HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit PL12-022 - MACHINE TOOLWORKS - TREE PERMITMACHINE
TOOLWORKS
14600 INTERURBAN AVE S
P L 1 2-022
L 1 2-021
TREE PERMIT
City of Tukwila
Jin7 Haggerton, Mayor
Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director
SENT VIA EMAIL
Risa Anderegg <rnderegg@machinetoolworks.com>
April 25, 2013
Ms. Risa Anderegg
14600 Interurban Ave S
Tukwila, WA 98186
RE: Second Technical Comment Letter —Revision to approved shoreline tree clearing permit
Machine Toolworks Tree Clearing Permit
L12-021, PL12-022
Dear Mr. Anderegg:
The City has received your request to revise your approved tree clearing permit. Your revision request has been reviewed
and staff has the following comments. The proposed planting plan shows the removal of seven trees (#1901-1907). These
trees are located adjacent to your building along the building's north and west sides. All of these trees are10-16" in
caliper according to the mitigation schedule you provided. Trees of this caliper require a replacement ratio of 6 trees for
every tree removed according to TMC 18.45.080. The replacement schedule used in your submittal is TMC 18.54.130
which is not used for trees in the shoreline jurisdiction. The number of trees that needs to be replaced for removal of these
seven trees is 42 trees.
The Red Maples in your parking lot were recently topped. Tree topping is considered the same as tree removal under
TMC 18.44.080 139 and requires replacement. The Red Maples are located in the parking area and cannot be replaced at a
higher ratio within the limited planting space provided in the parking lot. These trees should be replaced at a one to one
ratio provided the trees are 2" caliper with a broad canopy (no columnar trees) that will provide shade the parking area.
The city will need to review and approval the species you propose for tree replacement.
The revised planting plan you provided includes 20 replacement trees. Three of these "trees" are willow stakes which are
depicted requiring the largest land area of any tree on the plan. The stakes should be planted at a density of three stakes
every three feet and should be planted at an angle into the side of the bank. The plan should be revised with the stakes
planted along the bank slope and additional trees planted where the stakes are shown. The plan also left off the shrubs and
ground cover that was included in the previously approved plan.
The City is willing to count the willow stakes as trees to help you meet the mitigation requirements. If your landscape
architect is not able to design a plan that accommodates the required 42 trees (plus the six parking lot trees), then the
remaining trees will need to accounted for by either planting in an approved shoreline location off site or paying into the
tree mitigation fund at a rate that will include the cost of the plant material, site clearing, soil preparation, replanting,
delivery, removal of materials and waste, and labor. Your landscape architect can submit an estimate at a per tree basis
for our review.
sM Page t of 2
HAComplete projects\PL12-022 Tree Permit\PLl2-022 Tree Tech Comments 2.doc
04/26/2013
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665
All replanted areas on or off -site will still require soil preparation, mulching, and groundcover. Please provide a revised
planting plan and, if needed, a mitigation cost estimate for any plants you are unable to accommodate on your site.
Next Steps
Your next step is to address the comments made in this letter. Once you have addressed the comments and revised the
plans, first send me electronic copies for review.
If you have any questions, I can be reached at 206-433-7166 or by email at stacy.macgregor@tukwilawa.gov.
Sincerely,
Stacy Mac r gor
Assistant P1 ner
sM Page 2 of 2 04/26/2013
HAComplete projects\PL12-022 Tree Permit\PL12-022 Tree Tech Comments 2.doc
April 16, 2013
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Subject: Revised Tree Clearing Permit
We wish to revise our original Tree Cutting Permit Application to include only the trees that are in
jeopardy of falling and injuring someone and are a hazard to our building foundation. One tree has
already failed and is leaning against another. The tree numbers are #1901, #1902, #1903, #1904, #1905,
#1906, #1907 on the attached plan that we are requesting to remove.
Please review the attached drawing showing the trees to be removed and the replanting plan.
The limited area to the east of our building will not support a replanting as per your requirements and
we will be open to discuss off site tree planting as per your Shoreline Master Program statement as
follows:
6. If all replacement trees cannot be reasonably accommodated on the site, off -site tree replacement
within the shoreline jurisdiction may be allowed at a site approved by the City. Priority for off -site
tree planting will be at locations within the Transition Zone. If no suitable off -site location is
available, the applicant shall pay into a tree replacement fund. The fee shall be based on the value
of the replacement trees and their delivery, labor for site preparation and plant installation, soil
amendments, mulch, and staking supplies.
My position is that these trees pose and immediate danger of falling and/oor damaging our foundation
as described in our Certified Arborist report which you have a copy.
Please advise if I need to resubmit an application or we can use the one you have on file.
Regards,
Machine Toolworks, Inc.
Gary Anderegg
President
1Page Machine Toolworks, Inc. - 14600 Interurban Ave South
Tukwila, WA 98168 - (206) 575-3390
City o f Tukwila
Department of Community Development
NOTICE OF DECISION
TO: Gary Anderegg, Applicant and Owner (gnderegg@machinetoolworks.com)
King County Assessor, Accounting Division
Washington State Department of Ecology
Dear Mr. Anderegg:
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Jack Pace, Director
August 22, 2012
This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit
approval.
L PROJECT INFORMATION
Project File Number:
Applicant:
Type of Permit Applied for:
Project Description:
Location:
Associated Files:
Comprehensive Plan
Designation/Zoning
District:
II. DECISION
L12-021, PL12-022
Mr. Gary Anderegg
Tree Clearing Permit
Request to remove eleven significant trees from the shoreline urban conservancy
buffer area; mitigate their removal with buffer enhancement of the property adjacent
to the river.
14600 Interurban Ave S
L12-021, PL12-022
Commercial/Light Industrial
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.
SM Pagel of 3 08/22/2012
HAPL12-022 Tree Permit\NOD.doc
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Far: 206-431-3665
Decision on Substantive Permit: The City Planning Supervisor 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. Replace "Katsura" with Cascara (Rhamnus Purshiana).
2. Correct the planting notes to say that the tree "roots be no greater than 1/1Oth the trunk diameter.
3. Note on the plan set that no substitutions of plants are allowed without written permission from the City
prior to installation.
4. Contact Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner at 206-431-3670 to schedule an inspection following
installation. Additionally, schedule an inspection at the above number one year and two years following
installation to verify the landscaping is installed and maintained according to the approved plans.
Landscaping is to be maintained for the life of the project.
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 Planning Supervisor's 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
September 5, 2012.
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 parry's behalf.
A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision..
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.
Appeal fee per the current fee schedule, additional hourly charges may apply. In addition all hearing examiner
costs will be passed through to the appellant.
sM Page 2 of 3 08/22/2012
HAPL12-022 Tree Permit\NOD.doc
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 Planning Supervisor 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 Planning Supervisor 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. 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.
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 Stacy
MacGregor, who may be contacted at 206-433-7166 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.
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
sM Page 3 of 3 08/22/2012
HAPL12-022 Tree Permit\NOD.doc
City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director
STAFF REPORT for TREE CLEARING PERMIT
DATE: August 22, 2012
TO: Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Development
FROM: Stacy MacGregortant Planner
RE: L12-021Tree Clearing Permit for Machine Toolworks, 14600 Interurban Avenue South
BACKGROUND:
This Tree Clearing Permit application is a request to remove eleven significant trees from the building
perimeter of the applicant's property. The property is located within the Shoreline Jurisdiction along the
Duwamish River. Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.44.080 (132) requires a Shoreline Tree Removal
and Vegetation Clearing Permit for removal of any significant tree within the Shoreline Jurisdiction.
Only trees that interfere with access and passage on public trails or trees that present an imminent hazard
to existing structures or the public may be removed from sites without an issued building permit or
Federal approval.
Included in the application, a certified arborist provided a risk assessment of seventeen trees on the site.
The risk assessment recommends that eleven trees be removed for life safety and/or property protection.
TMC 18.44.080 (134) has a table listing the tree replacement ratio. According to the table, seven trees 8-20
inches and 4 trees greater than 20 inches in diameter shall be replaced by seventy-four trees. The trees to
be removed are located at the building perimeter. Seventy-four trees cannot fit adjacent to the building
perimeter and the physical limitations of this area (narrow planting berms) contributed to the failure of the
existing trees. The applicant has submitted a plan that mitigates for the loss of eleven trees through
shoreline enhancement within the river environment. The plan calls for thirty-five native trees and fifty-
two native willow stakes along with native shrubs and groundcover to be planted between the building
and the shoreline. The existing invasive and non-native plants will be removed and a view corridor will
be created.
TMC requires native plant species within the shoreline jurisdiction. One proposed tree is a non-native.
The plans have been redlined to reflect replacement of the non-native Katsura with native Cascara
(Rhamnus Purshiana). Also, staff requested that the planting notes include the comment that the tree
"roots be no greater than 1/loth the trunk diameter"; the plan mistyped this comment and the proposed
SM Page I of 08/22/2012
HAPL12-022 Tree Permit\Tree Permit Staff Rpt.doc
6300 Southeenter Boulevard, Suite 4100 • Tu",ila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665
plans states in three places that the "rootball (be) no greater than 1/101h the trunk diameter". The plans
have been redlined to correct this typographic error.
Plant substitutions are not allowed without written permission from the City prior to installation. Landscaping is to
be maintained for the life of the project. Following installation and annually for two additional years, an inspection
by City staff is required to evaluate that the landscaping has survived and maintained according to the approved
plans.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the removal of eleven significant trees and the planting plan dated
7/26/2012, subject to the following red -lines on the plan set:
1) Replace "Katsura" with Cascara (Rhamnus Purshiana).
2) Correct the planting notes to say that the tree "roots be no greater than 1/101h the trunk diameter.
3) Note on the plans that no substitutions of plants are allowed without written permission from the City prior
to installation.
4) Contact Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner at 206-431-3670 to schedule an inspection following
installation. Additionally, schedule an inspection at the above number one year and two years following
installation to verify the landscaping is installed and maintained according to the approved plans.
Landscaping is to be maintained for the life of the project.
Attachments:
cc:
■ Red -lined plan set
Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist
Files: L12-021
SM Page 2 of 2 08/22/2012
HAPL12-022 Tree Permit\Tree Permit Staff Rpt.doc
Stacy MacGregor
From: Stacy MacGregor
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:36 AM
To: 'sgould@kennethphilp.com'
Subject: RE: Machine Toolworks Shoreline Tree Clearing Permit
Sarah,
Replacing these 5 trees (1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917) with Pinus Contorta var. Contorta is acceptable and the
following requirements from the Tukwila Municipal Code apply:
Replacement trees shall be 2" in caliper. TMC 18.44.080 (134)
Site preparation and planting of vegetation shall be in accordance with best management practices for ensuring the
vegetation's long-term health and survival. 18.44.080 (C101)
The property owner is required to ensure the viability and long-term health of trees planted for replacement
through proper care and maintenance for the life of the project.
