The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit L09-015 - CABIAO LEONARD - TREE CLEARING PERMITADULT FAMILY Leonard Cabio Tree Clearmg 15854 - 42 Ave S L09 -015 • City of Tukwila • Department of Community Development NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Leonard Cabio King County Assessor, Accounting Division Washington State Department of Ecology Jim Haggerton, Mayor Jack Pace, Director December 4, 2009 This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. I. PROJECT. INFORMATION Protect File Number: L09 -015 Applicant: Leonard Cabio Type of Permit Applied for: Tree Clearing Permit Proiect Description: Removal of trees on steep slope. Location: King County Parcel 810860 -0582 Associated Files: D07 -105 (Demo Permit) D08 -147 (Building Permit) RFA08 -340 (Code Enforcement) Comprehensive Plan Designation /Zoning District: Low Density Residential (LDR) II. DECISION SEPA Determination: The City SEPA Responsible Official has previously determined that this application does not require a SEPA threshold determination because it is categorically exempt. Decision on Substantive Permit: The City Community Development has determined that the application for a tree clearing permit does comply with applicable City and state code requirements and has approved that application, subject to the following conditions: 1. Per TMC 18.54.150 (C) the tree clearing permit shall be valid for 180 -days upon issuance by the City. All work, required inspections, required documentation shall be provided to the City prior to expiration of the permit. B. Miles Page 1 12/03/2009 H: \Tree Permit \Cabio, L09- 015 \NOD Type 1.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 M • 2. All work performed shall be consistent with the recommendations provided in the Tree Solutions Memo and Rosenau Report. 3. All work must be performed in accordance with the approved Permit plans specified in this chapter or revised plans as may be determined by the Director. The applicant shall obtain permission in writing from the Director prior to modifying the plans. 4. Vegetation protective devices shall be installed around all trees and vegetation not proposed to be removed. 5. The applicant shall at all times protect improvements to adjacent private properties and public rights of way or easements from damage during clearing. The applicant shall restore to the standards in effect at the time of the issuance of the permit any public or private improvements damaged by the applicant's operations. 6. All protected and replacement trees and vegetation shown in the approved tree clearing permit materials shall be maintained in healthy condition by the property owner throughout the life of the project, unless otherwise approved by the Director in a subsequent Tree Clearing Permit. 7. Prior to final approval the applicant shall provide the City a payment equal to planting five vine maples at a City property. The payment shall be placed in the trees "Tree Fund ". The following formula shall be used to determine the exact payment amount, (cost of vine maple + transport + labor to prep soils + installation labor + cost of mulch). The applicant shall provide a cost estimate to the City within 90 days of issuance of this permit. 8. Prior to final approval the applicant shall provide the City the cost of all vegetation installed as required under this permit. The City shall verify the costs and the applicant shall provide the City a financial guarantee of 150 percent of the cost of the vegetation. The financial guarantee shall be held with the City for one year following the City's acceptance of the initial planting. The City shall re- inspect in one year and if the vegetation planted under this permit is still alive shall refund the financial guarantee to the applicant. It's the applicant's responsibility to insure that the City has access to the property for the follow up inspection. If the applicant sells the property the applicant must insure that the City can legally access the property to conduct the City's re- inspection. III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type 1 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code §18.104.010. Other land use applications related to this project may still be pending. One administrative appeal to the City Hearing Examiner of the Decision on the Permit itself is permitted. A party who is not satisfied with the outcome of the Hearing Examiner appeal process may file an appeal in King County Superior Court from the Hearing Examiner's decision. B. Miles Page 2 12/03/2009 H: \Tree Permit \Cabio, L09- 015 \NOD Type 1.doc IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING In order to appeal the Community Development Director decision on the Permit Application, a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within 14 days of the issuance of this Decision, that is by December 18, 2009. The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code ch. 18.116. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials MUST include: 1. The name of the appealing party. 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision, including any specific challenge to an MDNS. 4. The Notice of Appeal shall identify (a) the specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; (b) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and (c) the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. 5. Appeal fee based on the current fee schedule. V. APPEAL HEARINGS PROCESS Any administrative appeal regarding the Permit shall be conducted as a closed record hearing before the Hearing Examiner based on the information presented to the Community Development Director, who made the original decision. No new evidence or testimony will be permitted during the appeal hearing. Parties will be allowed to present oral argument based on the information presented to the Community Development Director before their decision was issued. The Hearing Examiner's decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. Any party wishing to challenge the Hearing Examiner's decision on this application must file an appeal .pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW ch. 36.70C. An appeal challenging a DNS, an MDNS or an EIS may be included in such an appeal. If no appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision is properly filed in Superior Court within such time limit, the Decision on this permit will be final. The City's decision to issue a DNS, an MDNS or an EIS is final for this permit and any other pending permit applications for the development of the subject property. VI. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between B. Miles Page 3 12/03/2009 H: \Tree Permit \Cabio, L09- 015 \NOD Type 1.doc • 8:30 a.m. and 5 :00 p.m. The project planner is Brandon J. Miles, who may be contacted at 206- 431 -3684 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. VII. DISCLAIMER Removal of any tree that may be dangerous and pose an immediate threat to public safety or property maybe commenced without the need for a permit from the City. Compliance and mitigation may still be required for the removal of a tree deemed "dangerous" if the tree is located with a serfsitive area buffer. Department of Commttfiity Development City of Tukwila B. Miles Page 4 12/03/2009 H: \Tree Permit \Cabio, L09- 015 \NOD Type 1.doc • City of Tukwila • Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director November 17, 2009 NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Leonard Cabio King County Assessor, Accounting Division Washington State Department of Ecology This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. I. PROJECT INFORMATION Project File Number: L09 -015 Applicant: Leonard Cabio Type of Permit Applied for: Tree Clearing Permit Project Description: Removal of trees on steep slope. Location: King County Parcel 810860 -0582 Associated Files: D07 -105 (Demo Permit) D08 -147 (Building Permit) RFA08 -340 (Code Enforcement) Comprehensive Plan Designation/Zoning District: Low Density Residential (LDR) II. DECISION SEPA Determination: The City SEPA Responsible Official has previously determined that this application does not require a SEPA threshold determination because it is categorically exempt. Decision on Substantive Permit: The City Community Development has determined that the application for a tree clearing permit does comply with applicable City and state code requirements and has approved that application, subject to the following conditions: 1. Per TMC 18.54.150 (C) the tree clearing permit shall be valid for 180 -days upon issuance by the City. All work, required inspections, required documentation shall be provided to the City prior to expiration of the permit. BM H: \Tree Permit\L08- 059\NOD Type 1.doc Page 1 of 3 11/17/2009 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 2. All work performed shall be consistent with the recommendations provided in the Tree Solutions Memo and Rosenau Report. 3. All work must be performed in accordance with the approved Permit plans specified in this chapter or revised plans as may be determined by the Director. The applicant shall obtain permission in writing from the Director prior to modifying the plans. 4. Vegetation protective devices shall be installed around all trees and vegetation not proposed to be removed. 5. The applicant shall at all times protect improvements to adjacent private properties and public rights of way or easements from damage during clearing. The applicant shall restore to the standards in effect at the time of the issuance of the permit any public or private improvements damaged by the applicant's operations. 