 18 2 11 No Over -extended branches. Hardscape damage. 1610 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 19 35 18 2 Yes Codominant at 6 ft. 1611 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 24 45 15 3 12 Yes Codominant at 7 ft. Hardscape damage, roots possibly cut. 1612 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 14 42 14 3 12 Yes Sparse canopy. Limbed up 50%. Hardscape damage, roots possibly cut. 1613 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 26 42 12 3 12 Yes Sparse canopy. Poorly attached leaders. Codominant at 8 ft. Hardscape damage, roots possibly cut. 1614 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 18 40 14 3 12 Yes Trunk wound at 8 ft. Hardscape damage. 1615 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 10 28 10 5 12 Yes Sparse canopy. Trunk wound at 2 ft. Poor trunk flare. 1616 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 21 35 24 2 No Codominant at 6 ft. Hardscape damage. 750 5th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 4 OF 24 1 HE WATERSHED COMPANY Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 S 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 TAG # TREE NAME W O -....1w > w 1.. E '^ 1 I mpI p O] Z 2D 00 U C 29 W F 2 (D w . 2 _.;._ 40 .— wa Z p 2 a0 R O p_CC _. 16 ,. p I- 0 Z O V �. 4 w z O N J I > 0 2 w CY . No ed v J F E g > V1_ 0 Q J 2 _- _ .. - _ .;._ — V Z ct c __.- _.. _ CO _ ... Cut back from power lines. -- O Z F- '3 p Oz . O i V U Y Z m _-h'__-_.... Southern lean. -- OJ U ~ O ,- _-....C... _ V1 1- O __ _. C... -.— 1617 . Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) 30% compacted root zone, spores in roots. 1618 Pinus sp. <2 needle> (Pine tree, 2 needle) E 1 5 15 6 2 No 1619 Pinus sp. <2 needle> (Pine tree, 2 needle) E 1 6 15 6 2 No 1620 Pinus sp. <2 needle> (Pine tree, 2 needle) E 1 5 15 7 2 No 1621 Pinus sp. <2 needle> (Pine tree, 2 needle) E 1 5 15 6 2 No 1622 Pinus sp. <2 needle> (Pine tree, 2 needle) E 1 6 15 6 2 No 1623 Pinus sp. <2 needle> (Pine tree, 2 needle) E 1 6 15 6 2 No 1624 Pinus sp. <2 needle> (Pine tree, 2 needle) E 1 5 15 5 2 No 1625 Pinus sp. <2 needle> (Pine tree, 2 needle) E 1 5 15 7 2 No 1626 Liriodendron tulipifera (Tuliptree) D 1 24 45 18 2 No 30% of roots covered by hardscape. 1627 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 17 40 20 2 No Over -extended. Codominant at 6 ft. Hardscape damage. 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 5 OF 24 THE WATERSHED COMPANY Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 S 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 TAG # 1628 — TREE NAME - — - --_ Acer rubrum (Red maple) W Q > W..#.40 D W y 1 S — Q Q m Z O O' C, 18 H i- 2 w 2,►- 40 Y C ! W z Q J Z a O Q.CC 18 Z 0 Q O . 0 1., 2 '. w O r4 ,, J �! 0 w .0 . No u J ._N Y W E —A Q O u. of W U Z ct C _.._ CO -- --_ Z O Z H Q V _V 1 O Y 2 o=co i F- -- — — J 0 I— _ -...-- .-_.._—.� __. N F— z Hardscape damage, roots growing into outfall. —.____—.-__ .-.. _-... Codominant at 6 ft. 1629 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 13 38 18 2 No Hardscape damage, girdling roots. 1630 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 15 38 18 3 No Hardscape damage, girdling roots. 1631 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 15 35 15 3 No Broken leader. Codominant at 10 ft. Hardscape damage. 1632 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 15 32 16 3 No Codominant at 10 ft. Hardscape damage. 1633 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 10 30 14 3 No Hardscape damage; girdling root. 1634 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 15 34 15 2 No Codominant at 6 ft. Hardscape damage; girdling root. 1635 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 6 28 15 , 3 No Codominant at 6 ft. Hardscape damage; girdling root. 1636 Thuja plicata (Western red cedar) E 1 12 30 8 4 No Sparse canopy. Sparse top. Wound on Southern base. Hardscape damage. 1637 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 9 28 11 3 No Hardscape damage; girdling root. 1638 Thuja plicata (Western red cedar) E 1 19 45 12 3 No Red flagging. Hardscape damage. 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 6 OF 24 THE WATERSHED COM PAN Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 S 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 TAG # 1 TREE NAME w�=o > W,.u._V E 'n 1 Z OO O O zl_s..' 14 F— w 45 �zl Z p c' _J Z o m_ 13 O 0 10 3 W a J D O W -,. No T v ._I w 2 w __� p Red flagging. V2 Z cc m 1 Zz i 3 O v 8 z 1-_ Q r O O n H O .— C Hardscape damage. 1639 Thuja plicata (Western red cedar) 1640 Thuja plicata (Western red cedar) E 1 13 40 12 4 No Sparse canopy. Hardscape damage. 1641 Carpinus betulus (European hornbeam) D 1 10 32 12 2 No 1642 Carpinus betulus (European hornbeam) D 2 14 30 12 2 No 1643 Carpinus betulus (European hornbeam) D 1 11 30 12 2 No 1644 Carpinus betulus (European hornbeam) D 1 11 32 12 2 No Hardscape damage. 1645 Carpinus betulus (European hornbeam) D 1 12 30 12 2 No 1646 Carpinus betulus (European hornbeam) D 1 12 30 12 2 No Spore near base in roots. 1647 Carpinus betulus (European hornbeam) D 1 9 32 10 2 No 1648 Carpinus betulus (European hornbeam) D 1 7 28 8 2 No Hardscape damage. 1649 Thuja plicata (Western red cedar) E 1 11 42 10 2 No Hardscape damage. 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 7 OF 24 1 HE WATERSHED COMPANY Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 S 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 TAG # 1650 TREE NAME _.- -- __..:..Ill Thuja plicata (Western red cedar) W .. o'W > E � v, 4�. 1 Z p of mz; O O V_C:)_2 10 2 w l ,I. 30 W Z o �Z' CL z 0, O CO ,� 8 z 0 5 Z V 4 w; Z N_:. J ; O w CC No u - J_�`N-_.-,. z w l h a r O lL N u z CC CO 1 z Z0 o z 0 IJ.0 Top dieback. he z Oa- H. a O o O i - �. _.__. C: __ Poor trunk flare. N 0 O --..--. cc Hardscape damage. _ _. _. -. ..___... _ -_. __ 1651 Thuja plicata (Western red cedar) E 1 8 38 8 5 No Very sparse canopy. Poor trunk flare. Hardsape damage. 1652 Thuja plicata (Western red cedar) E 2 11 35 8 3 No Red flagging. Sparse top. Hardsape damage. 1653 Thuja plicata (Western red cedar) E 1 18 38 10 . 3 No Red flagging. Codominant at 4 ft. Hardsape damage. 1654 Thuja plicata (Western red cedar) E 1 6 20 8 4 No Sparse canopy. Cracked at base. Poor trunk flare. Hardsape damage. 1655 Thuja plicata (Western red cedar) E 2 20 40 10 3 No Red flagging. Hardsape damage. 1656 Thuja plicata (Western red cedar) E 1 12 40 10 4 No Sparse canopy, red flagging. Hardscape damage. 1657 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 12 35 12 2 No Hardscape damage. 1658 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 10 38 12 2 No Harsdscape damage, girdling roots. 1659 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 9 30 12 2 No Codominant at 6 ft. Hardscape damage. 1660 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 14 35 15 2 No Over -extended. Codominant at 6 ft. Hardscape damage. 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 8 OF 24 HE WATERSHED COMPANY Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 S 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 TAG# 1661 TREE NAME TR _ — Acer rubrum (Red maple) Li W p( > w D N C Gti '^ i rc.lu.,m_x..—p.:W 1 lm W p 0 01 10 V is W 35 f W Q p a z O 15 O F: Z i 0 Z- 0 ni—_x. 9 Q • > uJ ._ No u .+ ,._ F W > v>, W 0 Q O i W w U a oc _ _ . m - . z 0 Z P. p Z s 0 u u _ j l z k= JO 0 I 4 ! O i 0 a z_ - Ji_ Poor trunk flare. VI O 0 z Hardscape damage. 1662 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 14 38 9 2 9 No Poor trunk flare. Hardscape damage. 1663 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 8 35 8 3 9 No Cracked trunk. Hardscape damage, girdling roots. 1664 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 8 32 8 . 1 9 No Codominant at 12 ft. Hardscape damage. 1665 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 9 35 10 1 9 No Codominant at 6 ft. Hardscape damage. 1666 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 11 38 12 2 9 No Hardscape damage. 1667 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 17 40 16 1 9 No Codominant at 5 ft. Hardscape damage. 1668 Thuja plicata (Western red cedar) E 2 18 40 12 4 9 No Sparse canopy. Hardscape damage. 1669 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 19 42 12 3 9 No Hardscape damage, girdling roots. 1670 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 17 45 14 3 9 No Sparse canopy. Hardscape damage. 1671 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 18 42 12 3 9 No Red flagging. Hardscape damage. 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 9 OF 24 i H.E WATERSHED • COMPANY Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 5 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 TAG # _.--.CL 1672 TREE NAME W > D I C � .1 1 W. 3 Z '• m 0 m WO z O O V CC. , 25 .V.. W __ 45 W z Q J Z � O — O G11 12 z O' H z Z 11 O V 3 I' W Z O N.J. 9 J ' C CW �. No l V �_ !.. W Y _ N a W C9 G O w LL - - - __ -_ Sparse canopy. 1 W _ V Z 1 m J z O z F I. 0 2 0 (mod 0 Z -_ V F Q O. -. e 0 O -.. Hardscape damage. Acer rubrum (Red maple) 1673 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 23 40 15 3 9 No Over -extended branches, included bark. Codominant at 10 ft. Hardscape damage, girdling root. 1674 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 17 45 20 3 9 No Over -extended, cracked limbs, included bark. Codominant at 6 ft. Hardscape damage. 1675 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 16 32 15 3 No Codominant at 6 ft. Hardscape damage, solid root mass. 1676 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 22 35 18 3 No Over -extended branches Codominant at 8 ft., boring pests. Hardscape damage, solid root mass. 1677 Thuja plicata (Western red cedar) E 1 16 45 12 2 No Hardscape damage. 1678 Thuja plicata (Western red cedar) E 1 21 45 14 4 No Sparse canopy, red flagging. Codominant at 6 ft. Hardscape damage. 1679 Thuja plicata (Western red cedar) E 3 15 40 9 4 No Sparse canopy, red flagging. Hardscape damage. 1680 Thuja plicata (Western red cedar) E 1 19 45 10 3 No Sparse canopy, red flagging. Trunk wound on north side. Hardscape damage. 1681 Sequoiadendron giganteum (Giant sequoia) E 1 8 15 5 1 10 No 1682 Pinus monticola (Western white pine) E 1 4 15 5 1 10 No 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 10 OF 24 nTHE WATERSHED COMPANY Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 S 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 TAG # TREE NAME 1..W C1 Q, > E Vf F. F. v1 max, 1 m CI W CO z! O O CJCJ. 5 IA' 2 w 2 : 17 W Q Z Z z O CCO 8 o O. z V. 1 tL z 1,4 10 a 0 w C__,.. No u _ H 2 >. U1 _. W �= Q O -_._ = z K ___._., -. CO -._. -.`_C1 O Z 0 oo z CC z0 CJ 20 z ' 1— �,., O CC----. - - .,. H F O C _r _ __ _- __ 1683 Pinus monticola (Western white pine) 1684 Sequoiadendron giganteum (Giant sequoia) E 1 7 15 5 1 10 No 1685 Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) E 1 22 65 12 3 10 Yes 1686 Cryptomeria japonica (Japanese cedar) E 1 6 18 5 4 10 Yes 1687 Cryptomeria japonica (Japanese cedar) E 1 5 16 5 4 10 Yes 1688 Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) E 1 17 60 10 3 10 Yes 1689 Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) E 1 19 70 15 3 10 Yes 1690 Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) E 1 12 50 10 4 10 Yes 1701 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 16 30 12 3 4 Yes 1702 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 15 30 10 3 4 Yes Codominant at 4 ft. 1703 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 13 30 8 3 4 Yes Included bark. Codominant. Hardscape damage. 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 11 OF 24 nWATERSHED C01v11'P+,N Y THE Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 5 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 TAG # TREE NAME Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) WmC o w . D W 1 z co CI z u 21 12 I LI- F 2 25 I Wce ZpI- zi z O m ;. 11 �� o 8_2J_ 3 ,� n W 4 .- > f IT I. Yes . u W H (.7a LI. zz m_ _ Z F CI u — Yz tom--. — cc a O V ►- a_ _ n a .. 