Replaced trees that do not survive must be replanted in the next appropriate season for planting. TMC 18.44.080
(B5)
Irrigation for buffer plantings is required for at least two dry seasons or until plants are established. TMC
128.44.080 (C2e)
I will make a note in the file of this revision.
Regards,
Stacy MacGregor
Tukwila Assistant Planner /Tuesday- Friday 8:30-3
6300 Southcenter Blvd l Tukwila, WA 98188
ph: (206) 433-7166 / fx: (206) 431-3665
Stacy. MacGregorPTukwila WA. gov / www.TukwilaWA.gov
The of opportunity, the community of choice.
From: Sarah Gould jmailto:sg_ould@ken nethphilp.coml
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:40 PM
To: Stacy MacGregor
Cc: Scott Holsapple
Subject: RE: Machine Toolworks Shoreline Tree Clearing Permit
Hi Stacy,
Here are the list of trees that need to be replaced:
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
We would like to replace them with Pinus contorta var. contorta.
Thank you for your patience,
Sarah Gould
Technical Staff I Kenneth Philp Landscape Architects PS
2724 NE 55th Street, Seattle WA 98105
phone 206-783-5840 ext. 104
fax 206-706-1915
www.kennethphilp.com
The information contained in this email, and all attachments, is proprietary and confidential. Distribution, duplication, disclosure or re -use of this
information without written permission from Kenneth Philp Landscape Architects PS is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please
delete this information and notify the sender. Thank you.
luved�tzpe arc/ritects PS
i
1
07/26/2012
Memorandum/Bulletin
To: Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner for Dept. of Community Development, City of Tukwila
From: Scott Holsapple
Date: 26 July 2012
Re: Corrections for Machine Toolworks, First Technical Comment Letter
Description:
In response to your review of the Machine Toolworks Tree Clearing Permit plan, I have made the
following changes:
Details on how invasive species will be removed are in the new Site Prep and Soil
Amendment Notes on sheet L-3.0.
fz- Jute netting for erosion control has been added to sheet L-1.0, with details on L-3.0.
Soil amendment details have been added to the new Site Prep and Soil Amendment
Notes on sheet L-3.0.
4/- Mulch has been specified to be minimum 3" arborist chips and a note indicating this has
been added to the Mitigation Plan on L-2.0, and the planting details on L-3.0 have been
u dated to reflect the 2"-3" gap around trunks and crowns.
5. W opulus tremuloides has been replaced with Katsura trees. --ro r1o,�
�S „cam .kf. Cornus sericea and Mahonia nervosa have been updated to the correct names.
(c..Cornus canadensis is being kept,_as�e don't fore ee any issues _
Arctostaphylos uva-ursi has been updated to the native species instead of a cultivar.
iSalix geyeriana has been removed from the live stake mix, and the stakes have been
updated so that they are at a 2' density. yA U i •a
6. a, Planting details on L-3.0 now say to remove 2/3 of untreated burlap.
-b Planting details on L-3.0 now specify backfilling with already amended soil on site.
.a -'Planting details on L-3.0 have been updated to remove stakes.
�d�-g- The planting schedule on L-2.0 and mitigation notes on L-1.0 have been updated to
specify rootball details.
I�. A detail for live stakes has been added to L-3.0, and the mitigation notes on L-1.0 and
he plant schedule on L-2.0 have been updated to specify staking details.
Ir Watering details have been added to the planting notes on L-3.0.
� o �
�Vlj
2724 NE 551h Street Seattle, Washington 98105
Phone 206.783.5840 Fax 206.706.1915 1 www.kennethphilp.com
Cl ®f Tukwila Jim Hgggerton, tl9ayor
Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director
July 19, 2012
Mr. Gary Anderegg
14600 Interurban Ave S
Tukwila, WA 98186
RE: First Technical Comment Letter
Machine Toolworks Tree Clearing Permit
L12-021, PL12-022
Dear Mr. Anderegg:
Email: Gary Anderegg (gnderegg@machinetoolworks.com)
The City has completed its review of the above Tree Clearing Permit.
Please find below a list issues compiled by Community Development staff regarding this project. In order to move
forward with your application, we need a response on the following comments. Some may involve a revision of the plans
and other comments may just be addressed in writing as way of an explanation.
1. Provide details on how invasive plants will be removed (i.e., grubbed out by machine, by hand?
2. Provide details on erosion control mechanisms during invasive species removal to prevent sedimentation into the
river. Use of jute matting near the OHWM may be necessary.
3. Soil decompaction and amendment will be needed to ensure good plant survival and health. This means
loosening the soil to at least 18 inches in depth and incorporating (tilling in) organic material such as compost (for
example Cedar Grove or equivalent) into the entire planting site (or importing topsoil with at least 10% organic
content) after tree removal and invasive plant removal and prior to planting. Provide details on soil amendment
plan. (Note that the Shoreline regulations require site preparation in accordance with best management practices).
In addition, this is in the best interests of the property owner, as this vegetation must be maintained and kept
healthy for the life of the project.
4. Planted area must be mulched with arborist chips or bark after planting to help control weeds, prevent erosion,
and conserve moisture. At least three inches should be applied except in the groundcover areas. Mulch must be
kept 2 to 3 inches away from crowns of plants and trunks of shrubs and trees. Provide mulching details in the
plan. This measure is also in the best interests of the property owner and is a best management practice for newly
planted areas.
Plant species:
a. Populus tremuloides may not be the best choice for planting adjacent to the building (even though they
are shown as being planted at least 10 feet away). The City would like to ensure the long term health of
any trees planted along the shoreline (this species is somewhat shortlived) and would not like to see large
trees near the building (at the same distance as some of the weeping willows are planted), that are weak -
limbed like this species, and would probably need to be continuously pruned to keep them away from the
roof. So, a substitute species should be specified. We suggest considering Acer circinatum, assuming
that a deciduous species is desired.
SM Page 1 of 2
HAPL12-022 Tree Tech Comments Ldoc
07/19/2012
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tuk►i ila, IT'ashington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665
b. Corms stolonifera is no longer the correct name — it is Cornus sericea. Berberis nervosa is now Mahonia
nervnca
c. Cornus canadensis is not recommended as a groundcover. It is notoriously difficult to grow, unless ideal
forest conditions are present. Please specify a substitute. We suggest Fragaria.vesca, which also has
white flowers for the landward part of this groundcover area and installing a wet -tolerant low -growing
plant near the ordinary high water mark — such as Carex obnupta and/or Potentilla anserina.
d. Please specify the native Arctostaphylos uva-ursi instead of a cultivar.
e. Salix geyeriana is probably not an appropriate species for this river (it prefers wetlands and slow moving
rivers). We suggest substituting with more of the Salix sitchensis and scouleriana. Also, planting of one
live stake is not really equivalent to replacing one tree, but we will allow them to be counted to meet the
tree count if the density is increased to 1 stake every 2 feet. The cost of live stakes is very reasonable and
this should not present a significant cost increase to the property owner.
6. Planting notes:
a. Change the notes about burlap removal to include: remove top 2/3 of untreated burlap.
b. Backfilling of planting pit is to be with already amended soil on site — no backfilling with amended soils
in the pit alone. Soils in the entire site must be amended.
c. No tree staking.
d. For B&B plants, trunks must be in the center of the root ball.
e. For B&B plants minimum root ball diameters and depths shall be as follows:
i. Thuja plicata: 6 ft height- 24" diameter root ball; 7 ft height- 26" diameter root ball; 8 ft height,
28" rootball diameter. Rootball depth, not less than 60% of width.
ii. Fraxinus latifolia: 24 inch rootball diameter, rootball depth, not less than 60% of width.
iii. Amelanchier alnifolnia: 24 inch root ball diameter
f. No J roots, no circling roots, no root in rootball greater than 1/10 of trunk diameter
g. For container -grown plants, roots shall be loosened prior to planting. No circling roots. Plants shall not
be root bound.
h. For live stakes, specify that they must be harvested from dormant stock and installed only between
October 15th and March 15�'. Also 3/4 of the length must be installed below the ground (with at least two
nodes above ground). Specify that pilot holes are to be used if necessary.
7. Provide details on how watering will be carried out. Plants must be watered during dry periods until established
(two or three years).
Fees Due:
8. A $3 balance is outstanding on your permit application. The fee must be paid prior to permit issuance.
Next Steps
Your next step is to address the comments made in this letter. Once you have addressed the comments and revised the
plans, first send me electronic copies for review..
If you have any questions, I can be reached at 206-433-7166 or by email at stac y.r� nacgreL);or!titukwilawa.,.,ov.
Sincerely,
" V
tZMZacG7regor
Assistant Planner
sM Page 2 of 07/19/2012
HAPL12-022 Tree Tech Comments Ldoc
Memorandum
TO: Stacy
FROM: Sandra
RE: L12-021, Machine Works Shoreline Tree Removal/Tree Replacement Plan, Comments
1. Provide details on how invasive plants will be removed (i.e., grubbed out by machine, by hand?
2. Provide details on erosion control mechanisms during invasive species removal to prevent
sedimentation into the river. Use of jute matting near the OHWM may be necessary.
3. Soil decompaction and amendment will be needed to ensure good plant survival and health.
This means loosening the soil to at least 18 inches in depth and incorporating (tilling in) organic
material such as compost (for example Cedar Grove or equivalent) into the entire planting site
(or importing topsoil with at least 10% organic content) after tree removal and invasive plant
removal and prior to planting. Provide details on soil amendment plan. (Note that the Shoreline
regulations require site preparation in accordance with best management practices). In
addition, this is in the best interests of the property owner, as this vegetation must be
maintained and kept healthy for the life of the project.
4. Planted area must be mulched with arborist chips or bark after planting to help control weeds,
prevent erosion, and conserve moisture. At least three inches should be applied except in the
groundcover areas. Mulch must be kept 2 to 3 inches away from crowns of plants and trunks of
shrubs and trees. Provide mulching details in the plan. This measure is also in the best interests
of the property owner and is a best management practice for newly planted areas.
5. Plant species:
a. Populus tremuloides may not be the best choice for planting adjacent to the building
(even though they are shown as being planted at least 10 feet away). The City would
like to ensure the long term health of any trees planted along the shoreline (this species
is somewhat shortlived) and would not like to see large trees near the building (at the
same distance as some of the weeping willows are planted), that are weak -limbed like
this species, and would probably need to be continuously pruned to keep them away
from the roof. So, a substitute species should be specified. We suggest considering
Acer circinatum, assuming that a deciduous species is desired.
b. Cornus stolonifera is no longer the correct name — it is Cornus sericea. Berberis nervosa
is now Mahonia nervosa.
c. Cornus canadensis is not recommended as a groundcover. It is notoriously difficult to
grow, unless ideal forest conditions are present. Please specify a substitute. We
suggest Fragaria vesca, which also has white flowers for the landward part of this
grou-ndeeve_r area and installing a wet -tolerant low -growing plant near the ordinary high
"water mark — such as Carex obnupta and/or Potentilla anserina.