6. All protected and replacement trees and vegetation shown in the approved tree clearing permit materials shall be maintained in healthy condition by the property owner throughout the life of the project, unless otherwise approved by the Director in a subsequent Tree Clearing Permit. 7. Prior to final approval the applicant shall provide the City an estimated payment of $2433.60 to be paid into the City's Tree Fund in order to mitigate the 48 trees that cannot be planted on the site. The City's estimate was based on a per tree cost of $50.70 per tree as outlined in the staff report. Alternatively, the applicant may provide a cost estimate for the city's approval of the actual cost of installing the plantings on their subject property. The cost estimate shall include the scope outlined in the staff report. All labor costs must reflect prevailing wage. 8. Prior to final approval the applicant shall provide the City the cost of all vegetation installed on the subject property as required under this permit. The City shall verify the costs and the applicant shall provide the City a financial guarantee of 150 percent of the cost of the vegetation. The financial guarantee shall be held with the City for one year following the City's acceptance of the initial planting. The City shall re- inspect in one year and if the vegetation planted under this permit is still alive shall refund the financial guarantee to the applicant. It's the applicant's responsibility to insure that the City has access to the property for the follow up inspection. If the applicant sells the property the applicant must insure that the City can legally access the property to conduct the City's re- inspection. III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type 1 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code §18.104.010. Other land use applications related to this project may still be pending. One administrative appeal to the City Hearing Examiner of the Decision on the Permit itself is permitted. A party who is not satisfied with the outcome of the Hearing Examiner appeal process may file an appeal in King County Superior Court from the Hearing Examiner's decision. IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING In order to appeal the Community Development Director decision on the Permit Application, a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within 14 days of the issuance of this Decision that is by December 1, 2009. The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code Ch. 18.116. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials MUST include: 1. The name of the appealing party. 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. BM Page 2 of 3 11/17/2009 H: \Tree Permit\L08- 059 \NOD Type 1.doc • 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision, including any specific challenge to an MDNS. 4. The Notice of Appeal shall identify (a) the specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; (b) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and (c) the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. 5. Appeal fee based on the current fee schedule. V. APPEAL HEARINGS PROCESS Any administrative appeal regarding the Permit shall be conducted as a closed record hearing before the Hearing Examiner based on the information presented to the Community Development Director, who made the original decision. No new evidence or testimony will be permitted during the appeal hearing. Parties will be allowed to present oral argument based on the information presented to the Community Development Director before their decision was issued. The Hearing Examiner's decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. Any party wishing to challenge the Hearing Examiner's decision on this application must file an appeal pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW Ch. 36.70C. An appeal challenging a DNS, an MDNS or an EIS may be included in such an appeal. If no appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision is properly filed in Superior Court within such time limit, the Decision on this permit will be final. The City's decision to issue a DNS, an MDNS or an EIS is final for this permit and any other pending permit applications for the development of the subject property. VI. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Brandon J. Miles, who may be contacted at 206 - 431 -3684 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. VII. DISCLAIMER Removal of any tree that may be dangerous and pose an immediate threat to public safety or property maybe commenced without the need for a permit from the City. Compliance and mitigation may still be required for the removal of a tree deemed "dangerous" if the tree is located with a sensitive area buffer. Department of Community Development City of Tukwila BM Page 3 of 3 11/17/2009 H: \Tree PermitU.08- 059 \NOD Type 1.doc November 16, 2009 • • TO: Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor FM: Brandon J. Miles, Senior Planner RE: Approval of Tree Cutting Permit for Leonard Cabio, 15854 42 "d Ave S., Tukwila, WA, L09 -015) BACKGROUND Around Thanksgiving 2008, City staff became aware of illegal tree removal at 15854 42 "d Ave South, Tukwila, WA. On December 1, 2008 the City posted a STOP WORK order on the property. The City's inspection of the property found that numerous trees had been removed on the property. Of the trees removed, only 11 required the issuance of s tree clearing permit since these trees were located on steep slope (slope with a grade in excess of 15 percent). On December 23, 2008, Brandon Miles, Senior Planner with the Department of Community Development mailed Leonard Cabio a letter outlining the steps needed in order to resolve the tree removal violation that had occurred on the property. With no response from the property owner, the City issued a NOTICE AND ORDER on March 17, 2009. The NOTICE AND ORDER specified that the property owner needed to submit for the required tree clearing permit by March 31, 2009. On March 24, 2009, the City spoke with the "Justin" who identified himself as the project manager. Justin requested and the City granted an extension until April 14, 2009. On April 15, 2009 the City received a tree clearing permit application. The City has also received several revisions to the original permit application. The latest revision was submitted to the City on October 2, 2009. The October 2, 2009 submittal included a memo from Tree Solutions Inc, dated October 1, 2009 (hereafter, "Tree Solutions Memo "). A report was also provided by Otto Rosenau and Associated, Inc dated May 26, 2009 (hereafter, Rosenau Report) addressing issues associated with slope stability. TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN As noted by staff, which is confirmed in the Tree Solutions Memo, a total of 11 trees were removed on the property that are regulated under Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.45 and 18.54. The 11 trees removed were located on steep slopes (slopes in excess of 15 percent grade). These slopes are located primarily on the south and east portions of the property. TMC 18.45.130 limits the allowable alternations permitted on a steep slope. TMC 18.54.050 also prohibits the removal of trees on a steep slope. TMC 18.54 provides a replacement ratio to be used when significant trees are removed. The Tree Solutions Memo has noted that using this tree replacing ratio will require the replacement of 78 trees on the site. In order to ensure survival of the replaced trees, TMC 18.54.130 (3) (a) BM Page 1 of 3 11/16/2009 4:20:00 PM H: \Tree Permit/Cabio, L09- 015 \Staff Report.doc • • limits the total number of new trees to 70 per acres. The site is approximately .5 acres, thus the maximum number on the site would be 35 trees. As noted, the applicant is required to mitigate a total of 78 trees. Thus, the applicant must either find locations off -site, within the City of Tukwila to plant trees or pay a fee in lieu of for the difference of the trees required to be planted and the total number of trees planted on site, which would be 48 (78 -30). As noted, the applicant has proposed to plant a total of 30 trees on the site. The following species have been proposed, Flowering or Crab Apple, Shorepine False Cypress, Douglas fir and Vine Maple. The Tree Solutions Memo has provided recommended planting sizes and spacing. The City's Urban Environmentalist has concurred with the planting size and spacing for the individual species. As noted, the applicant is required to plant a total of 78 trees in order to mitigate the significant removal of mature trees on the site. This mitigation is needed in order to provide mitigation for the function that the mature trees were providing on the site. The Tree Solutions Memo and the City's Urban Environmentalist have concluded that additional plantings at the subject site would not be practical; instead the applicant shall pay into the City's tree fund. The applicant's tree report did not include an estimated cost per tree for the trees planted on the site. The urban environmentalist, who is a master gardener and has significant experience preparing enhancement and planting plans has provided a cost estimate of $50.70 per tree. The cost estimate includes the following labor activities, mobilization/transport of materials; hand removal of invasive; incorporating compost, planting and mulching. Additionally, the cost also includes the following materials, compost; 2 inch caliper trees in one gallon containers; and mulch which will include bark 3" deep. The Tree Solution's Memo provides no timetable for replacement. The memo does note that if the trees are planted in the fall, supplemental water in the summer will be needed. RECOMMENDATION Approve the L09 -004, Tree Cutting permit for King County Parcel, 766160 -0208 with the following conditions: 1. Per TMC 18.54.150 (C) the tree clearing permit shall be valid for 180 -days upon issuance by the City. All work, required inspections, required documentation shall be provided to the City prior to expiration of the permit. 