1704 1705 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) D 1 6 25 7 3 4 Yes 1706 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) D 1 7 25 5 3 4 Yes Poor branch structure. Codominant. Damaged trunk. Constricted root mass. 1707 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) D 1 9 25 5 3 4 Yes Lost leader. Codominant, significant trunk damage. Epicormic shoots, girdling roots. 1708 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) D 1 8 25 5 3 4 Yes Trunk damage. Hardscape damage. 1709 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) D 1 8 25 5 3 4 Yes Poor branch attachment. Codominant. Cracked trunk. Hardscape damage. 1710 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 17 35 7 4 5 Yes Asymm Poor interior branches. Severe crown dieback. 1711 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 20 35 10 4 5 Yes Asymm Chlorosis. Severe interior branch dieback. Codominant at 15 ft. 1712 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 14 35 10 4 5 Yes Codominant at 12 ft., trunk wound E side. 1713 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 16 40 13 4 5 Yes Asymm Sparse interior. Poor leader attachment. Codominant at 8 ft. 1714 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 17 35 13 4 5 Yes Chlorosis. 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 12 OF 24 1- "'' WATE. ,N. D t PA N Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 5 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 TAG # — 1715 TREE NAME :. 1 0 W o E ,, c° 1 z _ co p m z Oi 13 cz _W x 35 Q Z Ca z 1p00 16 O FOwO>ow I°w OlN_ 4 5 Q Lki .i„i Yes �— W }f_i- Asymm W w�a VZ zQ 0• Interior branch dieback. 3 CaO z z 0 CJ LI _a. Y zOz t- : cc OW V ►-OO � -.-.: CC ,L NOO~ ce Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) 1716 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 16 40 12 4 5 Yes Interior branch dieback. Boring pests at 6 ft., codominant at 7 ft. 1717 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 12 35 11 3 5 Yes Asymm Poor scaffold distribution, interior branch dieback. Codominant at 8 ft. 1718 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 17 35 10 4 5 Yes Asymm Interior branch dieback. 1719 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) D 1 7 25 8 3 5 No Trunk wound. Epicormic shoots. 1720 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) D 1 11 25 10 3 5 No Codominant at 4.5 ft. Epicormic shoots. 1721 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) D 1 9 25 8 4 5 No Poor scaffold attachment. Trunk wound on N side, codominant. Epicormic shoots. 1722 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) D 1 10 25 11 4 5 No Poor scaffold attachement. Codominant. Epicormic shoots. 1723 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) D 1 8 25 7 3 5 No Codominant, boring pests. Poor trunk flare. Epicormic shoots. 1724 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) D 1 7 25 10 4 5 No Phototrophic lean in main leader. 1725 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) D 1 9 25 10 3 5 No Poor scaffold attachement. Codominant at 4 ft., phototropic lean. Epicormic shoots. 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 13 OF 24 H \WATERSHED COMPANY Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 S 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 _.._._ TAG# 1726 _..__.___._�.. a..__...... _._ _.._._.._.. ...__ TREENAME .... Pinus sylvestris (Scots pine) U > E v) '^ 1 - -`- -- 0 WV O O 17 1r :. 40 > IZ O O m 14 i CW O 3 Z O .. 5 Q O Yes ,. V J.. �. y W li > V1 Asymm J y O 1. W _ _._. _..... W Z G .. _..... _.... m _... _...... Interior branch dieback. OI Z E 3p,ZU OZ u O ► O oc ._..._ f- a O o O O _._ Girdling roots. 1727 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 15 35 10 4 5 Yes Asymm Trunk kink at 20 ft. Hardscape damage. 1728 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 16 35 14 3 5 Yes Asymm Interior branch dieback. Hardscape damage. 1729 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) D 1 8 25 12 3 5 No Asymm Sparse canopy. Phototrophic lean in main leader. Epicormic shoots. 1730 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) D 1 6 25 12 3 5 No Asymm Phototrophic lean in main leader. Poor trunk flare. Epicormic shoots. 1731 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 13 30 11 3 5 Yes Poor scaffold attachment. Trunk wound. 1732 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 17 35 18 3 5 Yes Boring pests, codominant at 8 ft. Hardscape damage. 1733 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 14 34 14 3 6 Yes Asymm Interior branch dieback. Hardscape damage. 1734 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 18 30 18 3 6 Yes Asymm Interior branch dieback, poor scaffold attachment. Codominant at 6 ft. 1735 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 18 30 19 3 6 Yes Asymm Codominant at 6 and 8 ft., SE side trunk wound. 1736 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 17 30 14 3 6 Yes Asymm Poor pruning history. Previosuly topped. Hardsape damage. 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 14 OF 24 HE WATE COMPAN Y Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 S 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 TAG # TREE NAME 1> w l`i I Q W .L E W '^ 7x .. 1 zIcc _ m Q Q Q m z O O V d'I. 22 F .LL.. H S 'I, w 2. I, 30 r w K Z Qp J Z o z O Q..ra.:—V_�N_.,... 20 z O f. Q z O 4 W z O 6 J > 0 w K Yes c°Ci J > cc cw G N w C7 Q J O ,n W U Z a __. _ co _- - 1— z O Z ~ z O a O __V V - --_ I- - _ �. Codominant at 7 ft., 4 sf wound on 5. side. O u O O F a _— _cc �n F 0 O , _.... ce _ , 1737 _ Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) Poor pruning history. Hardscape damage. 1738 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 15 30 17 3 6 Yes Asymm Poor pruning history. Possibly topped. Poor trunk flare. Hardscape damage. 1739 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 2 27 35 18 3 6 Yes Severe included bark. Tridominant at 6 ft. Poor trunk flare. Hardscape damage. 1740 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 25 35 17 3 6 Yes Asymm Included bark. Codominant at 5 ft. Poor trunk flare. 1741 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 17 34 16 3 6 Yes Hardscape damage. 1742 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 17 30 14 3 6 Yes Asymm Trunk kink at 20 ft. Hardscape damage. 1743 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 18 32 20 3 6 Yes Asymm Poor pruning history. Boring pests, 15 degree lean toward building. 1744 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 22 35 18 3 6 Yes Pruned back from fence and parking lot. Hardsape damage. 1745 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 16 35 14 4 8 Yes Limbed up 8 ft. Previosuly topped. Codominant at 15 ft. Poor trunk flare. 1746 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 15 28 14 3 8 No Limbed up 8 ft. Self -corrected lean, trunk damage on NW side. 1747 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 16 30 15 4 8 Yes Low Severe crown deformation Codominant at 6 ft. Poor trunk flare. 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 15 OF 24 I HE WATERSHED COMPANY Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 S 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 TAG # 1748 TREE NAME Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) WO w. E � E. a 1 Z . co _li t V O 17 = 30 Z p a m 16 1::C� 2 0 3 W 1 NJ 8 O No cW Q � rt1. Z F 5 O Crown deformation. aCce U y O Poor pruning history. 1749 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 18 32 18 3 8 Yes Included bark. Codominant at 6 ft., self -corrected lean. 1750 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 14 28 10 4 8 No Poor pruning history. Codominant at 6 ft. (5 leaders), trunk wound on W. side, lean toward road. 1751 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 17 28 13 4 8 Yes Chlorosis. Included bark, poor scaffold attachment. Codominant at 10 ft., lean toward road. Poor trunk flare. 1752 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 16 30 14 4 8 No 50 Poor pruning history, chlorosis. Interior branch dieback, limbed up 10 ft. Poor trunk flare. Retaining wall limiting root mass. 1753 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 20 28 12 4 8 No Chlorosis. Included bark, poor scaffold attachment. Crown deformation. Codominant at 5 ft. Retaining wall limiting root zone 1754 Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) E 1 25 50 14 2 7 Yes Asymm 1755 Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) E 1 23 50 14 2 7 Yes Interior branch dieback. Girdling roots. 1756 Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) E 1 22 50 13 2 7 Yes Limited root zone. 1757 Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) E 1 23 50 13 2 7 Yes Girdling roots, epicormic shoots. 1758 Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) E 1 25 50 13 2 7 Yes Limited root zone. 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 16 OF 24 HE WATERSHED COMPANY Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 S 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 TAG # TREE NAME I• Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) 0 w E w n a 1 z m 2 O O 17 I 2 W 40 Y Z Z O m 12 Z 0 S , 2 W! . NJ -I 7 O Yes _� 1 1 / cc' vYi Q Y w Z z m O 0 CC O v v _ Z ce a Q OF0. O �— °t 0 O — Epicormic shoots. 1759 Sparse canopy. 1760 Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) E 1 23 55 12 2 3 Yes Asymm Cut back from building. 1761 Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) E 1 22 55 12 2 3 Yes Asymm Cut back from building. Codominant at 35 ft. 1762 Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) E 1 23 65 14 2 3 Yes Asymm 1763 Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) E 1 25 13 13 2 3 Yes Asymm 1764 Pyrus calleryana (Callery pear) D 1 8 13 13 3 2 Yes Poor pruning history. Poor trunk flare. 1765 Pyrus calleryana (Callery pear) D 1 8 10 10 3 2 Yes Poor pruning history. Poor trunk flare. 1766 Pyrus calleryana (Callery pear) D 1 7 10 10 3 2 Yes Poor pruning history. Poor trunk flare. 1767 Pyrus calleryana (Callery pear) D 1 8 10 10 3 2 Yes Poor pruning history. Poor trunk flare. 1768 Pyrus calleryana (Callery pear) D 1 9 10 10 3 2 Yes Poor pruning history. Poor trunk flare. 1769 Pyrus calleryana (Callery pear) D 1 7 10 10 3 2 Yes Poor pruning history. Poor trunk flare. 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 17 OF 24 rHE WATERSHED , COMPANY Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 S 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 TAG # I TREE NAME Pyrus calleryana (Callery pear) . ,. W I. w D H ,_ _V_DCC 1 � z 0 O O ,L0 9 F �� W_ 1. 10 i Z O .. z 2 m_ 10 z O O S ! 3 Wz 0 2 O z ,. Yes v J '. W 2 >- W Q 2 Poor pruning history. W Z zO z F o Z I C O Y zD a J O t 0 1 O Poor trunk flare. o 1770 1771 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 10 8 8 3 1 Yes Codominant at 2 ft. Poor trunk flare. 1772 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 10 8 8 3 1 Yes Poor pruning history. Included bark. Codominant at 2 ft. Poor trunk flare. Limited rooting space. 1773 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 12 8 8 3 1 Yes Poor pruning history. Codominant at 2 ft. 1774 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 13 8 8 3 1 Yes Codominant at 2 ft. 1775 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 12 10 10 3 1 Yes Crossing leader. Codominant at 2 ft. 1776 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 13 9 9 3 1 Yes Codominant at 2 ft. 1777 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 10 8 8 3 1 Yes Codominant at 2 ft. 1778 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 10 10 10 3 1 Yes Poor pruning history. Codominant at 2 ft., cracked trunk. 1779 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 11 8 8 3 1 Yes Epicormic shoots. 1780 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 13 10 10 3 1 Yes Trunk rot. 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 18 OF 24 in, H E WATERSHED COMPANY Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 S 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 TAG # _ , TREE NAME _.. Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) V W o 1 W D N W ~^ 7x ;. 1 1' z = m W 0 O m z O D V C.. 14 f" `-' F- I' w 2 1 12 I i W q z Q .. _ Z z O O 0� 12 Z O ~ II o O V 3 I W O N 1 Cr p �2++ C .. Yes F- W I 1 vY1J_ W 0 _r 2 W v z Q O z~ III 3 a p z -V -OV _.