1 ,!
d. Please specify the native Arctostaphylos uva-ursi instead of a cultivar.
e. Salix geyeriana is probably not an appropriate species for this river (it prefers wetlands
and slow moving rivers). We suggest substituting with more of the Salix sitchensis and
scouleriana. Also, planting of one live stake is not really equivalent to replacing one
tree, but we will allow them to be counted to meet the tree count if the density is
increased to 1 stake every 2 feet. The cost of live stakes is very reasonable and this
should not present a significant cost increase to the property owner.
6. Planting notes:
a. Change the notes about burlap removal to include: remove top 2/3 of untreated burlap.
b. Backfilling of planting pit is to be with already amended soil on site — no backfilling with
amended soils in the pit alone. Soils in the entire site must be amended.
c. No tree staking.
d. For B&B plants, trunks must be in the center of the root ball.
e. For B&B plants minimum root ball diameters and depths shall be as follows:
i. Thuia plicata: 6 ft height- 24" diameter root ball; 7 ft height- 26" diameter root
ball; 8 ft height, 28" rootball diameter. Rootball depth, not less than 60% of
width.
ii. Fraxinus latifolia: 24 inch rootball diameter, rootball depth, not less than 60% of
width.
iii. Amelanchier alnifolnia: 24 inch root ball diameter
f. No J roots, no circling roots, no root in rootball greater than 1/10 of trunk diameter
g. For container -grown plants, roots shall be loosened prior to planting. No circling roots.
Plants shall not be root bound.
h. For live stakes, specify that they must be harvested from dormant stock and installed
only between October 15th and March 15th. Also 3% of the length must be installed below
the ground (with at least two nodes above ground). Specify that pilot holes are to be
used if necessary.
7. Provide details on how watering will be carried out. Plants must be watered during dry periods
until established (two or three years).
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayo;
Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director
July 9, 2012
Gary Anderegg
Machine Toolworks, Inc.
14600 Interurban Ave S
Tukwila WA 98168
Re: Tree Clearing Permit Application
Dear Gary,
The City is in receipt of the Tree Clearing Permit Application submitted to the Planning
Department on July 6, 2012. The application was forwarded to Senior Planner, Carol Lumb, as
requested. She will review the application along with the materials that were submitted.
The application fee is $53.00, as stated on the City's 2012 Land Use Permit Fee schedule. This
fee covers the 2 hours typically needed for review. The check submitted with the permit was for
$50.00. Prior to decision/issuance of permit, all fees will need to be paid.
Sincerely,
Teri Svedahl
Administrative Support Technician
Building & Planning
Cc; Carol Lumb, Senior Planner
Enc
Initials Page I of I
W:\Admin\CITY SEALS & LETTERHEAD\Letterhead.doe
07/06/2012
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 •
Fax: 206-431-3665
Aim
July 2, 2012
Carol Lumb, AICP, Senior Planner
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Carol,
jUL 0 6 2012
C®C�#P�'iN f`
DEVELAPt��6
I am applying for a Tree Clearing permit to remove the trees on our property due to their poor condition
and health as per the attached report from our Certified Arborist, Brian Gilles. They pose a hazard to
persons and property. Based on the attached report and for your reference, the trees I am requesting a
Tree Clearing Permit are #1901, #1902, #1903, #1904, #1905, #1906, #1907, #1908, #1909, #1910,
#1911.
I have. attached the replanting plan as per your request, however, the planting to meet the mitigation
requirement with the limited space for replanting will be detrimental to the plants as per email attached
from our Landscape Architect, Scott Holsapple. I am requesting an exception to the replanting plan as
the trees requested to be removed are a hazard and must be removed now. I am also requesting a
reduction of the amount of replanting due to overcrowding of the plants to meet the mitigation
requirements with limited space available. I will agree to provide some replanting as per your section
18.54.140.
I have enclosed the initial fee of $50.00.
Please call once you have reviewed.
Thank you for your help and guidance on the procedures.
Regards,
MACHINE TOOLWORKS, INC.
4 ��
Gary Anderegg
President
11Page
Machine Toolworks, Inc., 14600 Interurban Avenue South
Tukwila, WA 98168 (206) 5 7 5 - 3 3 9 0
RECEIVED
s 2�121 Gills Consulting
SUL Brian K. Gilles
UNI
COMM
DEVELOPMENT 425-822-4994
RISK ASSESSMENT
OF TREES
AT
MAZAK MACHINE WORKS
14600 Interurban Avenue South
Tukwila, WA. 98188
April, 23, 2012
PREPARED FOR:
Mazak Machine works
Greg & Lisa Anderegg
14600 Interurban Avenue South
Tukwila, WA 98188
PREPARED BY:
GILLES CONSULTING
Brian K. Gilles, Consulting Arborist
ISA Certified Arborist # PN-0260A
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist # RCA-418
PNW-ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor #148
A=n ��pt10MA! fog .
�a LY�Tt
CIERTIF120 49BdR,�V`1
ARlORISf
fax: 425-822-6314
email: bkgilles@comcast.net
P.O. Box 2366 Kirkland, WA 98083
Risk Assessment of Trees at Mazak Machine Works
14600 Interurban Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98188
Gilles Consulting
April 23, 2012
Page 2 of 20
CONTENTS
ASSIGNMENT.............................................................................................................. 3
METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................3
Failure......................................................................................................................... 3
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................4
AdditionalTesting....................................................................................................... 9
CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................................9
WAIVER OF LIABILITY............................................................................................9
ATTACHMENTS........................................................................................................11
Risk Assessment of Trees at Mazak Machine Works
14600 Interurban Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98188
Gilles Consulting
April 23, 2012
Page 3 of 20
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There were 17 trees evaluated on the property around the building and in the
parking lot areas. It is my professional judgment that many of the trees should be
removed for safety of trail users and the safety of the structure.
ASSIGNMENT
Greg and Lisa Anderegg, owners of Mazak Machine Works at 14600 Interurban Avenue
South in Tukwila, contracted with Gilles Consulting to evaluate the trees around their
building and parking lot. They had concerns about the stability of the trees, the potential
for the trees to damage the foundation of the building, and whether or not the trees in the
parking lot were a danger to people and property. They requested that I perform a risk
assessment of the 17 trees on the property and advise them on best management practices
for the trees.
METHODOLOGY
On Thursday, April 12, 2012, I met with Mr. Anderegg at the site. He pointed out the
trees of concern and requested that I evaluate them for risk.
To evaluate the trees and to prepare the report, I drew upon my 30+ years of experience
in the field of arboriculture and my formal education in natural resources management,
dendrology, forest ecology, plant identification, and plant physiology. I also followed the.
protocol of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for Visual Assessment (VA)
that includes looking at the overall health of the trees as well as the site conditions. This
is a scientifically based process to look at the entire site, surrounding land and soil, as
well as a complete look at the trees themselves.
In examining each tree, I looked at such factors as: size, vigor, canopy and foliage
condition, density of needles, injury, insect activity, root damage and root collar health,
crown health, evidence of disease -causing bacteria, fungi or virus, dead wood and
hanging limbs.
Failure
While no one can predict with absolute certainty which trees will or will not fail, we can,
by using this scientific process, assess which trees are most likely to fail and take
appropriate action to minimize injury and damage.
Tree Tags
The trees were tagged and numbered 1901 through 1917. The tags are made of shiny
aluminum approximately one inch by three inches in size and are attached to the tree with
staples and a one foot strip of brightly colored survey tape. The tags were placed as high
Risk Assessment of Trees at Mazak Machine Works
14600 Interurban Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98188
Gilles Consulting
April 23, 2012
Page 4 of 20
as possible to minimize their removal and were generally placed on the backsides of the
trees as inconspicuously as possible. The trees were numbered and tagged beginning
with the first Pine on the west side of the building in a clock wise manner going around
the building and parking lot ending up in the southwest corner of the parking lot with the
Red maple tagged as # 1917
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The building is an approximate square with a square-ish parking lot on the south side.
The Green river passes on the east side and there is a paved trail on the west side. The
trees can be collected in to 4 groups:
Trees along the west side of the building:
a. They are numbered 1901 through 1906. They are 2 Austrian Black Pine
and 4 Douglas Fir trees.
b. One striking note is that they are growing on a small mound that
surrounded the bases of the building on the west, north, east, and a portion
of the south sides.
'hoto # 1: looking NE from the
lriveway entrance to the parking lot
ooking at trees # 1901 —1906
Note the small amount of soil volume
available for the trees to develop
idequate critical root zones .
i. This berm is severely limiting the amount of exploitable for the
critical root zone of all the trees planted on the berms.
ii. Tree # 1903 has already failed due to a lack of adequate root space
and volume. It is leaning into tree # 1904. The pressure of the
trunk of # 1903 is causing the trunk of # 1904 to lean and is
causing. the roots and base of # 1904 to fail. Left unattended both
trees have the potential to fail and fall across the paved path.
iii. All 6 trees have the potential to fail under a storm load due to the
lack of rooting volume. They have the potential to cause harm to
the foundation of the building if they do fail.
Risk Assessment of Trees at Mazak Machine Works
14600 Interurban Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98188
Gilles Consulting
April 23, 2012
Page 5 of 20
c. 1 strongly recommend that trees # 1901 through 1906 be removed for
safety.
2. The tree Along the north side of the building:
a. Tree # 1907 is a Scotts Pine on the north side of the building that is
planted within 4 feet of the building.
b. Berm Planting:
i. Like trees # 1901 through 1906, this tree is planted on a small
berm with inadequate soil volume to support a critical root zone
adequate to support this large tree under a storm load. The roots
have had to grow next to the foundation and will fail ass the tree
continues to grow taller than the building and catches more
prevailing storm winds.
c. I strongly recommend that trees # 1901 through 1906 be removed for
safety.
hoto # 2: looking east along the
xth wall of the building towards
ee # 1907
Note the weak area where the
ee was previously topped and
ow it has regenerated to be now
filler than the building
Note also the small berm
miting the critical root zone of
ie tree
Risk Assessment of Trees at Mazak Machine Works
14600 Interurban Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98188
Gilles Consulting
April 23, 2012
Page 6 of 20
3. Trees along the east side of the building:
a. There are 4 large Weeping Willow trees along the east side of the
building.
b. They have all been pruned away from the building over the decades.
i. The problem is that the pruning was done in a less than expert way
and the trees are suffering extensive decay and loss of large limbs
as a result.