2. All work performed shall be consistent with the recommendations provided in the Tree Solutions Memo and Rosenau Report. 3. All work must be performed in accordance with the approved Permit plans specified in this chapter or revised plans as may be determined by the Director. The applicant shall obtain permission in writing from the Director prior to modifying the plans. 4. Vegetation protective devices shall be installed around all trees and vegetation not proposed to be removed. 5. The applicant shall at all times protect improvements to adjacent private properties and public rights of way or easements from damage during clearing. The applicant shall BM Page 2 11/17/2009 H: \Tree Permit \Cabio, L09 -015 \Staff Report.doc restore to the standards in effect at the time of the issuance of the permit any public or private improvements damaged by the applicant's operations. 6. All protected and replacement trees and vegetation shown in the approved tree clearing permit materials shall be maintained in healthy condition by the property owner throughout the life of the project, unless otherwise approved by the Director in a subsequent Tree Clearing Permit. 7. Prior to final approval the applicant shall provide the City an estimated payment of $2433.60 to be paid into the City's Tree Fund in order to mitigate the 48 trees that cannot be planted on the site. The City's estimate was based on a per tree cost of $50.70 per tree as outlined in the background section of this memo. If the applicant desire they may provide a cost estimate for the actual cost of installing the plantings on their subject property. The cost estimate shall include the scope outlined in the background sections of this document. All labor costs must reflect prevailing wage. 8. Prior to final approval the applicant shall provide the City the cost of all vegetation installed on the subject property as required under this permit. The City shall verify the costs and the applicant shall provide the City a financial guarantee of 150 percent of the cost of the vegetation. The financial guarantee shall be held with the City for one year following the City's acceptance of the initial planting. The City shall re- inspect in one year and if the vegetation planted under this permit is still alive shall refund the financial guarantee to the applicant. It's the applicant's responsibility to insure that the City has access to the property for the follow up inspection. If the applicant sells the property the applicant must insure that the City can legally access the property to conduct the City's re- inspection. BM Page 3 H: \Tree Permit \Cabio, L09- 015 \Staff Report.doc 11/17/2009 .. .. et* o f .J ulitida Dept. Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, Teri Svedahl HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Packet Brandon Miles Official Notice ` Short Subdivision Agenda Mailer's signature: Notice of Application t !! %/ Shoreline Mgmt Permit /t / d_ d Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit _ _ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 X Other: Notice of Decision Was mailed to each of the addresses listed /attached on this _19 day of _November in the year 2009 W: \USERS \TEREAFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION.DOC Project Name: Cabiao Leonard Tree Clearing Permit Project Number: L09 -015 Mailing requested by: Brandon Miles 1 ;;� ` Mailer's signature: t !! %/ A /t / d_ d W: \USERS \TEREAFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION.DOC October 1, 2009 TO: Mr. Leonard Cabiao, Mr. Steve Catlow JOB SITE: 15854 42nd Ave S, Tukwilla, WA FROM: Scott D. Baker, Registered Consulting Arborist #414 RE: Corrections to Landscape Plan to meet City of Tukwila request Consulting Arborists RECEIVED OCT 02 2009 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear Mr. Cabiao, At the request of Mr. Catlow of Washington Buiilders, I reviewed a letter from Mr. Brandon Miles Senior Planner for the City of Tukwila and discussed the situation regarding the tree replacement plan that you are required to produce for the City. Mr. Catlow asked that I discuss the situation with Mr. Miles and adjust the Landscape Plan prepared by Sean Dugan, RCA consulting arborist for Tree Solutions according the letter from Miles. I spoke several times with Mr. Miles to figure out exactly what the City will require. Mr. Miles asked that the species of trees to be planted be specified exactly and that the spacing for planting be noted. He also confirmed that the City Code sets a maximum number of trees (70) that can be required, per acre, for mitigation. Because the stumps will be left in place on the slope and other vegetation still exists in that area, the spacing must be stated as a guideline and the actual site conditions will determine the actual placement of the trees. The species that were specified in Tree Solutions initial plan were suggestions based on the owners future use of the site. I have adjusted this list to include some native species at the request of Mr. Miles along with trees with smaller mature sizes in accordance with the owners request. I have also provided a simple planting plan as requested by the City. Mr. Miles letter of August 10, 2009. States that the City will only require mitigation for the trees that were cut on the steep slope and that there are eleven such trees noted by the City. Furthermore; the City Code sets a maximum number of replacement trees that can be required at 70 trees per acre. This site is approximately IA acre. The table below notes the diameter ranges of the trees that were removed and the required number of replacement trees. A second table calls out the species, plant size, and spacing. The City has allowed smaller sized trees for the planting areas on the slope. Trees planted in areas not on the slope must meet the City requirements of 2.5 inch caliper for "Valuable Knowledge of Trees" Tree Solutions Inc. www.treesolutions.net 1058 North 39`}' St. Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 Fax 206.547.5873 Partk Lade Homes II p.2of3 deciduous trees and 6-8 feet for conifers. The table and accompanying plan shows the approximate tree locations by species. Table of trees removed from slope with replacements required: DSH of existing tree removed Number of replacement trees required Number of trees removed (on slope) Total replacement trees 12 -18 inches 4 1 4 18 -24 inches 6 3 18 >24 inches 8 7 56 5 2 gallon Camaecyparis obtusa False cypress Total replacements needed 78 6' Pseudotsuga menziesii Maximum replacements per acre by Code 70 2 gal Lot = .5 Acre Maximum trees for this site 35 Table 1. Summary of tree replacements required by the City of Tukwila. Tree species list: Species Common name Quantity Size Spacing Malus sp Flowering or crab apple 5 2.5° caliper 12' on center Pinus contorta Shore pine 5 6' 12' on center 5 2 gallon Camaecyparis obtusa False cypress 10 2 gal 6' Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir 5 2 gal 12' on center Acer circinatum Vine maple 5 6' on center If the trees are planted this fall supplemental irrigation will be necessary next summer. I hope this information is helpful to you in getting your project moving. If we can be of further help please let me know. Respectfully, Scott D. Baker, Registered Consulting Arborist #414 Attached: Sue plat) Planting plan l 'CI luable ii: wledge of Trees " V ��- Tree Solutions Inc. www.treesolutions.net 1058 North 39th St. Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 Fax 206.547.5873 1÷:1 Partk Lade Homes II p.3 of 3 r • . • ..• . .. . , i I ' 2 f . & 4 ..i . . , • • ) if 1 / • ' • / ; 1 / / ‘, . i-,'' ':.,'!"'-'1•-• / ... ' -,-.. ,;' , . i ■ 1 'k ..._. 4,4 / 4/ ...\ \ ._ ,1 • t.li: • .\ I ./ '..• ? 2: ' • + • S01:711 6'07'H ETR.E.€71 3;9 ADULT FAMILY. HOME OEMOtittati PLAN FLI.A.24:2.0AR,221,TECT 2,..27:4:74 C-2.0 ) " u able L1 1v1t?Jg' of e Tree Solutions Inc. 1058 North 39th St. Seattle, WA 98103 www.treesolutions.net Phone 206.528•4670 Fax 206.5,17.5873 91.041i3.2 1.• ��GttiS 5 �tiE - Ak. -1•S //� P• � t�OV�i�rii�'�1 -�ti 0~424E.( Z -! `GAL E-417.-- 1.0.-e-rv1"..v..--9V NA-t4e. Ai, / 0 - ?;t-1v.S Cot-rr' W A /*v- 0 - 'C' vivofrsv:ti+c N16a-k7_wf,! , /`Dove f t-' 2- A>. 0 G +E- YWYk C ■ 4?