�l_ Y z p cc F- lz O �. V i— O N O0 C. ____. 1781 - _._,-_CO -Jl - _ .Ai._._..0 1782 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 10 13 13 3 1 Yes 1783 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 14 10 10 3 1 Yes 1784 Pinus contorta (Shore pine) E 1 5 7 7 4 8 No 1785 Liriodendron tulipifera (Tuliptree) D 1 14 40 13 2 8 No Girdling roots. 1786 Pinus contorta (Shore pine) E 1 5 17 6 3 8 No 1787 Liriodendron tulipifera (Tuliptree) D 1 11 45 12 2 8 No 1788 Pinus contorta (Shore pine) E 1 4 10 6 3 8 No 1789 Liriodendron tulipifera (Tuliptree) D 1 11 40 14 2 8 No 1790 Liriodendron tulipifera (Tuliptree) D 1 12 40 12 2 8 No #REF! #REF! ### ### #REF! #### #REF! ### 8 No Sparse canopy. Hardscape damage. 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 19 OF 24 THE 'M ]iAT E RS H E L7D COMPANY Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 S 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 TAG# TREE NAME W h w. H l W r H sp.�� Z O m Z 2= a F = c7 , x Z O J Z a. _ o Om F 0 z 1 W Z ..� 0 2 _. -,a z • cW G '2 i _ (W� Q _, V Z 4 a m . Z i= 0 0 Z a uOv Y z O V _. �. 8 �"� O z — _� F 0 __ ,-_�s --- 1792 Liriodendron tulipifera (Tuliptree) D 1 8 30 8 3 8 No 1793 Liriodendron tulipifera (Tuliptree) D 1 5 18 0 5 No Hardscape damage. 1794 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 8 22 15 2 8 No Sparse canopy. Top brokeout. 1795 Liriodendron tulipifera (Tuliptree) D 1 14 30 8 4 9 No Codominant at 6 ft. Hardscape damage. 1796 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 12 30 16 3 9 Yes Included bark, poor attachment. Codominant at 6 ft. Hardscape damage. 1797 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 18 30 15 3 9 Yes Codominant at 7 ft. Limited rooting space, hardscape damage. 1798 Acer rubrum (Red maple) D 1 12 35 14 3 11 No Codominant at 22 ft. Limited rooting space, hardsacpe damage. 1799 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 19 45 13 3 6 Yes Asymm Sparse interior, poor pruning history. Poor trunk flare. Hardscape damage. 1800 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 17 32 18 3 4 Yes Included bark. Codominant at 5 ft. 1836 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 19 30 12 3 4 Yes Branches cut, included bark. Codominant. 1837 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 17 30 11 4 4 Yes Poor trunk flare. 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 20 OF 24 [HE WATERSHED COMPANY Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 S 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 TAG# — TREE NAME Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) U o w D U1 w 03 1 m al m z, _S-.z:L2 10 W.. = Lo 25 W Q a Z O_m_L� 10 _ o 1 3 W �. ;. 4 Q O Yes V F- W in W li Q LL o = U Z IX — CO O ~ 3 m 1' O �.. u_v Zo _ I--__... _ — j ce 8 U _ _ S .�__- O _. OG Epicormic shoots. 1838 Codominant at 2 ft. 1839 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) D 1 10 20 6 3 4 Yes Included bark. Codominant at 2 ft. 1840 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) D 1 10 20 7 3 4 Yes 1841 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) D 1 6 12 5 3 4 Yes Included bark. Codominant at 5 ft. Epicormic shoots. 1842 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) D 1 8 20 6 3 4 Yes Trunk rot, exfoliating bark. Epicormic shoots. 1843 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) D 1 6 15 5 4 4 Yes Epicormic shoots. 1844 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) D 1 8 20 8 3 13 No 40 degree SW lean. 1845 Pinus sp. <2 needle> (Pine tree, 2 needle) E 1 4 12 4 4 13 No Girdling roots. 1846 Pinus sp. <2 needle> (Pine tree, 2 needle) E 1 4 12 5 3 13 No 1847 Pinus sp. <2 needle> (Pine tree, 2 needle) E 1 6 20 7 3 13 No 1848 Pinus sp. <2 needle> (Pine tree, 2 needle) E 1 5 15 5 3 13 No 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 21 OF 24 ,n T H F COMPANY WATERSHED Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 S 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 TAG # TREE NAME '_,u Pinus sp. <2 needle> (Pine tree, 2 needle) a > E w I 1-a , _ 4- ., 1 z 1 CO m 2 1 D O O CJ CC 4 = i i W ll = 7 15 Y J z a _ O O' O , o m .. 5 O, o Z O V .3 I L. 10 Z O '1 NI 13 j E 11-1V CC No m • >- ' 2 til�_ a O z I Q j 1� I Z y ESz O z ` 5OC 1 — O _ t- o 0 0 0 1849 1850 Pinus sp. <2 needle> (Pine tree, 2 needle) E 1 5 20 5 3 13 Yes Limited rooting space. 1851 Betula pendula (European white birch) D 2 14 45 19 3 13 No 1852 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 25 50 21 3 13 No Codominant at 15 ft. 1853 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 21 50 10 .3 13 No Codominant at 15 ft. 1854 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 18 50 14 3 13 No Codominant at 8 ft. 1855 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 18 40 11 3 13 No Included bark. Codominant at 20 ft. 1856 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 18 45 18 3 13 No Codominant at 10 ft. 1857 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 1 20 50 15 3 13 No Codominant at 1 ft. 1858 Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) E 2 21 50 17 3 1 Yes Limited root zone, girdling roots, epicormic shoots. 1859 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 13 20 7 3 1 Yes Buried trunk flare. 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 22 OF 24 IHE WATERSHED COMPANY Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 S 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 TAG # 1860 TREE NAME — _ W o 1 w D I. I 1 i' F a J.S 1 cow cl 1 �, z,� 12 = I t7 s 20 } ?tea a Z 1 O_m�. 6 o Z 5 _ 4 W Z 1 > O W o _ �I Yes ' ��L. } W 2 v}i_ j Q J Z Q Z o O Z �I O Y om- ec Q 8 O z 1 H o owe Limited root zone. Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) 1861 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 11 15 8 3 1 Yes Hardscape damage. 1862 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 12 15 7 3 1 Yes Previously pruned. 1863 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 9 14 8 4 1 Yes Hardscape damage. 1864 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 10 15 6 3 1 Yes 1865 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 10 12 6 3 1 Yes Hardscape damage. 1866 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 12 15 7 2 1 Yes 1867 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 12 18 8 3 1 Yes Hardscape damage. 1868 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 9 15 9 4 1 Yes Previously pruned. 1869 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 10 18 9 3 1 Yes 1870 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) D 1 14 18 8 3 1 Yes 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 23 OF 24 l HE WATERSHED CQtut C'p+.N Y Duwamish Towers - Tree Inventory Table 2925 S 112th Street in Tukwila, WA Parcel # 0923049155 TAG # 1871 TREE NAME • w o w-i \LN D . '',. . sFJ.� 1 m0 m O 14 14- I— x.��_m 20 > w 2 p c= J. 9 Q F- u 1 O 3 O N. 2 J ; w .!. Yes 1 w y _ i J it J Sparse canopy. t!J v Q m._ Poor branch structure. Q Zh.. o z V_ 0 Y = H _ _ JI 10 degree S lean. Q p _. �acc H ~O Limited root zone. Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree) 1872 Pyrus calleryana (Callery pear) D 1 9 15 6 3 2 Yes Sparse canopy. Poor branch structure. Limited root zone. 1873 Pyrus calleryana (Callery pear) D 1 7 18 8 4 2 Yes Sparse canopy. Limited root zone. 1874 Pyrus calleryana (Callery pear) D 1 7 15 8 4 2 Yes Limited root zone. 1875 Pyrus calleryana (Callery pear) D 1 7 15 5 3 2 Yes Limited root zone. 1876 Pyrus calleryana (Callery pear) D 1 8 20 8 3 2 Yes Poor pruning history. Topped at 15 ft. Limited root zone. 1877 Pyrus calleryana (Callery pear) D 1 8 15 9 2 3 Yes Asymm Pruned away from building. Limited root zone. 1878 Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) E 1 27 50 11 2 3 Yes Asymm Pruned away from building. 1879 Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) E 1 27 50 12 3 3 Yes Asymm Pruned away from building. Limited root zone. 1880 Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) E 1 20 50 10 3 3 Yes Asymm Sparse canopy, pruned away from building. Limited root zone. 1881 Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) E 1 17 50 10 3 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 24 OF 24 The Watershed Company November 2017 APPENDIX C Landscape Modification Plan DUWAMISH TOWERS LANDSCAPE MODIFICATION PLAN Lrn{`o i Park flotATIMIY Ve FA IN sm St S 120th St VICINITY MAP S 12gth St • Werner Mond DUWAMISH Chevron Cs S S16m St e PROJECT COVER SHEET SHEET INDEX 1 L-1 2 L-2 3 L-3 4 L-4 5 L-5 6 L-6 7 L-7 8 L-8 9 L-9 10 L-10 PROJECT COVER SHEET EXISTING LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS TREE CANOPY ANALYSIS PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MODIFICATIONS OVERVIEW PLANTING AREA OVERVIEW PLANTING AREA 1 AND 2 PLANTING AREA 3 AND 4 PLANTING AREA 5-7 PLANTING AREA 8 PLANTING INSTALLATION DETAILS AND NOTES PROJECT INFORMATION THE WATERSHED COMPANY U-HAUL PROJECT APPLICANT KIM MEROW AREA DISTRICT VICE PRESIDENT U-HAUL BUSINESS CONSULTANTS, INCE 5110 FRONTAGE ROAD NW AUBURN, WA 98001 (360)-607-3487 KIM_MEROW a@UHAUL.COM SITE ADDRESS 2925 S 112TH ST TUKWILA, WA 98168 PROJECT CONTACT: KENNY BOOTH, AICP THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 SIXTH STREET SOUTH KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (425) 822-5242 PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ® Copyright -The Walenhed Company THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design J Z < Q J I 00 p. Q � Uw LL � 02 o c G cc w0 Q Q Uco w z CC za J w CC a. 1- cO 2 E'— N_ r CO LC) N N PARCEL # 0923049155 SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS DESCRIPTION O z PERMIT SUBMITTAL SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-1 OF 10 S 112TH SREET i- \ / \\ '//. DUWAMISH RIVER EXISTING LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS SCALE 1:50 0 .? o o I 0 25' 50' 100' 200'“ SCIENTIFIC NAME (COMMON NAME) NUMBER OF TREES INVENTORIED SUM OF TRUNK DIAMETERS (Inches) AVERAGE TRUNK DIAMETER (Inches) SMALLEST TRUNK SIZE RECORDED (Inches) LARGEST TRUNK SIZE RECORDED (Inches) Pinus nigra (Austrian pine) 75 1,329.1 17.7 10 28.5 Acer rubrum (Red maple) 37 528.9 14.3 6 25.2 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsura tree) 32 386.2 12.0 9.2 18.8 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) 21 170.4 8.11 5.6 12.2 Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) 18 385.80 21.4 12 26.9 Thujo plicata (Western red cedar) 17 241.3 14.2 5.8 21 Corpinus betulus (European hornbeam) 16 153.6 9.6 4.3 13.6 Pinus sp. <2 needle> (Pine tree, 2 needle) 14 70.8 5.06 3.5 6.1 Pyrus calleryana (Callery pear) 13 102.2 7.9 7 9 Liriodendron tulipifera (Tulip) 8 97.9 12.2 5 24 Pinuscontorta (Shore pine) 4 24.8 6.2 4.2 11 Pinus monticola (Western white pine) 2 8.9 4.45 4.3 4.6 Sequoiadendron giganteum (Giant sequoia) 2 14.3 7.2 6.8 7.5 Cryptomeria japonica (Japanese cedar) 2 10.7 5.4 5.2 5.5 Betula pendula (European white birch) 1 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 Pinussylvestris (Scots pine) 1 17 17 17 17 Grand Total 263 3,555.6 13.5 3.5 28.5 LEGEND 0 * EXISTING INVENTORIED TREES ASSESSED CANOPY DRIPLINE OHWM (PER SITE SURVEY) - - - SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION NOTES 1. TREES INVENTORIED AND ASSESSED BY THE WATERSHED COMPANY ON OCTOBER 24, 26, AND 30, 2017. REFER TO THE THE WATERSHED COMPANY LANDSCAPE MODIFICATION ASSESSMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 2. SITE SURVEY BY BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design 0 Copyright- The Watershed Company -J Q H cc a a PARCEL # 0923049155 SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS DESCRIPTION uJ 0 0 Z PERMIT SUBMITTAL 9 4 SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-2 OF 10 ----------------- DUWAMISH RIVER TALE 1:50 REE CANOPY ANALYSIS SC 0 25' 50' 100' 200' SITE CAN AREA ESTIMATED EXISTING CANOPY COVERAGE PROPOSED CANOPY COVERAGE CANOPY FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS CANOPY AFTER REPLANTING Shoreline Buffer (113,681 SF) 40.3% (45,870 SF) 40.3% (45,870 SF) 40.3% (45,870 SF) Shoreline Jurisdiction (Outside of buffer) (114,120 SF) 29.4% (33,528 SF) 22.3% (25,462 SF) 31.7% (36,142 SF) Non -shoreline (333,437 SF) 14.3%(47,708 SF) 