1. Decay from large pruning wounds has coalesced into large
decay columns in the large scaffold branches and main
trunks.
2. In addition, Carpenter Ants have infested the decayed
portions and are hollowing out the trunks and scaffold
branches.
c. All four trees have a high probability offailure and should be removed for
safety.
�! Photos # 3 & 4: Trees # 1908 & 1909 on
the East side of the building.
t
I
Note the poor pruning cuts, dead
branches, and rot pockets on the trunks
� r
t fir_
i
Risk Assessment of Trees at Mazak Machine Works
14600 Interurban Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98188
Gilles Consulting
April 23, 2012
Page 7 of 20
;�
rlsthrPhoto # 5: The large decay column in tree
# 1910.
Not only does the decay extend up into the trunk it
r '
extends down into the base of the trunk leaving it
vulnerable to windthrow in a severe storm event.
W�
Vl�
Oki
Photo # 6: The base and lower trunk of tree
# 1911
Note the advanced decay that extends down
into the base and up into the trunk for 20 or
more feet
Risk Assessment of Trees at Mazak Machine Works
14600 Interurban Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98188
Gilles Consulting
April 23, 2012
Page 8 of 20
4. Trees around the parking lot:
a. There are 6 Red Maple trees along the south and east sides of the parking
lot. They are all in Fair condition with moderate health and a few
structural defects.
i. Specific defects include:
1. Previous topping wound that have re=generated into
reasonably healthy tops. However they are structurally
weak at these old wounds.
2. They are planted in small planter bed at the edge of the
parking lot and they are planted into incredibly poor soils.
Almost all of the roots are on the surfaces of the ground.
These trees will eventually outgrow their sites as the roots
exceed the carrying capacity of the planter beds.
b. Since the trees are in Fair condition and still provide a lot of cooling shade
to the parking lot during the summer months I recommend retaining the
trees and treating them.
i. Cover the surface roots with several inches of mulch.
ii. Fertilize the trees with proper tree based fertilizer sot increase the
overall health of the trees.
Photo # 7: The surface roots and lower
trunk of # 1912
Photo # 8: Trees # 1915 & 1916 in the southwest corner of the
parking lot.
Risk Assessment of Trees at Mazak Machine Works
14600 Interurban Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98188
Gilles Consulting
April 23, 2012
Page 9 of 20
In an effort to present the information and conclusions for each tree in a manner that is
clear and easy to understand, as well as to save paper, I have included a detailed
spreadsheet, Attachment 1, Tree Inventory/Condition Spreadsheet. All the same
information from the ISA Tree Hazard Form is included in this spreadsheet and the
attached glossary. The descriptions on the spreadsheet were left brief in order to include
as much pertinent information as possible and to make the report manageable. The
attached glossary provides a detailed description of the terms used in the spreadsheet and
in this report. It can be found in Attachment 2, Glossary. A brief review of these terms
and descriptions will enable the reader to rapidly move through the. spreadsheet and better
understand the information.
Additional Testing
The trees all presented signs and/or symptoms that were readily discernible using the
visual tree evaluation system. These signs and/or symptoms indicate extensive internal
decay and/or structural defects. Therefore, no additional tests were performed during this
site visit.
CONCLUSIONS
It is my judgment that trees # 1901 through 1911 are an unacceptable level of risk. They
pose a high potential of failure and the ability to cause bodily injury and damage to
property. I believe they should be removed and replaced with smaller stature trees that
will not outgrow the amount of available soil.
WAIVER OF LIABILITY
There are many conditions affecting a tree's health and stability, which may be present
and cannot be ascertained, such as, root rot, previous or unexposed construction damage,
internal cracks, stem rot and more which may be hidden. Changes in circumstances and
conditions can also cause a rapid deterioration of a tree's health and stability. Adverse
weather conditions can dramatically affect the health and safety of a tree in a very short
amount of time. While I have used every reasonable means to examine these trees, this
evaluation represents my opinion of the tree health at this point in time. These findings
do not guarantee future safety nor are they predictions of future events.
The tree evaluation consists of an external visual inspection of an individual tree's root
flare, trunk, and canopy from the ground only unless otherwise specified. The inspection
may also consist of taking trunk or root soundings for sound comparisons to aid the
evaluator in determining the possible extent of decay within a tree. Soundings are only
an aid to the evaluation process and do not replace the use of other more sophisticated
diagnostic tools for determining the extent of decay within a tree.
Risk Assessment of Trees at Mazak Machine Works
14600 Interurban Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98188
Gilles Consulting
April 23, 2012
Page 10 of 20
As conditions change, it is the responsibility of the property owners to schedule
additional site visits by the necessary professionals to ensure that the long-term success
of the project is ensured. It is the responsibility of the property owner to obtain all
required permits from city, county, state, or federal agencies. It is the responsibility of
the property owner to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and permit
conditions. If there is a homeowners association, it is the responsibility of the property
owner to comply with all Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) that apply to tree
pruning and tree removal.
This tree evaluation is to be used to inform and guide the client in the management of
their trees. This in no way implies that the evaluator is responsible for performing
recommended actions or using other methods or tools to further determine the extent of
internal tree problems without written authorization from the client. Furthermore, the
evaluator in no way holds that the opinions and recommendations are the only actions
required to insure that the tree will not fail. A second opinion is recommended. The
client shall hold the evaluator harmless for any and all injuries or damages incurred if the
evaluator's recommendations are not followed or for acts of nature beyond the
evaluator's reasonable expectations, such as severe winds, excessive rains, heavy snow
loads, etc.
This report and all attachments, enclosures, and references, are confidential and are for
the use of the client concerned. They may not be reproduced, used in any way, or
disseminated in any form without the prior consent of the client concerned and Gilles
Consulting.
Thank you for calling Gilles Consulting for your arboricultural needs.
Sincerely,
Brian K. Gilles, Consulting Arborist
ISA Certified Arborist # PN-0260A
ASCA Registered. Consulting Arborist # RCA-418
PNW-ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor #148
Risk Assessment of Trees at Mazak Machine Works
14600 Interurban Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98188
Gilles Consulting
April 23, 2012
Page 11 of 20
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1 - TREE INVENTORY/CONDITIONS SPREADSHEET................12
ATTACHMENT 2 - GLOSSARY.................................................................................14
ATTACHMENT 3 - REFERENCES ..................................... :....................................... 20
Risk Assessment of Trees at Mazak Machine Works
14600 Interurban Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98188
Gilles Consulting
April 23, 2012
Page 12 of 20
ATTACHMENT 1 - TREE INVENTORY/CONDITIONS SPREADSHEET
ABBFtEVWTMI..EC8A3-SEEC,La6GMY1N FI P ATTACHNEIM FMGFWATM1)ETAI-
Vrrem riat oflhetmeln older to-nd— thedsknf_Itid l ww c l ar
PROPERTY
TpEEM
SP83ES
SMNsEW
FOUASE
1A01ift
1R W
f00T
fOdrS
OOMs8tf3
Clallxw
STATE
TAH06T
Ma"
PFMOMJTYt1P
ISAIIN/9O.
PBCOINr8a4TON
IACATON
UPE
tTON0mm
OOUM
PATM
AnN3
PARr
NBLLIM
PATMtl
Gnwwgonbmnbd%een"-cIP*odtrd4
Oad brax3s I. c.Wy. Hg1 PCLeNity or
We<l Wdl.
1901
AERPn
Avaspa
Wads
Based Wm
NOD
% tridd
fdsra Ties Is t000se elm loins bk* —4d cave
Good
fmrrae
Bann
-W—"
tunAdjon two if itUs. Base is IllN of o—te
pd and ITS W d%esl r A dbld0. Poapat
P-ft Portia
G?oedrp on bum b*ft sbdp and pad trait
Rrd bracts In co *y, bfgr pdbotdiN d
Wad I
19M
AIPPn
11.7
13
75%
Avmpe
Weds
Imp Wert
FND
lasddm
IAlua Teo Is too ckae loos bk* weld Dane
Fab
f3rras
BenII
os ry
6uxhlim Mille Oft it liBase is 72 Wdvest
wd dlldp and bond ilan, Poor pas psrip
kea
Was dint{tt.
G—rg on bmn bdwear Nt ad Tared tray .
WB— I
nowleals veal
pwmly
Petlefy
Wadbrads in cargy. Bsseis 417 Wdwvt
1903
CF/Pm
10.4'
12
WA
ry
Alaipe
AraaOe
do to rod ad
Fail
Failed'
6uvbtlon wsf, T e bd In m et stain ad is
pllrp
N—r 19ircM
3
2
5
10
13Yme
hose (sires
Rstridd
bavp bto the—Wof 19M, Poor Pod pvtrp
vas strdg/,
Gi *q on bmnbet-en tklp ad pmtd troll,
—.1ig t lean
dod brad— h campy, Hgt pub hilly d
gem
1907
CF/Pm
tO.P
12
GU%
os
Awrops
Aw:ape
dreltln
FF1D
Pestrktd
dYra Baaeb Bd tornvest louddim vd,Pbor
OykiO
Ndn.9priacat
l3rrsre
pes9re d f
pad pvirp pmc9tad. Tuk, base/rod caw ad
19W
rod base on, Wiry de to pesure fan 19M
O'w*p on bum bcheon bkU wd pemdtrdk
Dead b—t- h conW/. Hgr Pd lb d
'ftw1stmckwto0ebk1g
(.stridd
fav Udcaso
Fair
SpYkat
F3.rtrae
fdrrdstlm dam 8 it tolls. Base is 4T Wofv st
f-ddfm vd, Poor pwt rp pradkes
Wed hrrHms h—W. HM prolvNty of
diva Tm is too dose to its bk p• %add case
Pbstridea
6uddim ti►m O k t ls, AE post pvirp
Wig-b—d
190E
LF/Prrr
16Y
13
86%
.wry
Ouse
FUdlty
Sragt
hND
pmdiom woe is W Tan NNlouddion corner,
Good
Sprivt
3
2
3
8
(dlrioe
CimMV a 2 aided bem d MVcon- eJ Ndp. Tis
tree hos nsre ores for rods W apparmW in. sail
Is se povthey card Penetrate
Figs pr.b blty ddkm, Tine b too dace to the
bldit. %add care lo-Man W kse Nk his
Nrlh sided
1907
ScP/Ps'
134'
13
65%
G—oty
cage
drV
Fakd newtap
Stivigt
FY1D
lydrktd
wpedMly os N Oda Ida thws the brYdrp, SSA'
Baseb 4 NdErsdal 31nsks h—&high
Folk
Spiker
1
2
3
8
Ibns e
lky
symredc.1
Alerape
dblda
wM,
pdardYly. dfolkre uda dam krd esp-.d1y a
they pd tAw and hmW
Risk Assessment of Trees at Mazak Machine Works
14600 Interurban Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98188
Gilles Consulting
April 23, 2012
Page 13 of 20
TREE
THY
SPBClES
DBi
DW
let
SYMYEnW
FCLYYOE
OaOMI
TfilliC
ROOM
RCOI8
OdYNBi1S
F
87A716
TAMEr
S CF
PRCBAEXUIYCF
ISAHAT/IW
fiBLa1MBL11T10N
LOCATION
LINE
CCM11ON
COLLCOLLARRATND
RATM
PART
FARAAW
RA71N0
Pear pat pnriro practices, Rot Podkefs In
piney march, TNs Is the best the tree mil eye
E d
19M
WASb
2Z8
24
55%
104-
Ari-.ge
FieguleeflrpLeans
Fat
Probade
Restricted
gd- irs health" stnctm mil dedinehm roar
Consider RnoW
ry
Fora' . Typical,
baserat
on. Rboa t co m etim drerraal dap berm tan
ife E side ofthe foudtim Base is alai IOT E
dthe E tuda0m mall
Port pat iNro pracdoes. Dead Baefrs In
QrxlH- large broken branches ton recent stmn.