-5 Z GI AL, • OTTO ROSENAU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing 6747 M. L. King Way South. Seattle, Washington 98118 -3216 USA TeL (206) 725 -4600 • Toll Free: (888) OTTO-4-US • Fax: (206) 723 -2221 WBE W2F5913684 • WABO Registered Agency • Website: www.ottorosenau.com May 26, 2009 `� Mr. Leonard Cabiao ( 0151 j 19010 112th Place SE Renton, WA 98055 Re: Limited Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Adult Family Home Facility 15854 42`d Avenue South Tukwila, Washington ORA Project Number: 09 -0234 Reference: Demolition .Plan .Drawing No. January 11, 2007. R.CEtVED MAY 27 2009 DCEVELOPMENT 9'j -IBS 6;9-13 C -2.0 prepared by Ren M. Franco Architect dated INTRODUCTION We understand that most trees had been removed from the steep slope and flatter areas of the property. We understand that the tree removal was completed without initially obtaining the required permits from the City of Tukwila. The City of Tukwila issued a violation notice and ordered that the owner submit a complete tree - clearing permit application. SURFACE CONDITIONS We completed a site visit on April 30, 2009 to evaluate the current site conditions at the site. The site is located on a north facing hillside with steep slope areas located along the south and east sides of the site. The steep slope areas slope downwards toward a flatter area at the interior of the site. The steep slope area along the south side of the site serves as part of the roadway embankment for South 160th Street. The steep slope areas at the south and east portions of the site extend off site at both locations onto adjacent properties. The total height of the steep southem slope area ranges in height from about 10 to 22 feet. The total height eastern steep slope area ranges in height from about 14 to 22 feet. We observed the majority of the trees on the site trees were removed leaving the stumps and root balls in place. There are some areas of bare soils that appear to be related to previous structural demolition activities. The steep slope areas were likely graded into their current configuration during past grading activities related to the development of the lots and past roadway construction activities. We completed a visual evaluation of the existing site slopes. We did not observe any indications of any ongoing or past slope instability, such as tension cracks, or slump blocks in • Adult Family Home, 15854 42nd Avenue South, Tukwila, WA May 26, 2009 the area where the trees were removed. We did not observe any groundwater seepage at the steep slope area. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our evaluation of the current site conditions, we developed the following conclusions and recommendations. • It is our opinion that. the stability of the existing steep slopes along the east and south sides of the site will not be adversely affected by removal of the trees provided that an appropriate replacement vegetative cover be provided. An appropriate vegetative cover should include trees that will not be too large in a fully- mature condition to add excessive weight and potentially cause localized slope failures and endanger adjacent structures. • We strongly recommend that the stumps and root balls of the cut trees at the steep slopes be left in place to in place. • We recommend that any vegetative cover be selected to avoid the need for a permanent irrigation system. Drought tolerant, native plants and trees should be considered at steep slope areas • We recommend thaf 'all work on the slope to implement the planting should be completed in a manner to Limit the disturbance of site soils and should be limited to hand tools. Based on our site visit and referenced pan sheet, it is our opinion that the integrity of the site slopes can be maintained and that the risk of future slope instability can be minimized provided the recommendations provided that the recommendations are fully implemented. If you have any questions, please contact us. Sincerely, OTTO ROSE/!NAU & A SSOC /A TES, INC. 174/0/47-k,-," /wry Anthony Coyne, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 2 .• • V• •- •,,- --` . • • -..?? • .--: s• • •. •••••;:-J.0.- L , • •' • • • .77.7:,,,,7.--.•••• 1 r•••D'Y';••?...,:iJ;5 H.1.120,3 .311N 4 V (7. A :17 MOUTON ,rf . !..4. i • • 1.:C• • 0, • 5OtiJtiOIIS> Consulting Arborists TO: Mr. Leonard Cabiao FROM: Sean Dugan, Registered Consulting Arborist #457 DATE: May 19, 2009 SUBJECT: Adult Family Home, 15854 42nd Ave S. Tukwila WA. This memo discusses the findings made at 15854 42nd Ave S, Tukwila, by Sean Dugan of Tree Solutions Inc. on May 5, 2009. I was asked to inspect the site to determine the size and number of trees removed by the property owner and the number of replacement trees needed to be in compliance with the City of Tukwila Municipal Code. Enclosed with this memo is a Site Plan that identifies the location of trees that were removed from the site, a Landscape Plan indicating the species, size, and number of trees that can be established on the property, and a Tree Protection Specification that should be implemented for the remaining trees on the site. To be in compliance with the Tukwila Municipal Code, 180 trees will be required as replacements for the 25 trees removed without a City permit. Observations I inspected all of the tree stumps identified on the attached Site Plan. Forty trees are shown on the plan. Three trees remain (T5, T27, & T31). Nine trees were permitted for removal due to the location within the construction limits. Two stumps could not be located (T2 & T38). Stumps of 26 trees were removed from outside of the area permitted by the City. I made measurements of the cross section of the stumps to later be used for determining the diameter size of the tree at 54 inches above grade (diameter at breast height: DBH) and the appropriate replacement ratio designated by the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC). Tree species removed included Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and Western Red cedar (Thuja plicate) trees. Most of the trees were located on a short steep slope area around the perimeter of the site. The tree identified as Tree T19 on the site plan has an extensive area of cubical brown rot. Discussion The three trees that remain standing should be protected prior to the commencement of work (see attached Tree Protection Specification). Twenty-eight trees were removed without a City permit. The stumps of two trees could not be found and the size could not be verified. I did not include these in the overall tree count for replacements. I did not include tree T19 in the overall tree replacement count due to the extensive decay and the potential of the tree as a hazard tree. Twenty-five trees will need to be replaced at the appropriate ratio to be in compliance with TMC. Using regression analysis I was able to determine the DBH size of the trees removed by first measuring the diameter size of the stumps cut between 6 to 18 inches above grade. Two trees (T11 & T16) fall within the 12 to 18 inch range of DBH. Six trees (T4, T9, T13, T25, T37, & T41) fall within the 18 to 24 inch range of DBH. Seventeen trees (T6, T7, T8, T10, T12, T14, T15, T17, T18, T24, T26, T28, T39, T42 -T44, & T46) are greater than 24 inches DBH. The table below is a summary of the replacement values required according to the TMC. "6'a fun blce Knowledge of Trees" Tree Solutions Inc. www.treesolutions.net 1058 North 39th St. Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 Fax 206.547.5873 Adult Family Center May 22, 2009 p.2 of 5 DSH of existing tree removed Number of replacement trees required Number of trees removed Total replacement trees 12 —18 inches 4 2 8 18 — 24 inches 6 6 36 >24 inches 8 17 136 Total replacements needed 180 Table 1. Summary of tree replacements required by the City of Tukwila. Replacements Replacement tree species and approximate locations are shown on the attached Landscape Plan. The plan shall act as a guide for the placement of replacement trees, as site conditions will dictate where actual placement of the trees can occur. Eighty -three trees are shown on the attached Landscape Plan. Suggested tree species include Flowering apple (Malus sp.), Saskatoon serviceberry (Amelanchier atnifolia), Shore pine (Pinus contorta), Pyramidalis arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis'pyramidalis'), and False cypress (Chamaecyparis obtusa 'Gracilis') trees. The deciduous and pine trees should be spaced on 12 foot centers. The remaining conifer trees can be planted on six foot centers. The height and spread of these trees are appropriate to the space and goals of the property owner. Tree species will be selected by the property owner. Additional planting areas on site may exist outside of the steep slopes. Additional information regarding the site design and site use is needed to determine appropriate plant species for these areas. Otherwise, additional off site plantings may be required by the City to meet the remaining 97 trees needed to be in compliance with the TMC. Recommendations t1 Implement tree protection measures for the remaining standing trees. 01 Remaining stumps on slopes should be left in place to help with slope stabilization. 31 Replacement trees on slope should be reduced in size to 2 gallon or 5 gallon pots to limit the disturbance to the slope. 