5.7%(19,225SF) 12.8%(42,811 SF) Overall Site Canopy (561,238 SF) 22.6% (127,106 SF) 16.1% (90,557 SF) 22.2% (124,823 SF) C...aJ CANOPY WITHIN SHORELINE BUFFER (OHWM-100') (45,870 SF) CANOPY WITHIN SHORELINE JURISDICTION (100'-200') (33,528 SF) ® CANOPY OUTSIDE OF SHORELINE JURISDICTION (47,708 SF) ASSESSED CANOPY DRIPLINE SURVEYED CANOPY DRIPLINE PROPOSED CANOPY REDUCTION BEFORE REPLACEMENT (36,549 SF) - OHWM (PER SITE SURVEY) — — — SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION NOTES 1. TO DETERMINE CANOPY COVER, THE CANOPY RADIUS OF EACH ON -SITE TREE WAS SURVEYED IN THE FIELD BY A PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR. THE RADII FOR ALL TREES TO BE REMOVED WERE THEN VERIFIED IN THE FIELD BY AN ARBORIST. THESE MEASUREMENTS WERE CATALOGUED AND A TOTAL CANOPY COVER FOR THE SITE WAS CALCULATED. ADJACENT TREES WITH OVERLAPPING CANOPIES WERE FURTHER ASSESSED FOR ACCURACY PURPOSES. FOR EXAMPLE, A STAND OF TREES FORMING AN OVERLAPPING CANOPY WOULD NOT HAVE THE SAME CANOPY COVERAGE AS THE SAME NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL TREES, SHARING THE SAME CANOPY RADIUS, BUT GROWING INDIVIDUALLY. PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION e Copyright- The Watershed Company Sci THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com ence & Design J Z < J t IZ D OF. 0 Q • w 2 02 O Y • cC w0 IZ L.L. 00 cn w IX z<� w CC a. TUKWILA, WA 98168 PARCEL # 0923049155 3 Y PERMIT SUBMITTAL SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-3 OF 10 S 112TH SREET DUWAMISH RIVER Igt LANDSCAPE MODIFICATIONS OVERVIEW SCALE 1:5 0 25' S0' 100' PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS PER VEGETATION ZONE ZONE 1 CONSISTS OF 26 KATSURA TREES PLANTED WITHIN A RAISED PLANTER. ALL 26 TREES AND INTACT ROOTS ARE TO BE REMOVED. ZONE 2 CONSISTS OF 13 PEAR TREES PLANTED IN RAISED BEDS. ALL TREES AND THEIR INTACT ROOTS WILL BE REMOVED. CD CD (6) CD CID 10 11 12) ZONE 12 CONTAINS 5 AUSTRIAN PINE TREES AND 1 RED MAPLE THAT ARE TO BE REMOVED. 13 ZONE 3 CONTAINS 8 LARGE COAST REDWOODS, ALL OF WHICH WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH SMALL TREES, SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVERS. ZONE 4 CONTAINS 6 KATSURA TREES AND 12 FLOWERING CRABAPPLES. ALL TREES AND THEIR INTACT ROOTS ARE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION. ZONE 5 CONTAINS 16 AUSTRIAN PINE TREES. ALL 16 TREES AND THEIR INTACT ROOTS ARE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION ON -SITE. ENGLISH IVY SHALL BE REMOVED AND THE UNDERSTORY WILL BE REPLACED WITH SMALL TREES AND SHRUBS. ZONE 6 CONTAINS 13 AUSTRIAN PINE TREES PLANTED VERY CLOSE TO THE EXISTING PARKING LOT AND RETAINING WALL. TREES SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH APPROPRIATE STREET TREES AND SHRUBS. ZONE 7 IS A RAISED BED LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PARKING LOT. IT CURRENTLY CONTAINS 6 LARGE COAST REDWOOD TREES THAT WILL BE REMOVED.. ZONE 8 CONTAINS 4 AUSTRIAN PINE TREES PLANTED IN A RETAINED PLANTER BETWEEN THE ROAD AND A RETAINING WALL. TREES AND THEIR INTACT ROOTS SHALL BE REMOVED. THE UNDER STORY OF ENGLISH IVY WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH SHRUBS. ZONE 9 IS A TURF BIO SWALE CONTAINING A GROUP RED MAPLES, AND WESTERN RED CEDAR. 2 RED MAPLES AND THE UNDER STORY TURF WILL BE REMOVED. THE GRADES WILL BE ADJUSTED TO FIX THE DRAINAGE FUNCTIONS OF THE SWALE. TURF WILL BE REPLACED WITH APPROPRIATE SHRUBS. ZONE 10 CONTAINS 4 COAST REDWOODS, 2 JAPANESE CEDARS, 2 WHITE PINES, AND 2 GIANT SEQUOIA TREES. ALL COAST REDWOODS AND JAPANESE CEDARS ARE TO BE REMOVED. THE GIANT SEQUOIA AND WHITE PINES ARE TO BE TRANSPLANTED IN A MORE APPROPRIATE PLANTING LOCATION. ZONE 11 CONTAINS 17 AUSTRIAN PINES AND EIGHT EUROPEAN HORNBEAMS. ALL TREES ARE TO BE REMOVED. ZONE 13 CONTAINS 14 AUSTRIAN PINE AND 1 BIRCH TREE. THE BIRCH TREE WILL BE REMOVED AND ALL AUSTRIAN PINES WILL BE LIMBED UP ONE THIRD THEIR TOTAL HEIGHT. UNDERSTORY OF ENGLISH IVY WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACE WITH SHRUBS. LEGEND IS[ + TREES TO BE REMOVED 0 r- TREES TO BE RETAINED — — — VEGETATION ZONE BOUNDARY ASSESSED CANOPY DRIPLINE OHWM (PER SITE SURVEY) — — — SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION NOTES 200i'$ 1. REFER LANDSCAPE MODIFICATIONS ASSESSMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION e Copyright- The watershed company THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design J Z < J ja_ Z O 0 Q • W LL COY G CC w 0 a. LL Q Q Uw Z < Q. W CC a 1- 2 1— N_ CO LC) N N PARCEL # 0923049155 SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS DESCRIPTION PERMIT SUBMITTAL SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-4 OF 10 ---------------------------------------------------- ----------------- Z,011 [l7 DUWAMISH RIVER O PLSCALEANTING1:50 AREA OVERVIEW S 112TH SREET }3, w 0 25' 511 0' • 100' -i-1-7 MASTER PLANTING SCHEDULE ,A LARGE TREES COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME 200'“ RED MAPLE / ACER RUBRUM 1,257 SF OF CANOPY COVER 0 MAGYAR GINKGO / GINKGO BILOBA 'MAGYAR' 491 SF OF CANOPY COVER MEDIUM TREES COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME 0 0 SMALL TREES C 0 SHRUBS • GROUND COVERS COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME var�^'i -�e�rMw��r. LEGEND CONT CAL QTY GREEN COLUMN MAPLE / ACER NIGRUM 'GREENCOLUMN' 5 GALLON 2.5 2 491 SF CANOPY COVER 5 GALLON 2.5 8 5 GALLON 2.5 3 CONT CAL QTY BOWHALL MAPLE /ACER RUBRUM'BOWHALL' 5 GALLON 2.5 10 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER WESTERN HAZELNUT/ CORYLUS CORNUTA 2 GALLON 2.5 3 707 SF OF CANOPY COVERAGE CASCARA / RHAMNUS PURSHIANA 5 GALLON 2.5 7 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY VINE MAPLE / ACER CIRCINATUM 5 GALLON 2.5 24 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER CORNELIAN CHERRY DOGWOOD / CORNUS MAS 2 GALLON 2.5 8 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER AMERICAN SMOKE TREE / COTINUS OBOVATUS 5 GALLON 2.5 18 491 SF OF CANOPY COVER LANCELOT CRAB APPLE / MALUS X'LANCELOT' TM 5 GALLON 2.5 6 50 SF OF CANOPY COVER COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT SPACING QTY STRAWBERRY TREE SHRUB / ARBUTUS UNEDO 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 51 RED TWIG DOGWOOD / CORNUS SERICEA'BAILEY!' 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 93 WINGED EUONYMUS / EUONYMUS ALATUS 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 37 TWINBERRY/LONICERAINVOLUCRATA 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 46 PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE / MYRICA CALIFORNICA 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 93 CONT SPACING QTY SLOUGH SEDGE / CAREX OBNUPTA 1 GALLON 24" o.c. 221 SOFT RUSH / JUNCUS EFFUSUS 1 GALLON 24" o.c. 171 - - - - - OHWM (PER SITE SURVEY) — — — SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION — — — PLANTING AREA BOUNDARY NOTFS 1. CANOPY COVER SQUARE FOOTAGES FROM THE CITY OF TUKWILA APPROVED TREE LIST. PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © Copyright -The Watershed Company 2 THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design J Z < Q J Z O 01- U W= N O Y(1) W • CC toQ O N 00 CO W oCC Z Q Q J W CC IZ TUKWILA, WA 98168 PARCEL # 0923049155 rn z 0 N m z N a SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-5 OF 10 Ir PLANTING AREA 1 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 MATCHLINE PLANTING AREA 2 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 0 PLANTING AREAS 1 AND 2 G�1 PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 1 LARGE TREES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME SHRUBS ACRU RED MAPLE / ACER RUBRUM CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY REMARKS 5 GALLON 2.5 4 1,257 SF OF CANOPY COVER CONT SPACING QTY REMARKS AU STRAWBERRY TREE SHRUB / ARBUTUS UNEDO 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 15 CB RED TWIG DOGWOOD / CORNUS SERICEA'BAILEYI' 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 1 EA WINGED EUONYMUS / EUONYMUS ALATUS 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 12 MC PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE / MYRICA CALIFORNICA NOTES LEGEND 1. ALL ENGLISH IVY AND UNDER STORY SHRUBS SHALL BE REMOVED IN THEIR ENTIRETY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL ROOTS, FOLIAGE, AND ASSOCIATED DEBRIS. 2. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 8 — — — — SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 2 LARGE TREES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME SHRUBS NOTES CONT CAL QTY REMARKS AG GREEN COLUMN MAPLE /ACER NIGRUM 'GREENCOLUMN' 5 GALLON 2.5 2 491 SF CANOPY COVER GM MAGYAR GINKGO / GINKGO BILOBA 'MAGYAR' CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CB RED TWIG DOGWOOD /CORNUS SERICEA'BAILEYI' MC PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE / MYRICA CALIFORNICA 1. ALL ENGLISH IVY AND UNDER STORY SHRUBS SHALL BE REMOVED IN THEIR ENTIRETY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL ROOTS, FOLIAGE, AND ASSOCIATED DEBRIS. 2. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 LEGEND 5 GALLON 2.5 3 491 SF OF CANOPY COVER CONT SPACING QTY REMARKS 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 22 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 85 — -- SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION n THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design -J Z < < J a. D O17- ° < CC Uw OY cC w0 Cl- 0 0 w Z <a. J w cc TUKWILA, WA 98168 PARCEL # 0923049155 SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS r m DESCRIPTION PERMIT SUBMITTAL SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-6 OF 10 ®Copyright- The Watershed Company PLANTING AREA 3 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 MATCHLINE PLANTING AREA 4 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 PLANTING AREAS 3 AND 4 SCA PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 3 MEDIUM TREES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY REMARKS ABRU BO BOWHALL MAPLE / ACER RUBRUM'BOWHALL' 5 GALLON 2.5 3 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER SMALL TREES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY REMARKS ACCI VINE MAPLE / ACER CIRCINATUM 5 GALLON 2.5 6 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER ML LANCELOT CRAB APPLE / MALUS X'LANCELOT' TM 5 GALLON 2.5 6 50 SF OF CANOPY COVER NOTES LEGEND 1. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 2. PRESERVE EXISTING UNDERSTORY LANDSCAPE. — — — — SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 4 MEDIUM TREES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY REMARKS ABRU BO BOWHALL MAPLE /ACER RUBRUM 'BOWHALL' 5 GALLON 2.5 7 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER CW WESTERN HAZELNUT / CORYLUS CORNUTA 2 GALLON 2.5 3 707 SF OF CANOPY COVERAGE RHPU CASCARA / RHAMNUS PURSHIANA 5 GALLON 2.5 7 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER SMALL TREES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY REMARKS CM CORNELIAN CHERRY DOGWOOD / CORNUS MAS 2 GALLON 2.5 8 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER CO AMERICAN SMOKE TREE / COTINUS OBOVATUS 5 GALLON 2.5 7 491 SF OF CANOPY COVER SHRUBS CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT SPACING QTY REMARKS a c9 AU STRAWBERRY TREE SHRUB / ARBUTUS UNEDO 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 18 EA WINGED EUONYMUS / EUONYMUS ALATUS 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 25 NOTES LEGEND 1. ALL ENGLISH IVY AND UNDER -STORY SHRUBS — — — — SHORELINE BUFFER SHALL BE REMOVED IN THEIR ENTIRETY, 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL ROOTS, FOLIAGE, AND ASSOCIATED DEBRIS. 2. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Copyright- The Watershed Company THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design 0 F —J Z < < J i O 0 I— 00 Q CC(n CO U W 2 rn LL Q Q O �Q Wa.