Rot Pockets h piracy vmu d , The is the test
1909
W MSb
23,7'
ZO
40116
Mnor
Aaaga
ing-
Eadowr
Restricted
the tree Wit a er b4 Its health and sbu &re WD rd
Indecine
NaiSigifcert
CkreidRUM"
m
base rot
likdy a rrinp m Rcat exe d m dremod
ala g berm tam E side dthe fokrdatim mall, Base
is about E dE iarct0m mN
Mrs
PrcbdAe
Restdde4
Poorpatpufrgpn@cices. Baseis6Nd
a riot d S E dpoWng lot cuad b 14 SE
Na SE
mrg d birig
1910
WA/Sb
27.3'
20
65%
aYTMXUY
Aeage
parWro
SE ea Od bracies in ca pY. This is the
Par
Nrw9gifcart
Brno e
best the tee Wi ere he• all ck v rill ton here
East
POW pat PnArg practices, Cl G AdAned
1911
VNAISD
266'
2O
39%
A age
A
Carte rat
Base rot
CapeterArt iniestalim , Tts is the best this
Poor
Nnagrifcart
2
3
3
8
Fb m
parrodM
asyrnrnetry
tree mil eve do• all dorm III fan here
Base is abort S S of plat cub and abat ST SE d
RestcstdcSvIbaa
ligt ffiad sfarrtl atx t 94' E d pakirp Id cub
K&kh ow airfece rods,
1912
FWAr
21.8'
20
80%
syrnrnatri
Aerage
Healthypical
Ty
Base rot
ad 11'B' N dpeWrg lot m agacet p> ty to
Fair
soil eject, ma tor
the S, Poor past pnring practices, This is the best
tlis tree mil a be• all dosn rill tan here
Salted
1913
RIWNPr
19LT
2Z
70%
Gaesily
A rage
Regenerating-
Sligt lam SE,
U40
,a Wd,4
Poor Fast Puing practices. GroWg in planter bed
I'st, 2por"latstheaearty7midq
Fair
Sigfaat
3
2
2
7
Sol klect, rrcrltar
parking lot
symtrelnld
A%erage
typical
SVGce
RsJaapy Topped a 12-14
Souh d
1814
RNVM
1II 1"
22
Ems
(3--ally-
Agape
Slim lean S.
NaD
R stddea
Pow, past pi+6g does, Qasing in Flare
Bed bstmeen 2 pakkg lots the are only 7- Ms.
Fa
Sulks t
3
2
2
7
Sol irlect, "wit
p ro bl
sYn*
AQ
1YPcal
,
Sore decay In INUM Su4oe rod
SO, or
1915
RWAr
1S7'
20
70%
ty
A
S O lam S,
Partially
Iaetdated,
Paonri post plg pr:cbss, t W&V In piartebed
I &
Sit
3
2
2
7
Scil irject. moritor
paML.lot
syntrwcal
We
A.eape
typical
Suface
lxs e 2 paWrg kis that are orty 7 Wale.
To the Seth
dperwrp Ict
1916
F WAr
19.1"
24
WA
Garmally
Average
Regermatirg-
Typical
Patlaity
iaetdde4
past "no practice, Pei -sly TcFPstQ
Fair
Sig kart
3
2
2
7
Scil irjed, maita
airy
synirn[Vical
A`aage
aposed
Sulboe
14 and 36, Occy in Suface roots
Fork (M5S w
Base h 29 S dundagwd L11ily —A. a9 E aC
hbNldthe
1917
RWAr
17.9'
28
75%r='-Y
Avaaga
Ficalty
Indkled bark
NAD
Restdcte4
2S' W oC 3 Wd Faking lot art ad SS N die
FairSigrcat
3
2
2
7
Stlliryect, moiler
drn 1T,
Typical
Suface
airy dive arh
Risk Assessment of Trees at Mazak Machine Works
14600 Interurban Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98188
Gilles Consulting
April 23, 2012
Page 14 of 20
ATTACHMENT 2 - GLOSSARY
Terms Used in This Report, on the Tree Condition / Inventory Spreadsheet, and
Their Significance
In an effort to clearly present the information for each tree in a manner that facilitates the
reader's ability to understand the conclusions I have drawn for each tree, I have collected
the information in a spreadsheet format. This spreadsheet was developed by Gilles
Consulting based upon the Tree Risk Assessment in Urban Areas and the Urban/Rural
Interface course manual and the Tree Risk Assessment Form, both sponsored by the
Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture, and the Hazard
Tree Evaluation Form from the book, The Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas,
by Matheny and Clarke. The descriptions were left brief on the spreadsheet in an effort
to include as much pertinent information as possible, to make the report manageable, and
to avoid boring the reader with infinite levels of detail. However, a review of these terms
and descriptions will allow the reader to rapidly move through the report and understand
the information.
1) TREE LOCATION —Relative placement of the tree.
2) TREE #—the unique tag number of each tree.
3) SPECIES —this describes the species of each tree with both most readily accepted
common name and the officially accepted scientific name.
4) DBH—Diameter Breast Height. This is the standard measurement of trees taken at
4.5 feet above the average ground level of the tree base.
i) Occasionally it is. not practical to measure a tree at 4.5 feet above the ground.
The most representative area of the trunk near 4.5 feet is then measured and
noted on the spreadsheet. For instance, a tree that forks at 4.5 feet can have an
unusually large swelling at that point. The measurement is taken below the
swelling and noted, e.g. `28.4" at 36"'.
ii) Trees with multiple stems are listed as a "clump of x," with x being the
number of trunks in the clump. Measurements may be given as an average of
all the trunks, or individual measurements for each trunk may be listed.
(1) Every effort is made to distinguish between a single tree with multiple
stems and several trees growing close together at the bases.
5) DRIP LINE —the radius, the distance from the trunk to the furthest branch tips.
6) % LCR—Percentage of Live Crown Ratio. The relative proportion of green crown
to overall tree height. This is an important indication of a tree's health. If a tree has a
high percentage of Live Crown Ratio, it is likely producing enough photosynthetic
activity to support the tree. If a tree has less than 30% to 40% LCR, it can create a
shortage of needed energy and can indicate poor health and vigor.
7) SYMMETRY —is the description of the form of the canopy, i.e., the balance or
overall shape of the canopy and crown. This is the place I list any major defects in
the canopy shape, e.g. does the tree have all its foliage on one side or in one unusual
Risk Assessment of Trees at Mazak Machine Works
14600 Interurban Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98188
Gilles Consulting
April 23, 2012
Page 15 of 20
area? Symmetry can be important if there are additional defects in the tree such as rot
pockets, cracks, loose roots, weak crown, etc. Symmetry is generally categorized as
Generally Symmetrical, Minor Asymmetry or Major Asymmetry:
i) Gen. Sym.—Generally Symmetrical. The canopy/foliage is generally even on
all sides with spacing of scaffold branches typical for the species, both
vertically and radially.
ii) Min. Asym.—Minor Asymmetry. The canopy/foliage has a slightly irregular
shape with more weight on one side, but appears to be no problem for the tree.
iii) Maj. Asym.—Major Asymmetry. The canopy/foliage has a highly irregular
shape for the species with the majority of the weight on one side of the tree.
This can have a significant impact on the tree's stability, health and hazard
potential —especially if other defects are noted such as cracks, rot, or root
defects.
8) FOLIAGEBRANCH—describes the foliage of the tree in relation to a perfect
specimen of that particular species. First the branch growth and foliage density is
described, and then any signs or symptoms of stress and/or disease are noted. The
condition of the foliage, or the branches and buds for deciduous trees in the dormant
season, are important indications of a tree's health and vigor.
i) For Deciduous trees in the dormant season:
(1) The structure of the deciduous tree is visible.
(2) The quantity and quality of buds indicates health, and is described as
good bud set, average bud set, or poor bud set. These are abbreviated
in the spreadsheet as: gbs, abs, or pbs.
(3) The amount of annual shoot elongation is visible and is another major
indication of tree health and vigor. This is described as:
a) Excellent, Good, Average, or Short Shoot Elongation. These
are abbreviated in the spreadsheet as ESE, GSE, ASE, or SSE.
ii) For evergreen trees year round and deciduous trees in leaf, the color and
density of the foliage indicates if the tree is healthy or stressed, or if an insect
infestation, a bacterial, fungal, or viral infection is present. Foliage is
categorized on a scale from:
(1) Dense —extremely thick foliage, an indication of healthy vigorous
growth,
(2) Good —thick foliage, thicker than average for the species,
(3) Normal/Average—thick foliage, average for the species; an indication
of healthy growth,
(4) Thin or Thinning —needles and leaves becoming less dense so that
sunlight readily passes through; an indication that the tree is under
serious stress that could impact the long-term survivability and safety
of the tree,
(5) Sparse=few leaves or needles on the twigs, an indication that the tree
is under extreme stress and could indicate the future death of the tree,
Risk Assessment of Trees at Mazak Machine Works
14600 Interurban Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98188
Gilles Consulting
April 23, 2012
Page 16 of 20
(6) Necrosis —the presence of dead twigs and branchlets. This is another
significant indication of tree health. A few dead twigs and branches
are reasonably typical in most trees of size. However, if there are dead
twigs and branchlets all over a certain portion of the tree, or all over
the tree, these are indications of stress or attack that can have an
impact on the tree's long-term health.
(7) Hangers —a term to describe a large branch or limb that has broken off
but is still hanging up in the tree. These can be particularly dangerous
in adverse weather conditions.