4 Replacement trees not located on sensitive or steep slope areas shall be 2.5 inches in caliper for deciduous trees and 6 to 8 feet in height for evergreen trees. • When possible, planting should be done between mid - October and mid - December as plants grow roots during cool weather, even when the top of the plant is dormant. Planting between mid - December and mid -April is also appropriate but more attention to supplemental watering may be required. The entire site should be watered every week with V' of water from July 1 to October 15 during the first year of planting. Note this is a general guideline and more or less water may be necessary depending on weather conditions. O Planting should occur on a dry day to limit the disturbance to the soil structure on the slope. • Planting should occur with hand tools only. O Weeding around the plants should be done at least twice a year in the early and late spring. Mulching after weeding is ideal to prevent weed growth. • A post - construction inspection should be made by a qualified landscape professional to determine if replacement trees meet the City approved plan. If you have any questions regarding this material please contact me at (206) 528 -4670. Regards, Sean Dugan "t•aluable Krr„ivleJge of Trees Tree Solutions Inc. 1058 North 39th St. Seattle, WA 98103 www.treesol utions. net Phone 206.528.4670 Fax 206.547.5873 Adult Family Center May 22, 2009 p3 of 5 ffi Site Plan ' • . • ' '-• i .9/ // A 1 / .>( : i e, i , I / \ / ! Ss. / ......- .-- ''-',C- :■--- 4i.-- ... .14.../__,__...,-, 4, ) ". • . ... .... - S01111 H,QjH C--,.. ......, 2t105-03 ADULT FAMILY HOME ..., „.,.,, 7L3.7"..iiii6 .•.i.7.. - ' — - -.1:-:.-4 ,..,i.;■,i,Nit,:i: - • _ _ • - - • - "1" luablc Kizi)K ledge Qf Trees" Tree Solutions Inc. www.treesolutions.net 1058 North 39 'h St. Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 Fax 206.547.5873 Adult Family Center May 22, 2009 t• E.-.3B3561. p.4 of 5 Landscape Plan Se9'34:5.5Z4134.43' • -- 8' OrlrOvr 4 PK -N • s" 0 14 CO: 45*---. I.E=43o.5o --7.avw s7,_...;:s slot. filyER7 .-- _. ...1,,,..„3... ,... ...i.,..,......:,..:L: i ..,.., ,r. p9? VALLEY/MEW REVS t -- . .. :',..----- • ■ .-1 ':-..; — .44 ....-- —...w..t. -- --- ' ..,.. ,...4-..:,, ,..,. ,,..., k,.. +............r....,....^." - -• "................r. I ' y„..4 \ "s -s- I , \ . • • • , I i T , , t ; _ ./.,,,„,,,.....-• 4.......................,...... . I i rAticAn rr-. rr7 r:i VALLEY tiElAn i — ) f g 1; —64.25 6' PVC — 7 r 3.45X ' - t..*398.0.3 I , I • 41 lq7" i 5,1 ei s :04 ,17 r • 1.2-2 BY ice Elii_ONC • Fr. r= 405.79 `201.1' ttif CRAM. SPACr F.F.=.402.Co 0- —CrIg 144' -,•.'t--;- _Hi 19 fzg , ; t,'" .0 / „./ l . / 0 / r ' 1 ) _il oft -------1-....." A' l' I ,....1 — 1 , t : • , j ...' • Val , •s: , 15-, 0 ' ' • / • , •,. .C-141,5i 1:--,;!i —:::-'. i- ../ / , , -- .--- --- /41 I .. 5 , — „--- .– 'kr ,,i.; -`' I- i t ,..,-- •, , .„,- ,.,..' '''' / ."'''' ,:■!''i 0 ' 1 9 ' , ,, A „,- 0 , i ._ r k ; I ' I , 3,,a ” '' it r ' S ; 0 • •-".. 2- 111(;. ,•-■ 5 ® 7,;"-e{ t'1,-,0t.) 24 •-1 //0" !,1 ort( Tree Solutions Inc. r = "raluable Knowledge of Trees" www.treesolutions.net 1058 North 39th St. Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 Fax 206.547.5873 Adult Family Center May 22, 2009 p.5 of 5 Tree Protection Specifications 1. This specification must be followed for all trees that are in close proximity to any clearing and grading limits. 2. After the site has been surveyed, and clearing and grading stakes are in place, the consulting arborist will visit the site to determine the actual placement of tree protection measures based on the potential impact to tree root systems. Final adjustment of clearing limits by the consulting arborist will be made on site. 3. Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) fencing or other barriers shall be installed along all clearing limits to protect the Critical Root Zones (CRZ) of trees that are to be preserved. Optimal CRZ areas should be calculated at 1 foot radius for every 1 inch of tree diameter. Work required for removal of unwanted vegetation within the CRZ areas will be hand work only, NO HEAVY EQUIPMENT. TPZ fencing shall be 4' tall orange plastic fencing anchored with steel stakes or 6' chain link fence, depending on local code requirements. The consulting arborist may also require chain link fencing or plywood boxing around trees in certain high traffic areas. The consulting arborist will meet on site with the contractor to determine the specific types of fencing and placement, and the specific clearing instructions for areas near preserved trees. Adjustment of the initial TPZ lay out may be required as construction progresses. 4. Within the TPZ areas no parking, materials storage, dumping, or burning is allowed. 5. When removing trees outside of the TPZ determined to be unacceptable for retention, use methods such as directional felling to avoid damage to trees and other valuable vegetation that is being retained. Small trees and other native vegetation in these areas should be carefully preserved. 6. Tree stumps that are within a TPZ or immediately adjacent to the CRZ of a preserved tree or other vegetation shall be removed by grinding. 7. Where the consulting arborist has determined that roots of a preserved tree may be encountered during excavation or grading, a Certified Arborist shall be on site to supervise any root pruning and to assess the potential impact of such pruning. Any root greater than 1.5" diameter that is encountered shall be carefully cut with a sharp tool. Roots cut shall be immediately covered with soil or mulch and kept moist. 8. Where access for machinery or any vehicle is required within the CRZ or TPZ of any preserved tree, the soil should be protected from compaction. Acceptable methods include 18' of wood chips or hog fuel, plywood, or steel sheets. 9. TPZ fencing shall not be moved without authorization from the consulting arborist or the site supervisor. All fencing is to be left in place until the completion of the project. Tree protection signage shall be attached to fencing only. 10. Landscaping specified within the TPZ areas shall be designed to limit disturbance of surface soils and preserved vegetation. No root pruning is permitted. New plants added in these areas should be of the smallest size possible to minimize disturbance.. 11. Where backfill is required within a CRZ or TPZ area, the consulting arborist shall determine the amount and type of fill material to be used. 12. Any trees adjacent to high traffic areas or building envelopes shall be pruned by the owner. The consulting arborist will provide a recommendation using ANSI A30 American Standards for Pruning to remove dead wood, provide clearance, and cabling or bracing. Use of an Intemational Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist to perform the recommended work is strongly recommended. 13. Supplemental irrigation for all protected trees is required during the summer months or prolonged periods of dry weather. THIS IS MOST IMPORTANT FOR SUCESSFUL TREE RETENTION. 14. Monitoring of all trees, especially those exposed to new environmental conditions such as exposure to wind, sun, or deep shade, should be monitored annually to check for adverse changes to the tree health or stability. Copyright Tree Solutions Inc. 2005 "l'uluuble Knowledge of Trees" Tree Solutions Inc. www.treesolutions.net 1058 North 39th St. Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 Fax 206.547.5873 CVfir%JIt;1fy Ai bl%r;Si.s TO: Mr. Leonard Cabiao FROM: Sean Dugan, Registered Consulting Arborist #457 DATE: May 19, 2009 SUBJECT: Adult Family Home, 15854 42nd Ave S. Tukwila WA. This memo discusses the findings made at 15854 42nd Ave S, Tukwila, by Sean Dugan of Tree Solutions Inc. on May 5, 2009. I was asked to inspect the site to determine the size and number of trees removed by the property owner and the number of replacement trees needed to be in compliance with the City of Tukwila Municipal Code. Enclosed with this memo is a Site Plan that identifies the location of trees that were removed from the site, a Landscape Plan indicating the species, size, and number of trees that can be established on the property, and a Tree Protection Specification that should be implemented for the remaining trees on the site. To be in compliance with the Tukwila Municipal Code, 180 trees will be required as replacements for the 25 trees removed without a City permit. Observations I inspected all of the tree stumps identified on the attached Site Plan. Forty trees are shown on the plan. Three trees remain (T5, T27, & T31). Nine trees were permitted for removal due to the location within the construction limits. Two stumps could not be located (T2 & T38). Stumps of 26 trees were removed from outside of the area permitted by the City. I made measurements of the cross section of the stumps to later be used for determining the diameter size of the tree at 54 inches above grade (diameter at breast height: DBH) and the appropriate replacement ratio designated by the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC). • Tree species removed included Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and Western Red cedar (Thuja plicate) trees. Most of the trees were located on a short steep slope area around the perimeter of the site. The tree identified as Tree T19 on the site plan has an extensive area of cubical brown rot. Discussion The three trees that remain standing should be protected prior to the commencement of work (see attached Tree Protection Specification). Twenty-eight trees were removed without a City permit. The stumps of two trees could not be found and the size could not be verified. 1 did not include these in the overall tree count for replacements. I did not include tree T19 in the overall tree replacement count due to the extensive decay and the potential of the tree as a hazard tree. Twenty-five trees will need to be replaced at the appropriate ratio to be in compliance with TMC. Using regression analysis I was able to determine the DBH size of the trees removed by first measuring the diameter size of the stumps cut between 6 to 18 inches above grade. Two trees (T11 & T16) fall within the 12 to 18 inch range of DBH. Six trees (T4, T9, T13, T25, T37, & T41) fall within the 18 to 24 inch range of DBH. Seventeen trees (T6, T7, T8, T10, T12, T14, T15, T17, T18, T24, T26, T28, T39, T42 -T44, & T46) are greater than 24 inches DBH. The table below is a summary of the replacement values required according to the TMC. _Al 1 11 V ,Y ; I= W e 21) , •. Tree Solutions Inc. www.treesolutions.net 1058 Forth 39th St. Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 Fax 206.547.5873 Adult Family Center May 22, 2009 p.2 of 5 DSH of existing tree removed Number of replacement trees required Number of trees removed Total replacement trees 12 —18 inches 4 2 8 18 — 24 inches 6 6 36 >24inches 8 17 136 Total replacements needed 180 Table 1. Summary of tree replacements required by the City of Tukwila. Replacements Replacement tree species and approximate locations are shown on the attached Landscape Plan. The plan shall act as a guide for the placement of replacement trees, as site conditions will dictate where actual placement of the trees can occur. Eighty-three trees are shown on the attacd Landscape Plan. Suggested tree species include Flowering apple (Malus sp.), fflinfftMWaille.etegy (Amelanchier alnifolia), Shore pine (Pinus contorta), r Bali r>I rvita� (Thuja occidentalis 'pyramidalis'), and se p ess ('Chamaecyparis obtuse 'Gracilis') trees. The deciduous and pine trees should be spaced on 12 foot centers. The remaining conifer trees can be planted on six foot centers. The height and spread of these trees are appropriate to the space and goals of the property owner. Tree species will be selected by the property owner. Additional planting areas on site may exist outside of the steep slopes. Additional information regarding the site design and site use is needed to determine appropriate plant species for these areas. Otherwise, additional off site plantings may be required by the City to meet the remaining 97 trees needed to be in compliance with the TMC. Recommendations ▪ Implement tree protection measures for the remaining standing trees. s Remaining stumps on slopes should be left in place to help with slope stabilization. s Replacement trees on slope should be reduced in size to 2 gallon or 5 gallon pots to limit the disturbance to the slope. al Replacement trees not located on sensitive or steep slope areas shall be 2.5 inches in caliper for deciduous trees and 6 to 8 feet in height for evergreen trees. ir1 When possible, planting should be done between mid - October and mid- December as plants grow roots during cool weather, even when the top of the plant is dormant. Planting between mid - December and mid -April is also appropriate but more attention to supplemental watering may be required. The entire site should be watered every week with 1' of water from July 1 to October 15 during the first year of planting. Note this is a general guideline and more or less water may be necessary depending on weather conditions. sa Planting should occur on a dry day to limit the disturbance to the soil structure on the slope. S Planting should occur with hand tools only. • Weeding around the plants should be done at least twice a year in the early and late spring. Mulching after weeding is ideal to prevent weed growth. s A post - construction inspection should be made by a qualified landscape professional to determine if replacement trees meet the City approved plan. If you have any questions regarding this material please contact me at (206) 528 -4670. Regards, Sean Dugan uluurOle '.nrrnlec,g. u/ 1 reel Tree Solutions Inc. www.treesolutions.net 1.059 Ncrth 39rr' ct. S' ati e !N^. Qe1.93 Phon^ 206.528.157x' Far ?06.q17.5873 Adult Family Center May 22, 2009 p.3 of 5 Site Plan aweanI....111 r • t • 1 • 1. ." Y ;I ' / - • , // ..-- A. .7' "..: f . . /' ' i v A ," 0 / '..'/ ...: • / .!1: it -t- rg- \ _.- \ i " ..: . .• .......... . ni,' ..._ ....._. . _. • • • , r,.:0 1.71 • - • .. • VEWILITION PLAN t‘,.. 2Mb,- 03 A01.11..1 r•AMILY riON91-. 1 • RCN W4.4.-14-ratri -- • • -- • I •Si9..•••■2^S C-2.0 raiztabtu kitr,ivtetige rees Tree Solutions Inc. www.treesolutions.net 1_058 1','Citts• 39jh c.t. ®@ 0P103 r•,hr,r1 205 S7P.4670 F1,:. 706.5,17.5973 Adult Family Center May 22, 2009 p.4 of 5 Landscape Plan •. SO•34.5.1I41.34.43. .e; r • - 6. PVC •.414,41 'RPtrOVC'EX:':i. PC ro 14 S,1; • IL,-.23040 - •.4 1 vititt,="4E'o' ParS Z-.s.-.....-_-1 , _ ___,_ CTki -..... . .:'4..,'..t..F,I• -. ....- ..,..--,......_ -.......tk-s. ....... , ,....„ . --,...... 1. ^ - ...:4 ',. • :',1 l' 414,' • • -r - - • \ t -4 • ;TEF:)- • -- ,s• . 1 t r_arAan yrFw, rrt*r. ' FLR VA / .L-‘1-72-LC-4,3438.03 1:-R,aviL 1 f • " • 6ticil 110 (r, 56 4■41,r.■ r PU4:017) fl`rP,)4' /- r, U.S 4, , — ,-r- Er-PLIAt3i,NG''.. L- LEI EY •Orios N ' .- -•a NEW eutome- 425,79 kn.° wp;r1, itnri; ' CRAitt gA4 F.E.401C0 tsr 11: . 15'1 ..e' e / 3:'• • 0 ' II* , •• @ --" 0„-- L......„ -- -------- .,...- ....... ,, ....-,-..... ._ „-. 0 -_ e- ;g3L <E0 rsCr cs _,....0 0 0'/ 0" et'). 0—.:0-----, --0-• o' ,.:_-_-......,...„ ____..,.............._ •,.,.....__________ :•587:33.4214, LICW- ....._ -------- .." ," e # :;t1sA ieCpe 4.0 ..1;icol 0," , 2.s i,per Tree Solutions Inc. 473C ' Valuable Knowledge of frees ' www.treesolutions.net 1.058 Marti, 39th S. Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 Fax 206,547.5873 Adult Family center May 22, 2009 p5 of 5 Tree Protection Specifications 1. This specification must be followed for all trees that are in close proximity to any clearing and grading limits. 2. After the site has been surveyed, and clearing and grading stakes are in place, the consulting arborist will visit the site to determine the actual placement of tree protection measures based on the potential impact to tree root systems. Final adjustment of clearing limits by the consulting arborist will be made on site. 3. Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) fencing or other barriers shall be installed along all clearing limits to protect the Critical Root Zones (CRZ) of trees that are to be preserved. Optimal CRZ areas should be calculated at 1 foot radius for every 1 inch of tree diameter. Work required for removal of unwanted vegetation within the CRZ areas will be hand work only, NO HEAVY EQUIPMENT. TPZ fencing shall be 4' tall orange plastic fencing anchored with steel stakes or 6' chain link fence, depending on local code requirements. The consulting arborist may also require chain link fencing or plywood boxing around trees in certain high traffic areas. The consulting arborist will meet on site with the contractor to determine the specific types of fencing and placement, and the specific clearing instructions for areas near preserved trees. Adjustment of the initial TPZ lay out may be required as construction progresses. 4. Within the TPZ areas no parking, materials storage, dumping, or burning is allowed. 5. When removing trees outside of the TPZ determined to be unacceptable for retention, use methods such as directional felling to avoid damage to trees and other valuable vegetation that is being retained. Small trees and other native vegetation in these areas should be carefully preserved. 6. Tree stumps that are within a TPZ or immediately adjacent to the CRZ of a preserved tree or other vegetation shall be removed by grinding. 7. Where the consulting arborist has determined that roots of a preserved tree may be encountered during excavation or grading, a Certified Arborist shall be on site to supervise any root pruning and to assess the potential impact of such pruning. Any root greater than 1.5" diameter that is encountered shall be carefully cut with a sharp tool. Roots cut shall be immediately covered with soil or mulch and kept moist. 8. Where access for machinery or any vehicle is required within the CRZ or TPZ of any preserved tree, the soil should be protected from compaction. Acceptable methods include 18" of wood chips or hog fuel, plywood, or steel sheets. 9. TPZ fencing shall not be moved without authorization from the consulting arborist or the site supervisor. All fencing is to be left in place until the completion of the project. Tree protection signage shall be attached to fencing only. 10. Landscaping specified within the TPZ areas shall be designed to limit disturbance of surface soils and preserved vegetation. No root pruning is permitted. New plants added in these areas should be of the smallest size possible to minimize disturbance.. 11. Where backfill is required within a CRZ or TPZ area, the consulting arborist shall determine the amount and type of fill material to be used. 12. Any trees adjacent to high traffic areas or building envelopes shall be pruned by the owner. The consulting arborist will provide a recommendation using ANSI A30 American Standards for Pruning to remove dead wood, provide clearance, and cabling or bracing. Use of an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist to perform the recommended work is strongly recommended. 13. Supplemental irrigation for all protected trees is required during the summer months or prolonged periods of dry weather. THIS IS MOST IMPORTANT FOR SUCESSFUL TREE RETENTION. 