� cy)N Y Q O CV I— C.) a W oC Z < < - J W CC PARCEL # 0923049155 SUBMITTALS 8 REVISIONS DESCRIPTION w 0 0 z 2 PERMIT SUBMITTAL SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-7 OF 10 l/ ® VU ®a OQ ® S V- l i 0 O ®Z) I I I PLANTING AREA 5 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 PLANTING AREA 6 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 PLANTING AREA 7 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 PLANTING AREAS 5-7 SCA ------------- 0 10 act 4. ao GI PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 5 SHRUBS 0 NOTES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT SPACING QTY REMARKS CB RED TWIG DOGWOOD / CORNUS SERICEA'BAILEY! 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 21 LI TWINBERRY / LONICERA INVOLUCRATA 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 21 1. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 2. PRESERVE EXISTING UNDERSTORY LANDSCAPE. LEGEND ---- SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 6 SMALL TREES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME ACCI VINE MAPLE /ACER CIRCINATUM SHRUBS CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME 0 CONT CAL 5 GALLON 2.5 CONT CB RED TWIG DOGWOOD / CORNUS SERICEA'BAILEYI' 2 GALLON GROUND COVERS CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME in NOTES CO2 SLOUGH SEDGE / CAREX OBNUPTA JE SOFT RUSH/JUNCUS EFFUSUS CONT 1 GALLON 1 GALLON QTY REMARKS 18 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER SPACING QTY REMARKS 48" o.c. 49 SPACING QTY REMARKS 24" o.c. 221 24" o.c. 171 1. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 7 LEGEND — — — — SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION SMALL TREES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME SHRUBS NOTES CONT CAL CO AMERICAN SMOKE TREE / COTINUS OBOVATUS 5 GALLON 2.5 CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT AU STRAWBERRY TREE SHRUB /ARBUTUS UNEDO 2GALLON QTY REMARKS 5 491 SF OF CANOPY COVER SPACING QTY REMARKS 48" o.c. 18 1. ALL ENGLISH IVY AND UNDERSTORY SHRUBS SHALL BE REMOVED IN THEIR ENTIRETY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL ROOTS, FOLIAGE, AND ASSOCIATED DEBRIS. 2. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 LEGEND ---- SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0 Copyright- The watershed Company THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design J Z < < J Z O 0 Q ow LT 52 O R" ec wo 0_ • u- 00 co w o qZ < J w a PARCEL # 0923049155 SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS DESCRIPTION w 0 PERMIT SUBMITTAL SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-8 OF 10 J 0 / / 1 I -/ it-t). PLANTING AREA 8 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 PLANTING AREA 8 SCALE AS NOTE PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 8 LARGE TREES COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY RED MAPLE / ACER RUBRUM 5 GALLON 2.5 4 1,257 SF OF CANOPY COVER SMALL TREES COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY AMERICAN SMOKE TREE / COTINUS OBOVATUS 5 GALLON 2.5 6 491 SF OF CANOPY COVER NOTES 1. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 2. PRESERVE EXISTING UNDER STORY LANDSCAPE. LEGEND ---- SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ® Copyright- The watershed Company THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design —J Z < Z O Q 1- 00 Q OY�Q W0c QLcJ Ua W CD CC Z d W CC d Z SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PARCEL # 0923049155 PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB LL DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-9 OF10 PLANT INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL NOTES QUALITY ASSURANCE 1. PLANTS SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE SPECIFICATIONS OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS REQUIRING INSPECTION FOR PLANT DISEASE AND INSECT CONTROL. 2. PLANTS SHALL BE HEALTHY, VIGOROUS, AND WELL -FORMED, WITH WELL DEVELOPED, FIBROUS ROOT SYSTEMS, FREE FROM DEAD BRANCHES OR ROOTS. PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM DAMAGE CAUSED BY TEMPERATURE EXTREMES, LACK OR EXCESS OF MOISTURE, INSECTS, DISEASE, AND MECHANICAL INJURY. PLANTS IN LEAF SHALL BE WELL FOLIATED AND OF GOOD COLOR. PLANTS SHALL BE HABITUATED TO THE OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS INTO WHICH THEY WILL BE PLANTED (HARDENED -OFF). 3. TREES WITH DAMAGED, CROOKED, MULTIPLE OR BROKEN LEADERS WILL BE REJECTED. WOODY PLANTS WITH ABRASIONS OF THE BARK OR SUN SCALD WILL BE REJECTED. 4. NOMENCLATURE: PLANT NAMES SHALL CONFORM TO FLORA OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST BY HITCHCOCK AND CRONQUIST, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON PRESS, 1973 AND/OR TO A FIELD GUIDE TO THE COMMON WETLAND PLANTS OF WESTERN WASHINGTON & NORTHWESTERN OREGON, ED. SARAH SPEAR COOKE, SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY, 1997. DEFINITIONS 1. PLANTS/PLANT MATERIALS. PLANTS AND PLANT MATERIALS SHALL INCLUDE ANY LIVE PLANT MATERIAL USED ON THE PROJECT. THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO CONTAINER GROWN, B&B OR BAREROOT PLANTS; LIVE STAKES AND FASCINES (WATTLES); TUBERS, CORMS, BULBS, ETC..; SPRIGS, PLUGS, AND LINERS. 2. CONTAINER GROWN. CONTAINER GROWN PLANTS ARE THOSE WHOSE ROOTBALLS ARE ENCLOSED IN A POT OR BAG IN WHICH THAT PLANT GREW. SUBSTITUTIONS 1. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN SPECIFIED MATERIALS IN ADVANCE IF SPECIAL GROWING, MARKETING OR OTHER ARRANGEMENTS MUST BE MADE IN ORDER TO SUPPLY SPECIFIED MATERIALS. 2. SUBSTITUTION OF PLANT MATERIALS NOT ON THE PROJECT LIST WILL NOT BE PERMITTED UNLESS AUTHORIZED IN WRITING BY THE RESTORATION CONSULTANT. 3. IF PROOF IS SUBMITTED THAT ANY PLANT MATERIAL SPECIFIED IS NOT OBTAINABLE, A PROPOSAL WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR USE OF THE NEAREST EQUIVALENT SIZE OR ALTERNATIVE SPECIES, WITH CORRESPONDING ADJUSTMENT OF CONTRACT PRICE. 4. SUCH PROOF WILL BE SUBSTANTIATED AND SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CONSULTANT AT LEAST 30 DAYS PRIOR TO START OF WORK UNDER THIS SECTION. INSPECTION 1. PLANTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AND APPROVAL BY THE RESTORATION CONSULTANT FOR CONFORMANCE TO SPECIFICATIONS, EITHER AT TIME OF DELIVERY ON -SITE OR AT THE GROWER'S NURSERY. APPROVAL OF PLANT MATERIALS AT ANY TIME SHALL NOT IMPAIR THE SUBSEQUENT RIGHT OF INSPECTION AND REJECTION DURING PROGRESS OF THE WORK. 2. PLANTS INSPECTED ON SITE AND REJECTED FOR NOT MEETING SPECIFICATIONS MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY FROM SITE OR RED -TAGGED AND REMOVED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 3. THE RESTORATION CONSULTANT MAY ELECT TO INSPECT PLANT MATERIALS AT THE PLACE OF GROWTH. AFTER INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE, THE RESTORATION CONSULTANT MAY REQUIRE THE INSPECTED PLANTS BE LABELED AND RESERVED FOR PROJECT. SUBSTITUTION OF THESE PLANTS WITH OTHER INDIVIDUALS, EVEN OF THE SAME SPECIES AND SIZE, IS UNACCEPTABLE. MEASUREMENT OF PLANTS 1. PLANTS SHALL CONFORM TO SIZES SPECIFIED UNLESS SUBSTITUTIONS ARE MADE AS OUTLINED IN THIS CONTRACT. 2. HEIGHT AND SPREAD DIMENSIONS SPECIFIED REFER TO MAIN BODY OF PLANT AND NOT BRANCH OR ROOT TIP TO TIP. PLANT DIMENSIONS SHALL BE MEASURED WHEN THEIR BRANCHES OR ROOTS ARE IN THEIR NORMAL POSITION. 3. WHERE A RANGE OF SIZE IS GIVEN, NO PLANT SHALL BE LESS THAN THE MINIMUM SIZE AND AT LEAST 50% OF THE PLANTS SHALL BE AS LARGE AS THE MEDIAN OF THE SIZE RANGE. (EXAMPLE: IF THE SIZE RANGE IS 12" TO 18", AT LEAST 50% OF PLANTS MUST BE 15" TALL.). SUBMITTALS PROPOSED PLANT SOURCES 1. WITHIN 45 DAYS AFTER AWARD OF THE CONTRACT, SUBMIT A COMPLETE LIST OF PLANT MATERIALS PROPOSED TO BE PROVIDED DEMONSTRATING CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED. INCLUDE THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL GROWERS AND NURSERIES. PRODUCT CERTIFICATES 1. PLANT MATERIALS LIST - SUBMIT DOCUMENTATION TO CONSULTANT AT LEAST 30 DAYS PRIOR TO START OF WORK UNDER THIS SECTION THAT PLANT MATERIALS HAVE BEEN ORDERED. ARRANGE PROCEDURE FOR INSPECTION OF PLANT MATERIAL WITH CONSULTANT AT TIME OF SUBMISSION. 2. HAVE COPIES OF VENDOR'S OR GROWERS' INVOICES OR PACKING SLIPS FOR ALL PLANTS ON SITE DURING INSTALLATION. INVOICE OR PACKING SLIP SHOULD LIST SPECIES BY SCIENTIFIC NAME, QUANTITY, AND DATE DELIVERED (AND GENETIC ORIGIN IF THAT INFORMATION WAS PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED). DELIVERY, HANDLING, & STORAGE NOTIFICATION CONTRACTOR MUST NOTIFY CONSULTANT 48 HOURS OR MORE IN ADVANCE OF DELIVERIES SO THAT CONSULTANT MAY ARRANGE FOR INSPECTION. PLANT MATERIALS 1. TRANSPORTATION - DURING SHIPPING, PLANTS SHALL BE PACKED TO PROVIDE PROTECTION AGAINST CLIMATE EXTREMES, BREAKAGE AND DRYING. PROPER VENTILATION AND PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO BARK, BRANCHES, AND ROOT SYSTEMS MUST BE ENSURED. 2. SCHEDULING AND STORAGE - PLANTS SHALL BE DELIVERED AS CLOSE TO PLANTING AS POSSIBLE. PLANTS IN STORAGE MUST BE PROTECTED AGAINST ANY CONDITION THAT IS DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR CONTINUED HEALTH AND VIGOR. 3. HANDLING - PLANT MATERIALS SHALL NOT BE HANDLED BY THE TRUNK, LIMBS, OR FOLIAGE BUT ONLY BY THE CONTAINER, BALL, BOX, OR OTHER PROTECTIVE STRUCTURE, EXCEPT BAREROOT PLANTS SHALL BE KEPT IN BUNDLES UNTIL PLANTING AND THEN HANDLED CAREFULLY BY THE TRUNK OR STEM. 4. LABELS - PLANTS SHALL HAVE DURABLE, LEGIBLE LABELS STATING CORRECT SCIENTIFIC NAME AND SIZE. TEN PERCENT OF CONTAINER GROWN PLANTS IN INDIVIDUAL POTS SHALL BE LABELED. PLANTS SUPPLIED IN FLATS, RACKS, BOXES, BAGS, OR BUNDLES SHALL HAVE ONE LABEL PER GROUP. WARRANTY PLANT WARRANTY PLANTS MUST BE GUARANTEED TO BE TRUE TO SCIENTIFIC NAME AND SPECIFIED SIZE, AND TO BE HEALTHY AND CAPABLE OF VIGOROUS GROWTH. REPLACEMENT 1. PLANTS NOT FOUND MEETING ALL OF THE REQUIRED CONDITIONS AT THE CONSULTANT'S DISCRETION MUST BE REMOVED FROM SITE AND REPLACED IMMEDIATELY AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 2. PLANTS NOT SURVIVING AFTER ONE YEAR TO BE REPLACED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. PLANT MATERIAL GENERAL 1. PLANTS SHALL BE NURSERY GROWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOOD HORTICULTURAL PRACTICES UNDER CLIMATIC CONDITIONS SIMILAR TO OR MORE SEVERE THAN THOSE OF THE PROJECT SITE. 2. PLANTS SHALL BE TRUE TO SPECIES AND VARIETY OR SUBSPECIES. NO CULTIVARS OR NAMED VARIETIES SHALL BE USED UNLESS SPECIFIED AS SUCH. QUANTITIES SEE PLANT LIST ON ACCOMPANYING PLANS AND PLANT SCHEDULES. ROOT TREATMENT 1. CONTAINER GROWN PLANTS (INCLUDES PLUGS): PLANT ROOT BALLS MUST HOLD TOGETHER WHEN THE PLANT IS REMOVED FROM THE POT, EXCEPT THAT A SMALL AMOUNT OF LOOSE SOIL MAY BE ON THE TOP OF THE ROOTBALL. 2. PLANTS MUST NOT BE ROOT -BOUND; THERE MUST BE NO CIRCLING ROOTS PRESENT IN ANY PLANT INSPECTED. 3. ROOTBALLS THAT HAVE CRACKED OR BROKEN WHEN REMOVED FROM THE CONTAINER SHALL BE REJECTED. PLANT INSTALLATION DETAILS AND NOTES SCALE 1 I- j/j� j III ii�� 1II-�� I-1-I1 / -/1-111- IIC\(-III1((,����i Ij�"l III I/1 ,/ 2X MIN DIA. ROOTBALL - - A TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING PLAN VIEW 2" X 2" WOODEN STAKES. STAKES SHALL BE UNTREATED PINE OR DOUGLAS-FIR. OTREE STAPLE NOTES: 1. PLANTING PIT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN (2) TIMES THE WIDTH OF THE ROOT BALL DIA. 2. LOOSEN SIDES AND BOTTOMS OF PLANTING PIT 3. SOAK PLANTING PIT AFTER PLANTING REMOVE FROM POT OR BURLAP & ROUGH -UP ROOT BALL BEFORE INSTALLING. UNTANGLE AND STRAIGHTEN CIRCLING ROOTS - PRUNE IF NECESSARY. IF PLANT IS EXCEPTIONALLY ROOT -BOUND, DO NOT PLANT AND RETURN TO NURSERY FOR AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE SPECIFIED MULCH LAYER. HOLD BACK MULCH FROM TRUNK/STEMS - FINISH GRADE REMOVE DEBRIS AND LARGE ROCKS FROM PLANTING PIT AND SCARIFY SIDES AND BASE. BACKFILL WITH SPECIFIED SOIL. FIRM UP SOIL AROUND PLANT. WIDTH SHALL VARY DEPENDING ON ROOT BALL SIZE. SECTION VIEW Scale: NTS SECURE CROSS MEMBER TO VERTICAL STAKES USING THREE INCH LONG WOOD SCREWS TWO UNTREATED PINE OR DOUGLAS FIR STAKES NSTALL 2" AWAY FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROOT BALL. Scale: NTS 4" COMPOST EXISTING STEP 1 >, < PLANTING AREA PREPARATION STEP 1 2" MULCH REMOVE UNDESIRABLE SPECIES. ADDRESS COMPACTION: COMPACTION LEVELS SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR ROOT GROWTH (75-85% PROCTOR DENSITY) OR AS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY DESIGNER. DRAINAGE RATE SHALL BE BETWEEN 1 - 5 INCHES PER HOUR 2" FErni f OR AS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE rif".11 ENGINEER. WORK WITHIN EXISTING ROOT ZONES SHALL BE DONE BY HAND. PLACE FOUR (4) INCHES COMPOST. ... STEP 2 INCORPORATE COMPOST TO AN EIGHT (8) INCH DEPTH. STEP 3 PLACE TWO (2) INCH LAYER OF COMPOST. STEP 3 INSTALL MULCH LAYER TWO (2) INCHES DEEP STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 AND INSTALL PLANTS. (SEE PLANTING DETAIL.) PLANTING AREA SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE (PLANTING ZONES 1-4,7-8) SEQUENCE OF WORK - NOT TO SCALE PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION OD Copyright- The watershed company THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design J Z < 0 i OR. 0 Q w U_ LL 22C 0 G QC cc W 0 a. LL Q 0 Uw Z < Ja W 0_ TUKWILA, WA 98168 PARCEL # 0923049155 SUBMITTALS 8 REVISIONS DESCRIPTION 0 z 0 PERMIT SUBMITTAL SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-10 OF 10 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at 2926 So k, I Z 5 f _ Se,,.