9) CROWN CONDITION —the crown is uppermost portion of the tree, generally
considered the top 10 to 20% of the canopy or that part of the canopy above the main
trunk in deciduous trees and above the secondary bark in evergreen trees.
i) The condition of the tree's crown is a reflection of the overall health and vigor
of the entire tree. The crown is one of the first places a tree will demonstrate
stress and pathogenic attack such as root rot.
ii) If the Crown Condition is healthy and strong, this is a good sign. If the
crown condition is weak, broken out, or shows other signs of decline, it is an
indication that the tree is under stress. It is such an important indication of
health and vigor that this is the first place a trained forester or arborist looks to
begin the evaluation of a tree. Current research reveals that, by the time trees
with root rot show significant signs of decline in the crown, fully 50% or more
of the roots have already rotted away. Crown Condition can be described as:
(1) Healthy Crown —exceptional growth for the species.
(2) Average Crown —typical for the species.
(3) Weak Crown —thin spindly growth with thin or sparse needles.
(4) Flagging Crown —describes a tree crown that is weak and unable to
grow straight up.
(5) DyingCrown--describes rown—describes obvious decline that is nearing death.
(6) Dead Crown —the crown has died due to pathological or physical
injury. The tree is considered to have significant stress and/or
weakness if the crown is dead.
(7) Broken out —a formerly weak crown condition that has been broken
off by adverse weather conditions or other mechanical means.
(8) Regenerated or Regenerating —formerly broken out crowns that are
now growing back. Regenerating crowns may appear healthy, average,
or weak and indicate current health of the tree.
(9) Suppressed —a term used to describe poor condition of an entire tree
or just the crown. Suppressed crowns are those that are entirely below
the general level of the canopy of surrounding trees which receive no
direct sunlight. They are generally in poor health and vigor.
Suppressed trees are generally trees that are smaller and growing in the
shade of larger trees around them. They generally have thin or sparse
Risk Assessment of Trees at Mazak Machine Works
14600 Interurban Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98188
Gilles Consulting
April 23, 2012
Page 17 of 20 .
needles, weak or missing crowns, and are prone to insect attack as well
as bacterial and fungal infections.
10) TRUNK —this is the area to note any defects that can have an impact on the tree's
stability or hazard potential. Typical things noted are:
i) FORKED —bifurcation of branches or trunks that often occur at a narrow
angle.
ii) INCLUDED BARK —a pattern of development at branch or trunk junctions
where bark is turned inward rather than pushed out. This can be a serious
structural defect in a tree that can and often does lead to failure of one or more
of the branches or trunks, especially during severe, adverse weather
conditions.
iii) EPICORMIC GROWTH —this is generally seen as dense thick growth near
the trunk of a tree. Although this looks like a healthy condition, it is, in fact
the opposite. Trees with Epicormic Growth have used their reserve stores of
energy in a last ditch effort to produce enough additional photosynthetic
surface area to produce more sugars, starches and carbohydrates to support the
continued growth of the tree. Generally speaking, when conifers in the Pacific
Northwest exhibit heavy amounts of Epicormic Growth, they are not
producing enough food to support their current mass and are already in serious
decline.
iv) INTERNAL STRUCTURAL WEAKNESS —a physical characteristic of the
tree trunk, such as a kink, crack, rot pocket, or rot column that predisposes
the tree trunk to failure at the point of greatest weakness.
v) BOWED —a gradual curve of the trunk. This can indicate an Internal
Structural Weakness or an overall weak tree. It can also indicate slow
movement of soils or historic damage of the tree that has been corrected by
the curved growth.
vi) KINKED —a sharp angle in the tree trunk that indicates that the normal
growth pattern is disrupted. Generally this means that the internal fibers and
annual rings are weaker than straight trunks and prone to failure, especially in
adverse weather conditions.
vii) GROUND FLOWER —an area of deformed bark near the base of a tree trunk
that indicates long-term root rot.
11) ROOT COLLAR —this is the area where the trunk enters the soil and the buttress
roots flare out away from the trunk into the soil. It is here that signs of rot, decay,
insect infestation, or fungal or bacterial infection are noted. NAD stands for No
Apparent Defects.
12) ROOTS —any abnormalities such as girdling roots, roots that wrap around the tree
itself that strangle the cambium layer and kill the tree, are noted here.
13) COMMENTS —this is the area to note any additional information that would not fit
in the previous boxes or attributes about the tree that have bearing on the health and
structure of the tree.
Risk Assessment of Trees at Mazak Machine Works
14600 Interurban Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98188
Gilles Consulting
April 23, 2012
Page 18 of 20
14) CURRENT HEALTH RATING —A description of the tree's general health ranging
from dead, dying, poor, senescent, suppressed, fair, good, very good, to excellent.
15) STATUS —this is the rating of whether the tree is Significant or Non -Significant,.
based upon whether it is in good health and good structure.
PNW-ISA TREE RISK ASSESSMENT RATINGS FOR HAZARD POTENTIAL --
The Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture now certifies
arborists as Certified Tree Risk Assessors using an adjusted scale of 3 to 12 points based
upon 4 component parts. They are:
16) TARGET RATING --A scale of zero to three points depending upon the amount of
use within the range of the tree and the amount of injury or damage that might occur
if the tree or component part does fail. Target is both the level of use and the
quality/value of the target combined with the foreseeable amount of injury or damage
that will likely occur should the tree or component part fail.
i) 0 Points, no target. No Hazard.
ii) 1 Point, Low human use or low target value.
iii) 2 Points, Moderate human use or moderate target value.
iv) 3 Points, High or constant human use or high target value.
17) SIZE OF PART-- The larger the tree or component part that fails, the greater the
potential for injury or damage.
i) 1 Point = small branches or trunks up to 4 inches in diameter.
ii) 2 Points = branches or trunks from 4.1 to 19.9 inches in diameter.
iii) 3 Points = large branches or trunks greater than 20 inches in diameter.
18) PROBABILITY OF FAILURE --This component ranks the likelihood that the
observed defect(s) will fail in a reasonable amount of time in the foreseeable future.
The probability of failure automatically has associated with it threshold of action
recommended to reduce or minimize the potential failure and associated injuries or
damages that might occur.
i) 1 Point = Minor defect is not likely to lead to imminent failure.
(1) No further action is required.
ii) . 2 Points = One or more defects are well established but would typically not
lead to failure for several years.
(1) Corrective action might be useful to prevent future problems but only
if time and money is available. Not the highest priority for action.
Generally "retain and monitor" is acceptable action.
iii) 3 Points = The defect(s) is serious and failure is likely.
(1) Corrective action is required in weeks or months.
iv) 4 Points = The defect(s) are serious and imminent failure is likely.
(1) Action is required in days or weeks.
v) 5 Points = The tree or component parts are already failing. Failure is
imminent. This is an emergency situation.
(1) Corrective action is required immediately today.
19) ISA HAZARD RATING --The combined component ratings of Target Rating, Size of
Part, Probability of Failure, and Other Risk Factors on a scale of 3 through 12.
Risk Assessment of Trees at Mazak Machine Works
14600 Interurban Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98188
Gilles Consulting
April 23, 2012
Page 19 of 20
20) RECOMMENDATION— this is an estimate of whether or not the tree is of
sufficient health, vigor, and structure that it is worth retaining. Specific
recommendations for each tree are included in this column. They may include
anything from pruning dead wood, mulching, aerating, injecting tree -based fertilizer
into the root system, shortening into a habitat tree or wildlife snag, or to completely
removing the tree.
i) Monitor: "Monitor" is a specific recommendation that the tree be re-
evaluated on a routine basis to determine if there are any significant changes
in health or structural stability. "Monitor annually" (or bi-annually, tri-
annually, etc.)" means the tree should be looked at once every year (or every 2
or 3 years, etc.) This yearly monitoring can be a quick look at the trees to see
if there are any significant changes. Significant changes such as storm
damage, loss of crown, partial failure of one or more roots, etc. require that a
full evaluation be done of the tree at that time.
ii) Potential to retain with tree protection measures: means that the tree
appears to have the internal resources, the health and vigor, structural stability,
and the wind firmness to be able to withstand the stresses of construction if
development requirements and construction requirements allow.
iii) Habitat or Remove: means that the tree has a high potential to fail and cause
either personal injury or property damage —in other words the tree has been
declared a hazard tree and should be dealt with prior to the next large storm.
If it is at all possible the recommendation is to leave some of the trunk
standing for wildlife habitat and some of the trunk on the ground as a nurse
log. The height of the standing habitat tree depends upon the size of the tree,
the condition of the tree, and the distance to a probable target. It should be
short enough so that when it does fail years in the future it will not cause
personal injury or property damage. Nurse logs can be laid horizontally across
the slope to aid with erosion control and to provide microenvironments for
new plantings. The nurse logs meaning to be steak to prevent their movement
and potential harm to people. If for some reason this is not possible that
should be removed for safety.
NOTE: TREES WITH THE SAME DESCRIPTION AND DIFFERENT RATINGS:
Two trees may have the same descriptions in the matrix boxes, one may be marked
"Significant," while another may be marked "Non -Significant." The difference is in the
degree of the description, i.e., "early necrosis" versus "advanced necrosis" for instance.
Another example is "center rot" or `base rot". In a.Western Red Cedar tree, the presence
of low or even moderate rot is not significant and does not diminish the strength of the
tree. However, low levels of rot in the base of a Douglas Fir tree, in an area known to
have virulent pathogens present, is highly significant and predisposes that tree to
windthrow.
Risk Assessment of Trees at Mazak Machine Works
14600 Interurban Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98188
Gilles Consulting
April 23, 2012
Page 20 of 20
ATTACHMENT 3 - REFERENCES
Harris, Richard W. et al. Arboriculture, Integrated Management of Landscape
Trees, Shrubs, and Vines. 41" ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2004.
2. Matheny, Nelda P. and Clark, James R. Evaluation of Hazard Trees. 2°d ed.
Savoy: The International Society of Arboriculture Press, 1994.
3. Matheny, Nelda P. and Clark, James R. Trees & Development, A Technical Guide
to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. Savoy: The International
Society of Arboriculture Press, 1998.
4. Mattheck, Claus and Breloer, Helge. The Body Language of Trees, A Handbook
for Failure Analysis. London: HMSO, 1994.
Pacific Northwest Chapter-ISA. Tree Risk Assessment in Urban Areas and the
Urban/Rural Interface. Course Manual. Release 1.5. PNW-ISA: Silverton,
Oregon, 2011.
Gary Anderegg
From:
Scott Holsapple <sholsapple@kennethphilp.com>
Sent:
Monday, July 02, 2012 5:15 PM
To:
Gary Anderegg
Cc:
'Brian K Gilles'
Subject:
RE: Tukwila-Mazak Machine Works
Gary -
Yes, I think the tree and shrub planting is too dense given the mature size of those species. I would think roughly half of
the trees and shrubs we have on our schedule would be adequate.