14. Monitoring of all trees, especially those exposed to new environmental conditions such as exposure to wind, sun, or deep shade. should be monitored annually to check for adverse changes to the tree health or stability. Copyright Tree Solutions Inc. 2005 uIUuhle hnr,,, leclg e 0/ trees Tree Solutions Inc. www.treesolutions.net 10c9 ^'^ith 39"' St. Se ?tt e Vu's {t a' 03 Phone 206.578.4:57'0 Fa;c 706.5 47.5873 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development December 3, 2009 Leonard Cabio 19010 112`" PL S Renton, WA 98055 RE: Tree Clearing Permit (L09 -015) 15854 42nd Ave S Dear Mr. Cabio: Jack Pace, Director On November 17, 2009 I emailed to you a copy of the Notice of Decision and staff report for the above mentioned tree clearing permit. A hard copy of both documents was also mailed to you; however the documents were mailed to the project site and not to your Renton address. You will find a revised Notice of Decision attached with this letter. The only revision to the Notice of Decision is the issue date, which will also modify the appeal period. All other conditions from the Notice of Decision issued on November 17, 2009 remain unchanged. If you have any questions, please call me at (206) 431 -3684 or via email at bmiles ci.tukw.la.wa.us. y4, 'Bran n J. i es Senior Planner cc. File (L09 -015) 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 TO: Sandra FROM: Brandon\ DATE: October 17, 2009 RE: Cabio Tree Clearing Permit I have given them verbal approval for on site mitigation. We can still include any conditions on method, etc as part of the tree permit. As you will see they cannot fit all the replacement trees on the site. I have told them that they will need to pay into the City tree replacement fund or complete offsite plantings. Can we give them a dollar value for the off -site mitigation? 4)0Uor C 0 5A-i "+" $(-4 S F "f--t-- s- -n�.Q, wo,f- Sept 24, 2009 City of Tukwila Attn: Brandon Miles From: Leonard Cabiao Ref: Tree Cutting Permit (L090 -015) Subject: Revision In response to my permit request your letter dated August 10, 2009. Item 1. I will incorporate a reduction of the number of tree replacement from 180 trees to 90 as per your evaluation that we only need to replacement for 11 trees total. The inspection of these trees will be done by my Arborist (Tree Solutions, Sean Dugan) and Tukwila before the Certificate of Occupancy is completed for the project. I believe I can install the required amount of trees on my site. Item 2. The spacing was addressed by the Arborist on page 2 under replacement heading for the steep slope and site in general, quote" approximate locations are shown on the attached plan" which is typical, and quote" the plan shall act as a guide for the placement of the replacement trees as site conditions will dictate where actually placement of the trees can occur. This was so stated as the stumps on the slope we are leaving per consultant recommendation to minimize the disturbance of the hillside. There is even a scale on the plan. 1" = 30ft Item 3. There are no shrubs being recommended. The recommended tree species are trees and were reviewed by the arborist once he had reviewed Tukwila's spec's. We reviewed the species you recommended already and do not want potentially huge trees that exceed 20 ft due to safety hazards for the tenants. Smaller container size 1 gal for steep conditions. As this is a large hill, the trees suggested were compared against height, root structures, and drought resistance. Please contact Sean Dugan is available to confirm. Thank You ard Cabiao Page 1 of 1 Brandon, I reviewed the arborist's report and the geotech report for this site and finally was able to talk to the arborist (brought in after the trees were already cut down). The species proposed for replacement by the arborist were based on the client's instructions to make sure the replacement trees would be small and as inexpensive as possible. In my opinion the proposed species in no way will replace the root mass or the canopy of the trees removed (which in the opinion of the arborist were not hazardous, except one with some rot). Irofact some of the proposed replacements are actually shrubs and not trees. I think we should require replacement with evergreen trees that will grow larger - such as those that were removed - Douglas Fir and Western Red Cedar. The proposed Shore pine is acceptable. Other species (I suggest native species, but ornamental trees would also be OK) could include Vine Maples (which do stay small) and Big Leaf Maple. For the trees that will be planted on the slope, we could allow smaller container sizes than the tree code requires (per the arborist's recommendation). There will not be room for all the required 180 replacement trees to fit on the site, so, I suggest that they plant per the arborist's recommendation (12 ft on- center). For the rest it can be off -site planting at a site(s) of our choosing or they could do the fee in -lieu of planting as allowed in the code. We would have to agree on the fee, which should include the cost of the plants, materials for site preparation and planting (soil amendments, mulch, staking materials, etc.), irrigation, and labor. Sandra file : / /C:\ temp \XPgrpwise \4A43 669Etuk- mail63 00 -po 10013 0796C 113 E941 \GW } 00001.... 08/10/2009 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director August 10, 2009 Mr. Leonard Cabio 19010 112th PL S Renton, WA 98055 RE: Tree Clearing Permit (L090 -015) 15854 42nd Ave S Dear Mr. Cabio: The City has completed its review of the above tree clearing permit application. As you are aware, the trees removal being mitigated occurred before issuance of a permit by the City of Tukwila. The proposed plan presented to the City fails to comply with the requirements of the City's tree protection ordinance. Please revise the plan as follows: 1. You only need to replace trees that were removed along a steep slope. The City classifies a steep slope as anything greater than 15 percent. The City counts a total of 11 trees removed on a steep slope. Your plan indicates that a total of 25 trees will need to be mitigated. Using the 11 number will reduce the total number of trees that will need to be planted. 2 Call out the specific tree species that will be planted and include the appropriate spacing. The proposed species in your submittal will in no way replace the root mass or canopy of the trees removed on the site. In fact some of the trees that are being proposed are actually shrubs and not trees. The City recommends that the following species be used, Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar, and Big Leaf Maple. 3. For the trees planted on the slope, the City will permit a smaller container size to be used, based on a recommendation from your arborist. Even using the revised number of trees to be mitigated, it's likely that no all the required trees will be able to be planted on site. You will have to pay a fee in lieu of for any required trees that cannot be planted on site. The fee in lieu of will be used to plant trees at City owned parks, wetlands and other facilities. The final amount due will be based on the total number of trees required for mitigation. If you have any questions, please call (206) 431 -3684 or send an email to bmiles(c�ci.tukwi.wa.us. r r Bra don J. Mil -s Senior Planner cc. File (L09 -15) May 13, 2009 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director Mr. Leonard Cabio 19010 112`h PL S Renton, WA 98055 RE: Notice of Incomplete Application Tree Clearing Permit (L09 -015) Dear Mr. Cabio: The City of Tukwila's Planning Department received your application for a tree clearing permit on April 15, 2009. This letter is to inform you that the permit application is incomplete because the required application material was not submitted to the City. Please provide the following as listed in the application checklist: 1. A written response to the approval criteria found in TMC 18.54.130. 2. A written response to the exception criteria found at TMC .18.54.140 if any exceptions are requested. 3. Professional review of the replacement plan by a landscape architect, surveyor or certified arborist per TMC 18.54.080 (3). 4. A landscaping planting plan prepared by a Washington State licensed landscaped architect, surveyor or certified arborist. The plan shall show the following: a) Diameter, species name and location of existing significant trees and vegetation to be retained. b) Diameter, species name and location of all trees that have already been removed from the site that were located on a steep slope. c) Diameter, species name, spacing, size and location of replacement trees /vegetation to be used to replace vegetation cleared per TMC 18.54.130 (3)(b). d) Proposed tree protection measures for trees to be retained. e) Any other measures proposed to restore the environmental and aesthetic benefits previously provided by on -site vegetation. Ann Cn,ithwntar Rnnlovaril suit° itlnn • TUUlruii1a Wjchinatnn OR1RR • Phnno• 911A 471.2A7/) • P,v 9nfi_Q21_2Aifis 5. Since some of the trees removed were located on steep slopes, a report from a Geotechnical Engineer needs to also be provided. The report needs to address slope stability and any proposed mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the slope as a result of the tree removal. The need for the tree clearing permit is the result of illegal removal of significant trees on the property. The City's Code Enforcement Division has an outstanding enforcement procedure pending against this property and Code Enforcement will continue to pursue enforcement until full compliance is achieved. Once the above - mentioned information is provided, City staff can begin to review the application. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (206) 431 -3684 or you can email me at bmiles ' ci.tukwila.wa.us. randon J. iles Senior Planner cc. File (L09 -015) • Cizy of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director April 22, 2009 Mr. Leonard Cabio 19010 112`h PL S Renton, WA 98055 RE: Tree Clearing Permit, L09 -015 15854 42nd Ave South Dear Mr. Cabio: The City is in receipt of your tree clearing permit application that was filed on April 15, 2009. The application lacked many of the documents required in order for the City to complete its review of the application. Today, the City spoke with Steve Calow who called the City and noted that the arborist report and geotechnical report will be provided to the City by the end of next week. Based upon the conversation that the City had with your representative, the City will withhold determining if the application is complete until May 1, 2009. If you have any questions, please call (206) 431 -3684 or send an email to bmiles(aici.tukwila.wa.us. Sin ranndon J. Miles Senior Planner cc. Code Enforcement File (L09 -015) L 71111 --al- —a—. D.... f...... -J [`..:a.. 1111111 - T.. 1....: 1., idl.. ..G:.. ..a.... 1)0100 th< A^l1 7L9/1 - C.. ... 7AA A'31 C 15 April 2009 TO: Brandon Miles, Senior Planner, City of Tukwila FROM: Leonard Cabiao, 19010 112 PL SE, Renton, WA 98055 SUBJECT: TREE PERMIT PERMIT & JOB SITE: RFA08 -340, Parcel 810860 -0582, D07 -105; 15854 42nd Ave S, Tukwila, WA Mr. Brandon Miles, As you know I have been experiencing difficult financial situations with regard to funding this project while I have been finishing another. Your patience is appreciated. Per our previous conversation between you and Steve Catlow my Project Manager we propose to do the following. There are two issues related to the tree cutting. One, "Slope Stability Evaluation" with repair as needed and two, "Tree Replacement" either on site or somewhere in Tukwila. Slope Stability Evaluation 1. I intend to hire Otto Roseneau for our Geotech evaluation and Jane Garrison our Landscape Architect. See there preliminary response. We have not hired them yet to do the work until we get a tree permit. 2. Once an evaluation has been determined by both consultants we will have a Landscape design submitted to you for remediation of our slopes on the property. We will not proceed until plan is reviewed and approved by Tukwila Bldg Dept. Once approved we will install remediated vegetation as recommended by consultants. Unauthorized Tree Removal 1. Attached with our permit request is a plan identifying the trees that were removed, diameter and quantity. We estimate this is 24 trees of 24" diameter or larger. Our landscape architect and your office will have to verify this amount. This amounts to a 1 to 8 ratio of replacement trees of 2 ' /2" diameter caliper deciduous or 6ft to 8 ft coniferous, resulting in 192 tree to replace. As the site is small, replacing these on the property may be prohibited. 2. A estimated valuation earmark is estimated at "Deciduous" 2 '/2" inch caliper at $150 per tree installed not to exceed by 192x equals, $28,800 or "Coniferous" 6ft to 8 ft at $100 per tree installed by 192x equals $19,200, not to exceed. This will need to be reviewed. 3. APPEAL: I would like to reserve my appeal process for tree replacement until the review of the site can be determined by my consultants, Geotech and Landscape Architect 4. Estimated Project Costs for trees removal and replacement. 1. Geotech $ 2500.00 2. Landscape Architect $ 4000.00 3. Site remediation of slopes with planting includes management $ 5000.00 4. Tree replacement $ 20,000.00 VALUATION $ 31, 500.00 Th 1 you, on. d Cabiao City of Tukwila Department of Community Development File Number LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM TO: J Building J Planning 0 Public Works 2--1 Fire Dept. LiJ Police Dept. ! -7 Parks /Rec Project: Comments Address: l Q 5 -2 Li Xhcl Ave S Date transmitted: &l t 2 95 Response requested by: Staff coordinator: f3 ,t1 G Date response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60-day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials as needed.) )\Qr7)uc' — L1 5 �'�l� C `r�� t.ec perto,iI� (is C j,¢r% PERm►'f wileg7'4 PU6LUC. U.Vaf¢JCS Plan check date: Comments Update date: prepared by: MEMORANDUM www.ci.tukwila.wa.us Development Guidelines and Design and Construction Standards TO: PLANNING DEPT. — Brandon Miles, Senior Planner FYI FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. — David McPherson, Development Engineer DATE: June 29, 2009 SUBJECT: Cabiao Adult Family Home 15854 — 42 "d Ave. South TL no.: 810860 -0582 Tree Clearing Permit Comments Tree Clearing Permit — L09 -015 Tree Clearing Permit meets Public Works requirements — 1. Prior to any work under Building Permit no. D07 -105 (The applicant shall call (206) 433 -0179 minimum 48 hours in advance to schedule a pre - construction meeting. 2. Prior to any work under Building Permit no. D07 -105 (Contractor shall notify Public Works Project Inspector Mr. Dave Stuckle at (206) 433 -0179 of commencement and completion of work at least 24 hours in advance). 3. Erosion control measures and an approved construction entrance shall be in place prior to any additional work under Building Permit no. D07 -105. CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan @ci.tukwila.wa.us RECEIVED APR 15 2009 COMMUNITY TREE OEVEUNMENT CLEARING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type: P -TREE Planner: File Number: Loot- 0 t5 Application Complete (Date: ) • Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: A-az C ; " Fei 144 , ('iA4 ,vim z. 9 4-D. -3 /D LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. /S gs Axe Sl l /egbt) LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner /applicant in meetings with City staff, • 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: Ato 100 (• C-/3"4o /%D /D /12 PL S , / b , tz,%a. gloss` Phone: 20 (✓ ._ 8_5-6 •- S Z %/ Address: FAX: a.- `%Z S-7P3 7 Date: /S �,o/ Ci 7 RSCEIVED p; PR 15 2009 DEVELOPMENT CITY OF TUKWILA Department ofConununity Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan a,ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY STATE OF WASHINGTON ss COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly swom 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, a ents, engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at ,�58 s- V -S/z' /4-v S / 7c-f km✓, 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 /6-4 (city), (state), on ) •Sif- , 2()a 7 -4/4-6 (fo/ // 19Z-- �' X.,TT 4,6.6 - N-6 / 7 93--q (- Signsa On this day personally appeared before me 4eQLiGL►'G{ O F tr4D 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. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS /S DAY OF /i A� 10or / , 20 O g Print Name Address Phone Number olluulrrr0 \\\ p, V Sy t' // /"1 �i AC( v St ; /? \, 9..N`.-• 91ot1 F /ip 4� NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington �P. �\pTAR y 44: 9 • • residing at - PUBL1�'� :moo 'iii ,9j.''•pS;02-`,y0' \aC' \\�` i,�i, // Or: IWPS�\\v\' /C/tj Co. k //t ,l-(&y e),e , X9/2 My Commission expires on 1 p v... agygogoog(iiq:7lfaf.MomAYBMTMMrB Rmgi171f. a ®O •• vivitAxvivixtviarocklittEirwtixv,xklixsteivmvoi till IN NI 1 ±?4 4 422 '42ND AVENUE SOUTH town E ®147. NEW Ma' R20B4919 6IMMSS1\... l_ lb a AC . 4 . Pm 0 47 rn . 2 Cr. ad 0 � ii Northwest Inc. Surveyors Planners . :& Engineers, 943 N. CENTRAL STE. /104. KENT VIA 98032 (253)852 -4880 (local) or 1— (800)251 -0189 '(foil free) (253)852 -4955 (lox) E —MAIL cnlOcromernw.com CHECKED BY: 0.6 .H. SCALE: 1'.20' . _ SHEET: 1 of 1 DATE: Mon., Jon. 29, 2007 LAWN .BY: JAC. )B NO.: 2006-204r TOPOGRAPHICAL SITE SURVEY FOR 'LEONARD CABIAO LOCATED IN THE S.W. 1/4, OF THE S.B. 1/4, OF SECTION 22,'. TOWNSHIP >23 NORTH, RANCE 4 EAST, E.Y., XING COUNTY, WASHINGTON --- SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 136' OF THE SOUTH HALF OF TRACT 64, SUNNYDALE GRADENS, DIVISION NO. 1 y0) ") mss, x`96 •'9� 000 zo TrlBr 1r 3r ter— 390 34.3'1. :. lT 406 • 2 w ct 0 -1 •3 Q:cr ct rn° a, W II n 0 416 30' 08 T27 410: x412 418 =- 416 N89'39 '42 "W 134. 418 418 420 RIM EL.= 418.89 - �= S.. INV. EL.= 413.99 (18" ADS) N.W. INV EL.= 413.89 (18" CMP) ROLLED CONC. CURB • - GUARD RAIL / ASPHALT PAVEMENT SOUTH 1 60TH STREET, RIM EL.= 421.21 rzi • CENTER CHANNEL N. INV.. EL.= 415.93 (18" ADS) \ INV. EL. =405.01 E. INV.:EL. = 413.28 (18" ADS) (8" PVC FLOWS NORTH) S. INV. EL.= 416.53 (18" CMP) d.. .. ? CURB CUT RIM EL.= 420.23 CURB CUT N • S89'39'42 "E 349.91' (MEAS.) 349.94' (PLAT) ASPHALT PAVEMENT CURB CUT RIM EL.= 420.44 N. INV.. EL. =417.14 E. INV. EL. = 419.19 26.48 HANNEL 416.65 EST) ■ vaaJEcr i1 O . ADULT FAMILY HOME °ESIO E°: "EH M. F"ANCO • i3, a i A Le _`1 g Vil.1i _�1 A4.1 SHEET H°. XX OF XX • 2006 -03 • 8 • ... 6 �' DATE: . 0.u„m,'. . � REN M FRANCO 122/7 SE 311TH ST. , AUBURN, wA98092 TEL. (253) 333-1513 FAX(253 )333.1155 °"°. °"°"," C-2 . 0 • REV 1: 15854. -42ND AVE. S. TUKWILA, WASHINGTON. "E"x ' - .0-id0 9OVd]AOO 101 p m v n ti y -1- ti -1N N N lq 111%1151 W20;TI qqjd k li q U o 6 m m ig' IIE �llul ®�:c—�,��7 Itl I aur PP. R"--10 sill _400 a winwmwwwrdrrrrmrnnn.r � ►► N N N � 1 I.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • . . . . W. . . . . 44'°"-0.00.0. O O 0.0 PROJECT NO. ' 2006 -03 .PROJECT TITLE . . .. p ' - .. m S ADULT. FAMILY. HOMES .- m 15854.42ND.AVE.:5 "` TUKWILA,.WASHINGTON .1 i DRAWN: R . ry c QUC . ... TITLE—SHEET LE -SHEET - - SHEET NO.' 1 ti OF ff DESIGNED: REN .. 5337 REGISTERED \.ARCHITECT s a W HMCO DATE: iFR4 -00 DRAWING N0.' T — PLOT SCALE: I 11)11° REN M. F RANCO ARCHITECT I 7 se 3MH 9T. AUFTURN.WA 04092 Tai (253) xis un RBI ►L RANCO ARCHITECT FAX. LaxU 33s nae REV:! - .v _