-tt\ e., UJIA q g / 6 $ for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. Non -responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. EXECUTED at On this day personally appeared before me (city), WV!, (state), on N o J e,wkb t r , 20 ( arc, J1.,;h (Print Name) 6 3 5 ?t a..r k A- e.. IU orh�, , P ev +Ov , W 9' g05 7 (Address) 3 I4- --3 Z- 15398 (Phone Number) to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein lc . you l,n SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS Vit's DAY OF n% V C/Pi' l LK/ ► , 20 1 MARY FULLER PRICE Notary Public State of Washington My Appointment Expires Apr 28, 2020 NOTARY P in and for the State of Washington residing at My Commission expires on \\citystore\City Common\Teri - DCD\Kirby\2016 Applications\Tree Removal and Landscape Mod Permit -March 2016.docx L. NOV 0 6 2011 Community Development For landscape plan modifications, tree replacement location or species to be planted may take into account space limitations, interference with above or below ground utilities, and existing tree species nearby. COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Public Works Department and the Department of Community Development. Please contact each Department if you feel that certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived. Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE REQUIRED. The initial application materials allow project review to begin and vest the applicant's rights. However, the City may require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. City Staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206.431-3670 (Department of Community Development) and 206-433-0179 (Department of Public Works). Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning APPLICATION MATERIALS: 1. Application Checklist one (1) copy, indicating items submitted with application. 2. Permit Fee: See Land Use Fee Schedule for standard application fee. 3. Completed Application Form and drawings (4 copies). 4. Completed and notarized Affidavit of Ownership and Hold Harmless Permission to Enter Property (1 copy attached). 5. One set of all plans reduced to either 8 1/2" x 11" or 11" x 17". 6. Written response to the approval criteria at TMC 18.54.130. 7. Written response to the exception criteria at TMC 18.54.140 if any_exceptions are requested. 8. Professional review of the replacement plan by a landscape architect, certified arborist, or a biologist 9. Proposed time schedule of vegetation removal, relocation and/or replacement, and other construction activities which may affect vegetation in sensitive areas, sensitive area buffers or in landscaped areas where a landscape plan was required and approved when the project was constructed.. SITE PLAN: 10. (a) The site plan must include a graphic scale, north arrow and project name. Maximum size 24" x 36". (b) Existing and proposed building footprints and utilities. (c) Limits of construction. (d) Parking lots, driveways and fire access lanes. (e) Fences, rockeries and retaining walls. (0 Existing and proposed topography at 2-foot contour intervals. (g) Location of all sensitive areas (e.g. streams, wetlands, slopes over 15%, and their buffers and setbacks). (h) Diameter, species name, location and canopy of existing significant trees. (i) Identification of all significant trees to be removed and/or relocated. \\citystore\City Common\Teri - DCD\Kirby\2016 Applications\Tree Removal and Landscape Mod Permit -March 2016.docx Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning PROPOSED TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN: 11. (a) Landscape planting plan by a Washington State licensed landscape architect, certified arborist, or biologist'. Maximum size 24" x 36". (b) Diameter, species name, spacing, size and location of replacement trees/vegetation to be used to replace trees that are to be removed. (c) Proposed tree relocation plan (methods, totection of tree during process) (d) Proposed tree maintenance plan (watering, weeding, mulching, etc.). 3 For single family property owners, this requirement may be waived if they agree to work with City staff to develop a plan. \\citystore\City Common\Teri • DCD\Kirby\2016 Applications\Tree Removal and Landscape Mod Permit -March 2016.docx CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 TREE REMOVAL AND LANDSCAPE MODIFICATION PERMIT APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Planner: File Number: L� VV ,--CA Application Complete Date: Project File Number: J L a 0 0 0-- Application Incomplete Date: Other File Numbers: NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: 'b-W a h Towers BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Lcridsc&pe W odt -; ccdl 6. P 0 .r1 LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. q � s, /i2 7uJt4J!/t IA/A 92 /( i LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). O9a30 - I/S-S- DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner/applicant in meetings with City staff, Community Development • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: r+n \iN/Wb r r' r D NOV 06 2011 Address: t 10 210( 2.2n4 E Lai e T& pps► WA 617 3 q Phone: 3 lL D LoO ! .3 (17 E-mail: \L i tr151)( ) t OiiA FAX: Signature: Date: `qVI 11" \\citystore\City Common\Teri - DCD\Kirby\2016 Applications\Tree Removal and Landscape Mod Permit -March 2016.docx DUWAMISH TOWERS LANDSCAPE MODIFICATION PLAN SHEET INDEX 1 L-1 2 L-2 3 L-3 4 L-4 5 L-5 6 L-6 7 L-7 8 L-8 9 L-9 10 L-10 'j. 5 m m4 S'114 S 12QhS 3 VICINITY MAP $ ur7m Sr Rainier C PROJECT LOCATION Coumry S tams/ a4 Td 4 S 1200 St O S Whispervrood 0Arr ents 9 R1TR .Duwom+sb itp.Presnrve s1161h SI PROJECT COVER SHEET PROJECT COVER SHEET EXISTING LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS TREE CANOPY ANALYSIS PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MODIFICATIONS OVERVIEW PLANTING AREA OVERVIEW PLANTING AREA 1 AND 2 PLANTING AREA 3 AND 4 PLANTING AREA 5-7 PLANTING AREA 8 PLANTING INSTALLATION DETAILS AND NOTES PROJECT INFORMATION U+IAUL PROJECT APPLICANT KIM MEROW AREA DISTRICT VICE PRESIDENT U-HAUL BUSINESS CONSULTANTS, INCE 5110 FRONTAGE ROAD NW AUBURN, WA 98001 (360)-607-3487 KIM_MEROW a@UHAUL.COM SITE ADDRESS 2925 S 112TH ST TUKWILA, WA 98168 THE WATERSHED COMPANY PROJECT CONTACT: KENNY BOOTH, AICP THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 SIXTH STREET SOUTH KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (425) 822-5242 RECEIVE NOV 06 2017 Community Development Cf7• .079 PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design 0 F —J Z < < J a O 0 F. U • w LL 2 O Y 2• • w O ao Uw Zcn < JEL' ai CC 0 TUKWILA, WA 98168 PARCEL # 0923049155 SUBMITTALS 8 REVISIONS DESCRIPTION 0 Z m 2 PERMIT SUBMITTAL SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-1 OF 10 ®CopYdgbt-The Watershed Company ---------------------------- --------------- �i 200' DUWAMISH RIVER EXISTING LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS SCALE S 112TH SREET 'sx- ‘ 0 P v 0 0 0 10 -., it 0 25' 50' 100' 200'“ SCIENTIFIC NAME (COMMON NAME) NUMBER OF TREES INVENTORIED SUM OF TRUNK DIAMETERS (Inches) AVERAGE TRUNK DIAMETER (Inches) SMALLEST TRUNK SIZE RECORDED (Inches) LARGEST TRUNK SIZE RECORDED (Inches) Pinusnigra (Austrian pine) 75 1,329.1 17.7 10 28.5 Acer rubrum (Red maple) 37 528.9 14.3 6 25.2 Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsura tree) 32 386.2 12.0 9,2 18.8 Malus sp. <flowering> (Flowering crabapple) 21 170.4 8.11 5.6 12.2 Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) 18 385.80 21.4 12 26.9 Thuja plicata (Western red cedar) 17 241.3 14.2 5.8 21 Carpinus betulus (European hornbeam) 16 153.6 9.6 4.3 13.6 Pinus sp. <2 needle> (Pine tree, 2 needle) 14 70.8 5.06 3.5 6.1 Pyrus calleryana (Callery pear) 13 102.2 7.9 7 9 Liriodendron to/ipffero (Tulip) 8 97.9 12.2 5 24 Pinus contorts (Shore pine) 4 24.8 6.2 4.2 11 Pinus monticolo (Western white pine) 2 8.9 4.45 4.3 4.6 Sequaiadendron giganteum (Giant sequoia) 2 14.3 7.2 6.8 7.5 Cryptomeria japonica (Japanese cedar) 2 10.7 5.4 5.2 5.5 Betula pendula (European white birch) 1 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 Pinus sylvestris (Scots pine) 1 17 17 17 17 Grand Total 263 3,555.6 13.5 3.5 28.5 LEGEND 0 * EXISTING INVENTORIED TREES ASSESSED CANOPY DRIPLINE OHWM (PER SITE SURVEY) SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION NOTES 1. TREES INVENTORIED AND ASSESSED BY THE WATERSHED COMPANY ON OCTOBER 24, 26, AND 30, 2017. REFER TO THE THE WATERSHED COMPANY LANDSCAPE MODIFICATION ASSESSMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 2. SITE SURVEY BY BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. RECEIVED NOV 06 2017 Community Development /i'Oc7f PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ® Copyright- The watershed Company Sci 7 THE WATERSHED COMPANY 50 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com ence & Design J Z < < J r Z F.Oc7i O w= E2N E 2 T- O Y� W • 0 N < O N C) W 0 z< a TUKWILA, WA 98168 PARCEL # 0923049155 m PERMIT SUBMITTAL 9 SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-2 OF 10 --------------- I / DUWAMISH RIVER TSCALE1:50REE CANOPY ANALYSIS S 112TH SREET 0 25' 50' 100' P 200'“ AREA ESTIMATED EXISTING CANOPY COVERAGE PROPOSED CANOPY COVERAGE CANOPY FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS CANOPY AFTER REPLANTING Shoreline Buffer (113,681 SF) 40.3% (45,870 SF) 40.3% (45,870 SF) 40.3% (45,870 SF) Shoreline Jurisdiction (Outside of buffer) (114,120 SF). 29.4% (33,528 SF) 22.3% (25,462 SF) 31.7% (36,142 SF) Non -shoreline (333,437 SF) 14.3% (47,708 SF) 5.7% (19,225 SF) 12.8% (42,811 SF) Overall Site Canopy (561,238 SF) 22.6% (127,106 SF) 16.1% (90,557 SF) 22.2% (124,823 SF) LEGEND F ._] CANOPY WITHIN SHORELINE BUFFER (OHWM-100') (45,870 SF) CANOPY WITHIN SHORELINE JURISDICTION (100'-200') (33,528 SF) CANOPY OUTSIDE OF SHORELINE JURISDICTION (47,708 SF) ASSESSED CANOPY DRIPLINE SURVEYED CANOPY DRIPLINE PROPOSED CANOPY REDUCTION BEFORE REPLACEMENT (36,549 SF) - OHWM (PER SITE SURVEY) — — — SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION NOTES 1. TO DETERMINE CANOPY COVER, THE CANOPY RADIUS OF EACH ON -SITE TREE WAS SURVEYED IN THE FIELD BY A PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR. THE RADII FOR ALL TREES TO BE REMOVED WERE THEN VERIFIED IN THE FIELD BY AN ARBORIST. THESE MEASUREMENTS WERE CATALOGUED AND A TOTAL CANOPY COVER FOR THE SITE WAS CALCULATED. ADJACENT TREES WITH OVERLAPPING CANOPIES WERE FURTHER ASSESSED FOR ACCURACY PURPOSES. FOR EXAMPLE, A STAND OF TREES FORMING AN OVERLAPPING CANOPY WOULD NOT HAVE THE SAME CANOPY COVERAGE AS THE SAME NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL TREES, SHARING THE SAME CANOPY RADIUS, BUT GROWING INDIVIDUALLY. RECEIVED Nov 062017 Community Development L17OO77 PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design 0 Copyright- The Watershed Company J Z < < J a Z H CCW (D I �2 O Y� "I• CCN Q O N U0 W Io CC Z < W CC a SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PARCEL # 0923049155 PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-3 OF 10 j S 112TH SREET DUWAMISH RIVER LANDSCAPE MODIFICATIONS OVERVIEW 0 25' 50' 100' PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS PER VEGETATION ZONE ZONE 1 CONSISTS OF 26 KATSURA TREES PLANTED WITHIN A RAISED PLANTER. ALL 26 TREES AND INTACT ROOTS ARE TO BE REMOVED. 