Scott Holsapple
Kenneth Philp Landscape Architects
From: Gary Anderegg [mailto:ganderegg@machinetoolworks.com]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 2:48 PM
To: sholsapple@kennethphilp.com
Cc: 'Brian K Gilles'
Subject: RE: Tukwila-Mazak Machine Works
Scott,
In your professional option, does your proposed planting plan seem too excessive for the amount of land available, for
the health and growth of the new planting?
If it does, I am going to request and exception to the requirement.
Regards,
Gary Anderegg
Machine Toolworks, Inc.
(206) 947-7489 Cell
(800) 426-2052 Office
www.machinetoolworks.com
From: Scott Holsapple [ma ilto: sholsa ppleO) ken nethph i 1p.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:55 AM
To: Gary Anderegg
Cc: 'Brian K Gilles'
Subject: RE: Tukwila-Mazak Machine Works
Hi Gary -
Attached are our tree removal and planting restoration plans for you review.
If these meet your approval, please feel free to go ahead and submit.
If you have questions or would like to see revisions, please let me know.
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX: (206) 431-3665
E-mail. plannin(a(a�TukwilaWA.gov
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS
PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY
STATE OF WASHINGTON
ss
COUNTY OF KING
RECEIVED
►JUL 10G 20121
DEVEUN
LOPMEENNT
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 /14G oo i.vTrit e-lz 4.v q y _ s, 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 kA 01-- (city), 11,�_(state), on� , 20—Pt
(Print Name)
�II�GGG /it//i.-2G2G.4�/ h�'y� S- ir//LGG/GD, Ll/ij�
(Address)
(Phone Number)
(Sighafire)
On this day personally appeared before me clnyw 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 _QF ` )U A tp , 20
Notary Public
State of Washington
NANCY Y WU
My Appointment Expires Feb 14, 2015
NOTAR Lein rand for the State of Washington
residing at-[11V-ca 11 &
My Commission expires on
H:V.and Use Applications in PDRTree Permit-Jan201 Ldoc
1JUL' 0 2012
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX (206) 431-3665
E-mail: planning(a TukwilaWA.gov
COMMUNITY
OEV ELOPMEiiT
TREE CLEARING
PERMIT
FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type: P-TREE
Planner:
File Number: Z— a • a
Application Complete Date:
Project File Number:
[Application Incomplete Date:.
Other File Numbers:
NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT:
Machine Toolworks Tree Removal and replanting plan
LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, ifvacant, indicate lot(s), block and
subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection.
/,o /-4-1 rUr--
14600 indu tip -Bra, Tukwila, WA 98168
LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement).
3365901.650
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: Gary Anderegg
Address: 14600 Interurban Ave S
Phone: (206) 575-3390
E-mail: gnderegg@machinetoolworks.corn
FAX:
Signature: 4f,Date: Z
C ck 5 p d
H:1Land Use Applications in PDF1Tree Permit-Jan201 Ldoc '
s
l
MA]AK MACHINE WORKS
\ EXISTING PARKING LOT
I • I
1 plllf
PLANT SCHEDULE — b al,n 'i — —
_l_ us•
On SMAWA NAIE CWMW MKE SUE COMM
.kd.h
S—b"
7'.dper
hl hh" bn.dit BIB
td n
P.prr kd
1' olper
K bhPd k..diy IH
bb
C
Onto. bA
P' lW
Fd b*" k..dil. BE
Aw.
Qdkl bpn
1' o7per
K b.hd kndv& 66
W.— kd Cde
H' m
kl bhwd kaki/. U3
B
WILLOW RAKES
I7 fd. lryei..
Grye Wih.
IX da
K.p. mod. ad dd.6
IS Sf. s /enm
s w wd .
1/1" d>
Cry. m . ad Add
IS Sd.,,A—
Sid. Wi.
1/7' d..
Kq,.d, ad Am
n WOINAm
71 10M1 IIBimW (M[Pl uPmD
nx1[. a NxMd[PM
Sw,a km
S m,
Q7Y BOTAWAL NAME
EWMOM*A
NIF
EWMENTS
d Ea,• ,ap
kd0ar
114
Id nd
OV
k
S P1b1eyYP km
Nod on.p
It
1 pl
Sd nd w
4-.
O
Il SIoYAoia7x .Mn
I PL
—
Fd ad wl...•d
®
S Y.m.i• e.a•
E. j—
Fwprn N."
I Pl
Fd nd I"—
o
f Y•mra dt
Wlknl fr..Imp
I pl
Fd ad wka.•d
9 Lamm doa
T—p. H-T.dd
1 Pl
Fd ad .1-.d
GROUNDINIU
375 Ammrglph..Ys.A 11.mrx hli [ieik..A
d' p.N
it ot, m ad wB.w•d
375 C... aad..
B..dk M D.pwd
d" po•
IP O.C, fa nd wt-w
Q
100 Bvkrb —
L. Op. Gnpr
1 it
le O.L tw hl ad wl•d
/S P*, A. n..iaa
ww Fm
I Pl
36" O.C, mad mtmW
IIS W^ib..q. •&
Owp•t %-"
I pL
11' O.f_ mad wl.wd
LEGEND
w----mow
Udld WA
11111 t1pI I,t 1111t11I1
7 Ikul
]x x11
WxM Ad d.
/roperq Uw
B n.adx
adww•
--.--.—
Ilpw,•rIWA
dm. ,mtroe
1md. Wk.
,.J
Iber Yh.e liw
G W*•
Im.
sd. vrdo.
/ l.."
(
Eu,dq Sren
MACHINE
wwddlp0."°"
TOOLWORKS.INC.
b Ye.wB e1.k
1/416 INRNUIRIN An SWIM
rop.M•^r
TUM'IIA, WA 11111
j r
B
j•
t•
\
\
E.rpm Nxtld1,Y,
"\
.r'./ w-
6 Yam, a„•. e,
♦
j'
Y
o
•
*
°
`
• aimnal II01 wu[A Wtt
•
•
aw
•, •
\ w.NI.PF Nrfll ILYCL [L 7a
♦. ♦ • i
STxEO Y
o
♦
o
.7
J rn
4/m \
\
+
\
PERMIT DRAWINGS
9 Im... dxx
irv.pr, MmmdM
WNGNFD P. SM
B kxx
b I.d. 'ti
—1"
M D'^P
P9•
D. —
860141 rtwr sulrtrru
CALL 2 DAYSEFORE YOU DIG MITGATION
.I
RECi=—ivE B1-800-424-55551 PLAN
'JUL 10 G 20121 YAEI =' ° 1® L-2.0
o v° oPa"iEr
2 Z
x190f 4 It
�121'fQ1 C ���•.,.
4
LEGEND
s
�,I jjj •�����• I;xNLaw.a
Fwm U.
\ \ App., M. FrviroA.en lwe FAdLAn
\ ________- __ \ � .. ., ., WP.a NWI Weser N.d
Mv— Ri.e, w,v U.
No
FAnlil lrta o & Pmmed
I— Pmpou/ la R—M
\\ ♦� ____ _-_______�_ __ ___ ail' � , `l� y �
ell
\ ` `
EXISTING PARKING LOT i
\
WAIFA TINE NNER aYEt
== \
—/ — s� t alvls I — • p191f — �- — also I �-'/ - - I -------- --------�-�-_- \• ) _.
♦A+ yy j X♦ \
A f N
-I
1
E
L
------
NAZAR MACHINE WORKS
REMOVAL &
RESTORATION AREA
UNIT OF WORK
x IFe
Aa: r =Iva•
MITIGATION SCHEDULE
laE Nn UllnFR pX.) Xa N[nU(EMFXII
IPoI 13.0 t B0: ua
1901 ID.1 d
190x 1.0 6
IWB 121 6
IkB n.R B
I90R D., B
ISIO Di.l 8
IAII 1B.d B
IOIAI PAVER NXOYAL IB).d IOIAL A[nAfFXENit )X
z.
r
MITIGATION NOTES
�'
A[NIILEMFNf 0N:
1• aNpr bi
K
I/2.6m,v b Nw Xau
AEvuandxl oFNNIr:
CALL 2 DAYS
v�l.e,Im.$I.I_:m0..✓,.....B-.K-,wlb-I
BEFORE YOU DEG
ILDO'
B�S' b wrv.A
1-800-424-5555
pmMm-
o
PAIL I•=IaL' XDAIX
p, Ig"o 9 a,
F..d 1.B p- ll,,kil.m. PE
MACHINE
TOOLWORKS, INC
Hill FNffuu I ME TWIN
lOJ9M WA ff 1P1
V
wAsancrox
enBREnDo�v
PERMIT DRAWINGS
DESIGNED 01, SX
DAAWN IC j, i m I 0
0.. -
pyp� rENNn Aulxnlu
TREE
REMOVAL
PLAN
��l-I.0
L..i BA.N. Af<IIUUI EE
,I
NEED W3A
MOR40INID mw
.1 NEW
W/ EEW YXRE flu
ON01 IIU
L
3- U
WUOAAM RVFl
,UUMY WM GAWEE
ANIt WAAYFD WGR W/
t
�W
HMia a Na
PLANTING NOTES:
NEW YNR HOSF p AYR
R \
AMOYE UPWARD
1.1 NO ERATO THAL OCNA M DE DW WE a IMFFI
1- A' DEARER NATTER
MIS
3
IMNRAMHM la
In OF 100E WL
WAY3G OF EXISTING IRU MALL NI PI NJRD. W03UPE AAUYnR n 10 H Igif[D OF
I OF 4L MI 9 SRU tANYH U OATEN DON
2 ANY
MACHINE
DNKER
�,`I�
'�Y rll l y yN v 1
AE310YE III a
TO
PLOT R MERE G E RAMWER r A to (OYIIYUFD WRIl N ENE APEL
An A001 MFRANK A fD aW4 OF EN ED PLANE SHUL A OMA IED oN OF U MgHI IAIMD(IMF AA1ME0.
3. DEAL M rWNMW At M a ETHEW MIN
ORKS
TOOLWORNSA INC
TOOL
MARK K WARR MR
BIINAP R NiPE
ET ARNOLDFFI IMTO ID MA1111G
l E TEDW110 EE EMITTED SIX M "NET
WXA AON ALOAYS
BAKEn 10M,119,
NO
AAUS TO BE (LEAFED. WARNED. AID WO'AIED PAR 10 SNL MM.
a RE N PHATOR
ALL MU RRFD
INANN INRAWNAN f0nn1
11
NRX LINOffAPE MfIIIIFU
a
••
IMIAIL FF0.nWEN AA
6 rIAMIIB4 AR IOMAU RA I.�1(APE YERFMNANS
I WIND
TIALYIM WA 1/EN/ i
3' DEPTH a DRIED MULOM
WHOM OUR
h
SPEOMITMM AO
EAU
i. RNA AAUP PER RINR(APE SEOFIAIMN
A ALL YI.ANMM BEDS 10 BE I —DID WITH I- URN Of .—I..0, MN LWMfNE TEMINA1MM
-
INSTALLFUWOR PER
REWHWEDR ME.