2O ZONE 2 CONSISTS OF 13 PEAR TREES PLANTED IN RAISED BEDS. ALL TREES AND THEIR INTACT ROOTS WILL BE REMOVED. CD 0 ZONE 3 CONTAINS 8 LARGE COAST REDWOODS, ALL OF WHICH WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH SMALL TREES, SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVERS. ZONE 4 CONTAINS 6 KATSURA TREES AND 12 FLOWERING CRABAPPLES. ALL TREES AND THEIR INTACT ROOTS ARE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION. ZONE 5 CONTAINS 16 AUSTRIAN PINE TREES. ALL 16 TREES AND THEIR INTACT ROOTS ARE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION ON -SITE. ENGLISH IVY SHALL BE REMOVED AND THE UNDERSTORY WILL BE REPLACED WITH SMALL TREES AND SHRUBS. ZONE 6 CONTAINS 13 AUSTRIAN PINE TREES PLANTED VERY CLOSE TO THE EXISTING PARKING LOT AND RETAINING WALL. TREES SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH APPROPRIATE STREET TREES AND SHRUBS. ZONE 7 IS A RAISED BED LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PARKING LOT. IT CURRENTLY CONTAINS 6 LARGE COAST REDWOOD TREES THAT WILL BE REMOVED.. ( ) ZONE 8 CONTAINS 4 AUSTRIAN PINE TREES PLANTED IN A RETAINED PLANTER BETWEEN THE ROAD AND A RETAINING WALL. TREES AND THEIR INTACT ROOTS SHALL BE REMOVED. THE UNDER STORY OF ENGLISH IVY WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH SHRUBS. 10 11 12 13 J ZONE 9 IS A TURF BIO SWALE CONTAINING A GROUP RED MAPLES, AND WESTERN RED CEDAR. 2 RED MAPLES AND THE UNDER STORY TURF WILL BE REMOVED. THE GRADES WILL BE ADJUSTED TO FIX THE DRAINAGE FUNCTIONS OF THE SWALE. TURF WILL BE REPLACED WITH APPROPRIATE SHRUBS. ZONE 10 CONTAINS 4 COAST REDWOODS, 2 JAPANESE CEDARS, 2 WHITE PINES, AND 2 GIANT SEQUOIA TREES. ALL COAST REDWOODS AND JAPANESE CEDARS ARE TO BE REMOVED. THE GIANT SEQUOIA AND WHITE PINES ARE TO BE TRANSPLANTED IN A MORE APPROPRIATE PLANTING LOCATION. ZONE 11 CONTAINS 17 AUSTRIAN PINES AND EIGHT EUROPEAN HORNBEAMS. ALL TREES ARE TO BE REMOVED. ZONE 12 CONTAINS 5 AUSTRIAN PINE TREES AND 1 RED MAPLE THAT ARE TO BE REMOVED. ZONE 13 CONTAINS 14 AUSTRIAN PINE AND 1 BIRCH TREE. THE BIRCH TREE WILL BE REMOVED AND ALL AUSTRIAN PINES WILL BE LIMBED UP ONE THIRD THEIR TOTAL HEIGHT. UNDERSTORY OF ENGLISH IVY WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACE WITH SHRUBS. LEGEND IN* TREES TO BE REMOVED O - TREES TO BE RETAINED — — — VEGETATION ZONE BOUNDARY ASSESSED CANOPY DRIPLINE - OHWM (PER SITE SURVEY) - SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION NOTES 1. REFER LANDSCAPE MODIFICATIONS ASSESSMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFQRMATION. RECEIVE NOV 002011 GommUr' DevelopmeYnt G/7-a779 PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION e Copyright- The Watershed Compa THE WATERSHED hal COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design J Z < 0 Z 0R. O I- U • W [r_ Q O (4Q W CC N Y O N I- L) • a (i)0 CC Z< < 0 J W CC 0 PARCEL # 0923049155 to z 0 rn w oa to J G° co0 U Z ERMIT SUBM SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-4 OF 10 S 112TH SREET • e+'-4" 94i9 o 0 DUWAMISH RIVER PLANTING AREA OVERVIEW S 0 25' 50' 100' =i1 MASTER PLANTING SCHEDULE LARGE TREES COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY GREEN COLUMN MAPLE /ACER NIGRUM 'GREENCOLUMN' 5 GALLON 2.5 2 491 SF CANOPY COVER RED MAPLE / ACER RUBRUM 5 GALLON 2.5 8 1,257 SF OF CANOPY COVER MAGYAR GINKGO / GINKGO BILOBA 'MAGYAR' 5 GALLON 2.5 3 491 SF OF CANOPY COVER MEDIUM TREES COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY 75 BOWHALL MAPLE /ACER RUBRUM 'BOWHALL' 5 GALLON 2.5 10 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER 200'“ ` WESTERN HAZELNUT / CORYLUS CORNUTA 2 GALLON 2.5 3 707 SF OF CANOPY COVERAGE 0 CASCARA / RHAMNUS PURSHIANA 5 GALLON 2.5 7 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER SMALL TREES ac) • 0 SHRUBS • GROUND COVERS COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME LEGEND COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY VINE MAPLE / ACER CIRCINATUM 5 GALLON 2.5 24 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER CORNELIAN CHERRY DOGWOOD / CORNUS MAS 2 GALLON 2.5 8 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER AMERICAN SMOKE TREE / COTINUS OBOVATUS 5 GALLON 2.5 18 491 SF OF CANOPY COVER LANCELOT CRAB APPLE / MALUS X 'LANCELOT' TM 5 GALLON 2.5 6 50 SF OF CANOPY COVER COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT SPACING QTY STRAWBERRY TREE SHRUB / ARBUTUS UNEDO 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 51 RED TWIG DOGWOOD / CORNUS SERICEA 'BAILEYI' 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 93 WINGED EUONYMUS / EUONYMUS ALATUS 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 37 TWINBERRY / LONICERA INVOLUCRATA 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 46 PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE / MYRICA CALIFORNICA 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 93 CONT SPACING QTY SLOUGH SEDGE / CAREX OBNUPTA 1 GALLON 24" o.c. 221 SOFT RUSH / JUNCUS EFFUSUS 1 GALLON 24" o.c. 171 OHWM (PER SITE SURVEY) — — — SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION — — PLANTING AREA BOUNDARY NOTES 1. CANOPY COVER SQUARE FOOTAGES FROM THE CITY OF TUKWILA APPROVED TREE LIST. RECEIVED NOV 06 2017 Community Development Ci7v-00M PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION THE WATERSHED 6.7 COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design ® Copyright- The Watershed company PARCEL # 0923049155 uJ 0 2 PERMIT SUBMITTAL 9 SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-5 OF 10 a. CO PLANTING AREA 1 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 MATCHLINE PLANTING AREA 2 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 SCA PLELAS NAOTEDNTING AREAS 1 AND 2 # \J I LARGE TREES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY REMARKS PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 1 ACRU RED MAPLE / ACER RUBRUM 5 GALLON 2.5 4 1,257 SF OF CANOPY COVER SHRUBS CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT SPACING QTY REMARKS 0 AU STRAWBERRY TREE SHRUB / ARBUTUS UNEDO 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 15 CB RED TWIG DOGWOOD / CORNUS SERICEA'BAILEYI' 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 1 EA WINGED EUONYMUS / EUONYMUS ALATUS 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 12 MC PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE / MYRICA CALIFORNICA 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 8 NOTES LEGEND / 1. ALL ENGLISH IVY AND UNDER STORY SHRUBS — — — — SHORELINE BUFFER SHALL BE REMOVED IN THEIR ENTIRETY, 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL ROOTS, FOLIAGE, AND ASSOCIATED DEBRIS. 2. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 2 LARGE TREES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY REMARKS AG GREEN COLUMN MAPLE /ACER NIGRUM 'GREENCOLUMN' 5 GALLON 2.5 2 491 SF CANOPY COVER GM MAGYAR GINKGO / GINKGO BILOBA 'MAGYAR' 5 GALLON 2.5 3 491 SF OF CANOPY COVER SHRUBS CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT SPACING QTY REMARKS 0 CB RED TWIG DOGWOOD / CORNUS SERICEA 'BAILEYI' 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 22 MC PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE / MYRICA CALIFORNICA 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 85 NOTES 1. ALL ENGLISH IVY AND UNDER STORY SHRUBS SHALL BE REMOVED IN THEIR ENTIRETY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL ROOTS, FOLIAGE, AND ASSOCIATED DEBRIS. 2. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 LEGEND — — — — SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION THE WATERSHED hal COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design RECEIVED NOV 0 6 2017 Community Development £i7OO79 PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ® Copyright -The Watershed Company -J < J a 0 OO U w= _ • N D2T- O • CC Lo Y� 111 Q O N Ua 0 CC �w Z < Q J w CC a. PARCEL # 0923049155 SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS DESCRIPTION PERMIT SUBMITTAL SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-6 OF 10 \\ PLANTING AREA 3 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 MATCHLINE ,./,1, f PLANTING AREA 4 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 PLANTING AREAS 3 AND 4 S PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 3 MEDIUM TREES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY REMARKS C) ABRU BO BOWHALL MAPLE /ACER RUBRUM'BOWHALL' 5 GALLON 2.5 3 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER SMALL TREES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY REMARKS ACCI VINE MAPLE / ACER CIRCINATUM 5 GALLON 2.5 6 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER ����,,,,���� ML LANCELOT CRAB APPLE / MALUS X'LANCELOT' TM 5 GALLON 2.5 6 50 SF OF CANOPY COVER NOTES LEGEND 1. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 2. PRESERVE EXISTING UNDERSTORY LANDSCAPE. --- SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 4 MEDIUM TREES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY REMARKS ABRU BO BOWHALL MAPLE / ACER RUBRUM'BOWHALL' 5 GALLON 2.5 7 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER CW WESTERN HAZELNUT / CORYLUS CORNUTA 2 GALLON 2.5 3 707 SF OF CANOPY COVERAGE RHPU CASCARA / RHAMNUS PURSHIANA 5 GALLON 2.5 7 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER SMALL TREES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY REMARKS CM CORNELIAN CHERRY DOGWOOD / CORNUS MAS 2 GALLON 2.5 8 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER CO AMERICAN SMOKE TREE / COTINUS OBOVATUS 5 GALLON 2.5 7 491 SF OF CANOPY COVER SHRUBS CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT SPACING QTY REMARKS a AU STRAWBERRY TREE SHRUB / ARBUTUS UNEDO 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 18 ® EA WINGED EUONYMUS / EUONYMUS ALATUS 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 25 NOTES LEGEND 1. ALL ENGLISH IVY AND UNDER -STORY SHRUBS — — — — SHORELINE BUFFER SHALL BE REMOVED IN THEIR ENTIRETY, 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL ROOTS, FOLIAGE, AND ASSOCIATED DEBRIS. 2. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 THE WATERSHED 111 COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design ECEIVE ► NOV 06 2011 Community Development L/? oozy PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION m Copyright- The watershed company J Z < < J t i OpI— D2T OY� W 0 N Q O Ua co W oCC Z < Q J W CC 0 CO CO 0 Cr) J PARCEL # 0923049155 SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS DESCRIPTION Fw- 0 z PERMIT SUBMITTAL SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-7 OF 10 I i ;1 i4 J'II PLANTING AREA 5 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 PLANTING AREA 6 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 PLANTING AREA 7 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 PLANTING AREAS 5-7 S 0 10 ki PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 5 SHRUBS CODE CB LI NOTES COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME RED TWIG DOGWOOD / CORNUS SERICEA 'BAILEYI' TWINBERRY/LONICERAINVOLUCRATA 2. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 PRESERVE EXISTING UNDERSTORY LANDSCAPE. LEGEND CONT 2 GALLON 2 GALLON 48" o.c. 21 SPACING QTY REMARKS 48" O.C. 21 — — — — SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 6 SMALL TREES SHRUBS GROUND COVERS terWel •11 NOTES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME ACCI VINE MAPLE /ACER CIRCINATUM CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY REMARKS 5 GALLON 2.5 18 314 SF OF CANOPY COVER CONT SPACING QTY REMARKS CB RED TWIG DOGWOOD / CORNUS SERICEA 'BAILEYI' 2 GALLON CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CO2 SLOUGH SEDGE / CAREX OBNUPTA JE SOFT RUSH / JUNCUS EFFUSUS CONT 1 GALLON 1 GALLON 48" o.c. 49 SPACING QTY REMARKS 24" o.c. 221 24" o.c. 171 1. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 7 LFGEND TH E WATERSHED hal COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design — — — — SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION SMALL TREES CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME SHRUBS NOTES 1. 2. CONT CAL CO AMERICAN SMOKE TREE / COTINUS OBOVATUS 5 GALLON 2.5 CODE COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT AU STRAWBERRY TREE SHRUB / ARBUTUS UNEDO 2 GALLON QTY REMARKS 5 491 SF OF CANOPY COVER SPACING QTY REMARKS 48" o.c. 18 ALL ENGLISH IVY AND UNDERSTORY SHRUBS SHALL BE REMOVED IN THEIR ENTIRETY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL ROOTS, FOLIAGE, AND ASSOCIATED DEBRIS. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 LEGEND RECEIVED NOV 0 6 2017 — — — — SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION Community Development £i7'Oo79 PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION e Copyright- The Watershed Company —J Z < < J 1 a gip, 1(71 CC LO W 0" Q u N Ua W 0 CC Z < < J W CC a PARCEL # 0923049155 SUBMITTALS 8 REVISIONS m DESCRIPTION 0 PERMIT SUBMITTAL SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-8 OF 10 ti i I I o 0 II -r,,, PLANTING AREA 8 PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1:20 PLANTING AREA 8 PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING AREA 8 LARGE TREES COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY RED MAPLE / ACER RUBRUM 5 GALLON 2.5 4 1,257 SF OF CANOPY COVER SMALL TREES COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME CONT CAL QTY AMERICAN SMOKE TREE / COTINUS OBOVATUS 5 GALLON 2.5 6 491 SF OF CANOPY COVER NOTES 1. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE. SHEET L-1.0 2. PRESERVE EXISTING UNDER STORY LANDSCAPE. LEGEND — — — — SHORELINE BUFFER 200' SHORELINE JURISDICTION RECEIVED NOV 06 2011 Community Development 1/7-007f PERMIT SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ® Copyright- The Watershed Company TH E WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design J J ZMD 0 0 1- 00 Q OYT-Q W 0 N UD W oCC Z Q as J W a. SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22° x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PARCEL # 0923049155 PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-9 OF10 PLANT INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL NOTES QUALITY ASSURANCE 1. PLANTS SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE SPECIFICATIONS OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS REQUIRING INSPECTION FOR PLANT DISEASE AND INSECT CONTROL. 2. PLANTS SHALL BE HEALTHY, VIGOROUS, AND WELL -FORMED, WITH WELL DEVELOPED, FIBROUS ROOT SYSTEMS, FREE FROM DEAD BRANCHES OR ROOTS. PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM DAMAGE CAUSED BY TEMPERATURE EXTREMES, LACK OR EXCESS OF MOISTURE, INSECTS, DISEASE, AND MECHANICAL INJURY. PLANTS IN LEAF SHALL BE WELL FOLIATED AND OF GOOD COLOR. PLANTS SHALL BE HABITUATED TO THE OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS INTO WHICH THEY WILL BE PLANTED (HARDENED -OFF). 3. TREES WITH DAMAGED, CROOKED, MULTIPLE OR BROKEN LEADERS WILL BE REJECTED. WOODY PLANTS WITH ABRASIONS OF THE BARK OR SUN SCALD WILL BE REJECTED. 4. NOMENCLATURE: PLANT NAMES SHALL CONFORM TO FLORA OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST BY HITCHCOCK AND CRONQUIST, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON PRESS, 1973 AND/OR TO A FIELD GUIDE TO THE COMMON WETLAND PLANTS OF WESTERN WASHINGTON & NORTHWESTERN OREGON, ED. SARAH SPEAR COOKE, SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY, 1997. DEFINITIONS 1. PLANTS/PLANT MATERIALS. PLANTS AND PLANT MATERIALS SHALL INCLUDE ANY LIVE PLANT MATERIAL USED ON THE PROJECT. THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO CONTAINER GROWN, B&B OR BAREROOT PLANTS; LIVE STAKES AND FASCINES (WATTLES); TUBERS, CORMS, BULBS, ETC..; SPRIGS, PLUGS, AND LINERS. 2. CONTAINER GROWN. CONTAINER GROWN PLANTS ARE THOSE WHOSE ROOTBALLS ARE ENCLOSED IN A POT OR BAG IN WHICH THAT PLANT GREW. SUBSTITUTIONS 1. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN SPECIFIED MATERIALS IN ADVANCE IF SPECIAL GROWING, MARKETING OR OTHER ARRANGEMENTS MUST BE MADE IN ORDER TO SUPPLY SPECIFIED MATERIALS. 2. SUBSTITUTION OF PLANT MATERIALS NOT ON THE PROJECT LIST WILL NOT BE PERMITTED UNLESS AUTHORIZED IN WRITING BY THE RESTORATION CONSULTANT. 3. IF PROOF IS SUBMITTED THAT ANY PLANT MATERIAL SPECIFIED IS NOT OBTAINABLE, A PROPOSAL WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR USE OF THE NEAREST EQUIVALENT SIZE OR ALTERNATIVE SPECIES, WITH CORRESPONDING ADJUSTMENT OF CONTRACT PRICE. 4. SUCH PROOF WILL BE SUBSTANTIATED AND SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CONSULTANT AT LEAST 30 DAYS PRIOR TO START OF WORK UNDER THIS SECTION. INSPECTION 1. PLANTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AND APPROVAL BY THE RESTORATION CONSULTANT FOR CONFORMANCE TO SPECIFICATIONS, EITHER AT TIME OF DELIVERY ON -SITE OR AT THE GROWER'S NURSERY. APPROVAL OF PLANT MATERIALS AT ANY TIME SHALL NOT IMPAIR THE SUBSEQUENT RIGHT OF INSPECTION AND REJECTION DURING PROGRESS OF THE WORK. 2. PLANTS INSPECTED ON SITE AND REJECTED FOR NOT MEETING SPECIFICATIONS MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY FROM SITE OR RED -TAGGED AND REMOVED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 3. THE RESTORATION CONSULTANT MAY ELECT TO INSPECT PLANT MATERIALS AT THE PLACE OF GROWTH. AFTER INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE, THE RESTORATION CONSULTANT MAY REQUIRE THE INSPECTED PLANTS BE LABELED AND RESERVED FOR PROJECT. SUBSTITUTION OF THESE PLANTS WITH OTHER INDIVIDUALS, EVEN OF THE SAME SPECIES AND SIZE, IS UNACCEPTABLE. MEASUREMENT OF PLANTS 1. PLANTS SHALL CONFORM TO SIZES SPECIFIED UNLESS SUBSTITUTIONS ARE MADE AS OUTLINED IN THIS CONTRACT. 2. HEIGHT AND SPREAD DIMENSIONS SPECIFIED REFER TO MAIN BODY OF PLANT AND NOT BRANCH OR ROOT TIP TO TIP. PLANT DIMENSIONS SHALL BE MEASURED WHEN THEIR BRANCHES OR ROOTS ARE IN THEIR NORMAL POSITION. 3. WHERE A RANGE OF SIZE IS GIVEN, NO PLANT SHALL BE LESS THAN THE MINIMUM SIZE AND AT LEAST 50% OF THE PLANTS SHALL BE AS LARGE AS THE MEDIAN OF THE SIZE RANGE. (EXAMPLE: IF THE SIZE RANGE IS 12" TO 18", AT LEAST 50% OF PLANTS MUST BE 15" TALL.). SUBMITTALS PROPOSED PLANT SOURCES 1. WITHIN 45 DAYS AFTER AWARD OF THE CONTRACT, SUBMIT A COMPLETE LIST OF PLANT MATERIALS PROPOSED TO BE PROVIDED DEMONSTRATING CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED. INCLUDE THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL GROWERS AND NURSERIES. PRODUCT CERTIFICATES 1. PLANT MATERIALS LIST- SUBMIT DOCUMENTATION TO CONSULTANT AT LEAST 30 DAYS PRIOR TO START OF WORK UNDER THIS SECTION THAT PLANT MATERIALS HAVE BEEN ORDERED. ARRANGE PROCEDURE FOR INSPECTION OF PLANT MATERIAL WITH CONSULTANT AT TIME OF SUBMISSION. 2. HAVE COPIES OF VENDOR'S OR GROWERS' INVOICES OR PACKING SLIPS FOR ALL PLANTS ON SITE DURING INSTALLATION. INVOICE OR PACKING SLIP SHOULD LIST SPECIES BY SCIENTIFIC NAME, QUANTITY, AND DATE DELIVERED (AND GENETIC ORIGIN IF THAT INFORMATION WAS PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED). DELIVERY, HANDLING, & STORAGE NOTIFICATION CONTRACTOR MUST NOTIFY CONSULTANT 48 HOURS OR MORE IN ADVANCE OF DELIVERIES SO THAT CONSULTANT MAY ARRANGE FOR INSPECTION. PLANT MATERIALS 1. TRANSPORTATION - DURING SHIPPING, PLANTS SHALL BE PACKED TO PROVIDE PROTECTION AGAINST CLIMATE EXTREMES, BREAKAGE AND DRYING. PROPER VENTILATION AND PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO BARK, BRANCHES, AND ROOT SYSTEMS MUST BE ENSURED. 2. SCHEDULING AND STORAGE - PLANTS SHALL BE DELIVERED AS CLOSE TO PLANTING AS POSSIBLE. PLANTS IN STORAGE MUST BE PROTECTED AGAINST ANY CONDITION THAT IS DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR CONTINUED HEALTH AND VIGOR. 3. HANDLING - PLANT MATERIALS SHALL NOT BE HANDLED BY THE TRUNK, LIMBS, OR FOLIAGE BUT ONLY BY THE CONTAINER, BALL, BOX, OR OTHER PROTECTIVE STRUCTURE, EXCEPT BAREROOT PLANTS SHALL BE KEPT IN BUNDLES UNTIL PLANTING AND THEN HANDLED CAREFULLY BY THE TRUNK OR STEM. 4. LABELS - PLANTS SHALL HAVE DURABLE, LEGIBLE LABELS STATING CORRECT SCIENTIFIC NAME AND SIZE. TEN PERCENT OF CONTAINER GROWN PLANTS IN INDIVIDUAL POTS SHALL BE LABELED. PLANTS SUPPLIED IN FLATS, RACKS, BOXES, BAGS, OR BUNDLES SHALL HAVE ONE LABEL PER GROUP. WARRANTY PLANT WARRANTY PLANTS MUST BE GUARANTEED TO BE TRUE TO SCIENTIFIC NAME AND SPECIFIED SIZE, AND TO BE HEALTHY AND CAPABLE OF VIGOROUS GROWTH. REPLACEMENT 1. PLANTS NOT FOUND MEETING ALL OF THE REQUIRED CONDITIONS AT THE CONSULTANT'S DISCRETION MUST BE REMOVED FROM SITE AND REPLACED IMMEDIATELY AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 2. PLANTS NOT SURVIVING AFTER ONE YEAR TO BE REPLACED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. PLANT MATERIAL GENERAL 1. PLANTS SHALL BE NURSERY GROWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOOD HORTICULTURAL PRACTICES UNDER CLIMATIC CONDITIONS SIMILAR TO OR MORE SEVERE THAN THOSE OF THE PROJECT SITE. 2. PLANTS SHALL BE TRUE TO SPECIES AND VARIETY OR SUBSPECIES. NO CULTIVARS OR NAMED VARIETIES SHALL BE USED UNLESS SPECIFIED AS SUCH. QUANTITIES SEE PLANT LIST ON ACCOMPANYING PLANS AND PLANT SCHEDULES. ROOT TREATMENT 1. CONTAINER GROWN PLANTS (INCLUDES PLUGS): PLANT ROOT BALLS MUST HOLD TOGETHER WHEN THE PLANT IS REMOVED FROM THE POT, EXCEPT THAT A SMALL AMOUNT OF LOOSE SOIL MAY BE ON THE TOP OF THE ROOTBALL. 2. PLANTS MUST NOT BE ROOT -BOUND; THERE MUST BE NO CIRCLING ROOTS PRESENT IN ANY PLANT INSPECTED. 3. ROOTBALLS THAT HAVE CRACKED OR BROKEN WHEN REMOVED FROM THE CONTAINER SHALL BE REJECTED. PLANT INSTALLATION DETAILS AND NOTES SCALE AS NOTED .III -1 1-=_V\LITIl„iI „ lifIIfi-1III. 2X MIN DIA. ROOTBALL - - A TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING 2" X 2" WOODEN STAKES. STAKES SHALL BE UNTREATED PINE OR DOUGLAS-FIR. O TREE STAPLE PLAN VIEW NOTES: 1. PLANTING PIT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN (2) TIMES THE WIDTH OF THE ROOT BALL DIA. 2. LOOSEN SIDES AND BOTTOMS OF PLANTING PIT 3. SOAK PLANTING PIT AFTER PLANTING REMOVE FROM POT OR BURLAP & ROUGH -UP ROOT BALL BEFORE INSTALLING. UNTANGLE AND STRAIGHTEN CIRCLING ROOTS - PRUNE IF NECESSARY. IF PLANT IS EXCEPTIONALLY ROOT -BOUND, DO NOT PLANT AND RETURN TO NURSERY FOR AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE SPECIFIED MULCH LAYER. HOLD BACK MULCH FROM TRUNK/STEMS - FINISH GRADE REMOVE DEBRIS AND LARGE ROCKS FROM PLANTING PIT AND SCARIFY SIDES AND BASE. BACKFILL WITH SPECIFIED SOIL. FIRM UP SOIL AROUND PLANT. WIDTH SHALL VARY DEPENDING ON ROOT BALL SIZE. Scale: NTS SECURE CROSS MEMBER TO VERTICAL STAKES USING THREE INCH LONG WOOD SCREWS TWO UNTREATED PINE OR DOUGLAS FIR STAKES INSTALL 2" AWAY FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROOT BALL. _L1i� % �'�i�%��:nl•J W W W= Haman-u-_� ��J/I2\ � utt m-m-m-m- IaIElIEIIEIIEi =,,,_„ _„_,-uf_m-m-m-m-¢► - IElla11=11E11 311-I1-IIEI\m m m m �_ Iala name en EIIEmanE WWmII rim=m, SECTION VIEW Scale: NTS 4" COMPOST 2" COMPOST 2" MULCH EXISTING STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 PLANTING AREA PREPARATION STEP 1 REMOVE UNDESIRABLE SPECIES. ADDRESS COMPACTION: COMPACTION LEVELS SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR ROOT GROWTH (75-85% PROCTOR DENSITY) OR AS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY DESIGNER. DRAINAGE RATE SHALL BE BETWEEN 1 - 5 INCHES PER HOUR OR AS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. WORK WITHIN EXISTING ROOT ZONES SHALL BE DONE BY HAND. PLACE FOUR (4) INCHES COMPOST. STEP 2 INCORPORATE COMPOST TO AN EIGHT (8) INCH DEPTH. STEP 3 PLACE TWO (2) INCH LAYER OF COMPOST. STEP 3 INSTALL MULCH LAYER TWO (2) INCHES DEEP AND INSTALL PLANTS. (SEE PLANTING DETAIL.) PLANTING AREA SOIL PREPARATION SEQUENCE (PLANTING ZONES 1-4,7-8) SEQUENCE OF WORK - NOT TO SCALE ► .CEOVED NOV 06 2011 Community vEDRmM I T 4/7- 007f SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION a Copyright -The Watershed Company THE WATERSHED COMPANY 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 www.watershedco.com Science & Design J z< O � jO < cc w U_ L.L 2 O Y W0 0_ LL U a co W Io CC z < < 0' J W 0_ 0_ TUKWILA, WA 98168 PARCEL # 0923049155 SUBMITTALS 8 REVISIONS m DESCRIPTION 0 0 z as 2 PERMIT SUBMITTAL 0 SHEET SIZE: ORIGINAL PLAN S 22" x 34". SCALE ACCORDINGLY. PROJECT MANAGER: KB DESIGNED: KMB DRAFTED: KMB CHECKED: KB JOB NUMBER: 170931 SHEET NUMBER: L-10 OF 10