N. WOOL ALL UHUT1B 48 WAY PRR TO UNIT OF MAIL (MARYLON AU.— FR MI1.* M RARE,
1Q UiMOA (KENO NOTING MBE INSTALLED PER MAN FPLIVAR AID LVIRUPF A aRMTKINS OF .ILL ROPES OF 3:1 R ITUPU
Rr RERNAiIONi 1 .
MNNMRR
BAaEID. RE., Mt
IHHH
11. ALL RAMD MRt MEET RED- MILLION WU U FOR MUMMERY Of THAT OI DOING THEE MODERN,
AFINNE NWNED NNW
SPEOIO NM a
MIRE AIM
ION I01 In a WERE AND.
RAYING Mt SHILL A
gRRO Wl
MAIL IMALTO I— OR
NONE RACED CULLER,
MYR SIR a NOTNLL
MONO BURR a
.
UNFNI IUIIIIIG PM YWN
RNDIAG M
10 WB4A0F
WOULD NN a MANE AND
"IT, WR
ROM
RMM
WEAK RI NAL A
ryWID ONE a FIIWIYG MEEta
SRRAOIWI
MAD To WGION OEWD
OEODIIOUS IEEE NUNNNG AID I—
2 (DNFEEWS IEEE MNINIG AND STAINW
'
GENERAL NOTES:
I. Otl1APLIR ANaR HYMNMF1 LRDI1. AL ME[ADITION IYDVENOMDELPER At PFWMEO I®f(IWXA
At
1 ALL WON INWINNT BON W WRD to ARDWO SLUR A REAR MANAHMI AW IPLRDLL MA RRMO4 ONE OnI41A1(11. TRAREA AMD IFSITNL
MUD
EEL fMll (ONOM 10 M3WpIA AWPFAYR AND RMNO fAaMIMNi A [OPT a NES OWMFYR S(Al A R WE
SEAR OF
AME UMIn OF WPaP
iAM IR In a ROaflAIL
—G (MEW
DUAWIG (OIMMAIRpIL
1. A (RI. IA MAMAIf ON 91E WRMERA DNSNaOY n N PARSL
RUNNOiw
MENfl9t0
MAMA IAAIf1 NUNP
BE
a ALLIED. (DIEM IXAI SUEOVLL W ATTEND A MHaAIA1CIYlY OWERFAa WIIX RF MMYAID. AWRFU. AND
l M to RMID M
IM o
IMpIBILL
R WO BASED (OMIWAR
(NIIANU PUNLNRf 104E
g aMANE ODE
INMA NDX IMINMMW a a1f ANDM R ANYTH
L IN fRIRA(OA SMALL MOM XUWRAiIiI. AWMQ. AM OYMU IWRR{WI. RN) IMUA N AOPAE(E a ALL WATER S0.YIR NIfPANINWi NYOPAU
IMIALL I' ABRF
AWS TY 3 %APES IO In'
NSIALL GAWXaR[A
SNDI-0fi4 ND SERER flOwRl R OIAA A)IS NOaNF.
MR KEEN .—AIDATFEW DONEE ONRIANFO (R)X AYNUBR A(RN AW fXWR
RHmxArt
RMIAM[R DEPTH.
010
AIM
To CAUSED RNIWEA
A fPFRID 1D
�--( IYPMLL FNMHED
A (AAM W/ 3' UIU
A All IMARMS OF ERIN4 DMO1RR fRMWM XEAIM
IXEMFaf A WMMRU AIPIREAMR ONLY AID NOT MRDAARY COMMIT. 0 D THE ROTE MPoXYNUD OF THE DOMAIN ON 10 NDEPFYDFMU
,FAR THE NNMR OF ALL UIMY WORRY NONM. AID to FURTHER DISUMER AID MOND MY O3XER LIMITED W SXO.Yn WON MAKE MY H
PLNf 3' UY[A
OF WIRED MLR
SE IDEOFO M.
��r fRFIFD MttIX
FFFEUED BY THE BOOK WIN OF III N0.
1. LWI ,,IOR WALL COUPLE M DNaN WORMAY WING SAYME A LENT FDMR{NNI (N) MM O O (MWU (BDO 05D) AND WON
OYFA "I. Al.
OIONa WAU SwRll
AID POUTI ALL LAMNM.0 OMNI DIMOM OPUBLA RL
DNDH OAK a
W.FUIMRA PER
� • --;}� :I.K.:.i�
fl DINtI SFAYIR [OYYFCNIIf AKE YET A DAYINIED MRNEII. I01 BY THE INMNVAM. III COIIMCIR MALL PAPARADEFR ALL IUD AONMD ITf" NE $AHT LDE 111f1F(
I.
1. EA (RIIVLIR SHAll MONK W IMNIAW IEAVfWIR SONRNiMe (OLIE[IMN IIIDaU i011WM NN SCCEM111DR WAIF0. DOf1 YOl FXIR
PENMIT DMWINGS
YOKEL MNN6
RRa "AIM
SRF lAOI4LL I MRIIIG RRBOfN
OE MIT ENTPURN OAIAH STSRA A CMSAULIMY Ma M AND DEAPE(RD 13UwN1) N33piMA MAIL DOME DUANE (WOOL
PIT MI. WOULD
MYM PEW,,
MAOt 10 In MIN AMID 000tRYl
F/ MT N ANMAD TO MINE RIMIER ARfARR MOM, OF IN PWHILL THMFOIL n n THE MSONMAM a NE MEDIATION TO
DO OF NAME AD
MCRRNWNM
DIAL 1' WE BWJEELW/ APPAARD
W Z AM KERN CM MM MIT MY BE MUD M M WMDED MD ID r E AOITGA fA M EMI MY BE MEMO 10 =ED ACHIEVE
DUMAO BF. DH
NRRo wL
COIAIIER MIT. OPMR
MMIEREA
DRAWN IA / N / W
DWO (LATER a
ITT ME(ONARR NALL REP OR -MA STATERS OFM LL WALL IBI MRI NG VEINING OF TRUE SHED WITH WARR WU AR F MOWED
WI AN TAR RAPRRN am PLOW", NSM JAAMNMYAI.
Da bu
rm M( .
MMNG
II. AL WR( ALLOW TO A PERFORMED AS A TIM MI SUME MUR THE MURAL OR IREAL A a DEMAND MULL A ME At ME
BHnI/11 RAMI Wl.MLL
IO RRWn(OEM .
(ON TO. EMPORE.
R. LWIAPLTOR f0 MA wA DRAW RID AND MALTUOIR RODN Y O WE CRDR1 WITH THE OaNa FOR SMCIUA3, AL FOIIW SHALL BE
SHEW ILEInIEG
cEouNDErnEE lUXnNG
MIMED AND STAKED WE BIDDER, F M0. TO CRTIUMMAN
I
4 HM
AT. CONTACTOR NAIL TAM EMU CARE HOT t0 NUM R NOMEH[N(E TIMING ROGNNOWO DURN4 DEUTERIUM
=
PLANTING
DETAILS
CALL 2 DAYS & NOTES
BEFORE YOU DIG a
1-800-424-5555 �1_2.'
PLC Z, - O ZZ-
i
rRif�OXV nSW Y'f N'>•tIR wIN' ' 1
' ✓mw �um <r �i er.aR Paa L%�Ll�f '
\\\ \ \\ '\'\`,, \ \ \\' :P.Ea N?. :'r > :J✓ `n %r it k;.'S 1 t{�,
:
-„ r d '\' 1 ` �` \ ,\`,\•` `\ \\\q '\ :� e�; vN Ari. rt< uf.:.? ly�fl
c Pe
f
\
-.� �
.. _ls—: _ \ P 'u ,•\ `: ,'\\\ \1\\,'�\i. `\\k WsLS -. _ �g45 V/:. \ '16 \>Nucsro f.N. le �ra'c
nr: w•. Kr \ \ \ �'\ � �;` h �,�.. =,N � , v� r Frn .rt D.Is. sd � ` � se.. S � ..
57.'y+A<'.-I'v oIC7YL�VP MA._. \4.._. ¢PNne •rPO VbEfA \ i'. `\ \ \' n E4vJs6 ` 3) \ r �N6 Gee,, a w•EN- PwE .HT¢t^`'y. Qe.AtGRii.Ha'R'
T AEA
NV C. Y.: Y.^. :... I. -:.y' na:o \• \ \, '\� \ \ �� 'ty� NPR.,iWE�v T Eh_b IING Gayp� t �A�\\�\,
\V \ 41 P 6L E .� t E 1 A •'x: \ \ Le �E BE
\ Gw o eaad r. i r i / �4P\. TrIµI` a ,Ir�i'i. (R a'� . Hmrrl""Jr:W'
M b\ \ � \'� \ 4 W �P Di� NN °E EB•!tA
� NLTT PPPIn_ AR �\ \ 1-
\\ L 4` G � \ •A, \ \� \ �I _�� ¢£ b j � L �'J
lot
tT�.�>" � P�::y,. ° \\\ � _� \. er'\ \\\\1y, �y4: � RE ,v' wm.. I �\ f}¢ 4 �� •• � p C)�'-Gcsr'v`.evu .e""pin.prn .w�w.,,ln, �.'l:�t'
'70 eTnLLO.
Fi ✓=A•cf P \ rt\ r, \ C r, 1 f t 1 \ ?`' w Kv. n �. wlrnr=(�
bi
\' , _ \ u� '� Et„y..r\° S,(ti 11 L, Prwu •arty Lw¢s C:xnaa Hae) -r
'\'• v \� \ \:\� \ $ .. w \ e¢`t � / . � ( I W � kK . Ar . •
mti ,`\L` \ \ \``: t. 1� .,mod -2"T 1 t� t4y \\ \ . %ra yDm w'(R o.row t , J,� :1\ .. n
r".,.n : pox t0
�,vr.,:p I� 'iIJHI�'�• rnm � Jnrli4 ;v�LK �� '',` � \ ''\ \ . '� ' ''; a .v x' � > �'.✓`::q1 C"' t .' I �
.. GY!.hOR• Pj -aY+�iLL. M, wwv,. _--._ _ TL \ \ \ hw ,\ 'L \ \ ME JN'GH N TRR MIRK l.M H.W.M.) iGY{A
fiE c_ 5�\ Y. \• x .i \ .0
t\� \ \ -• y \ ��6 It_ 't a J C>I I'� G.. £>. CCC i i. ♦ in
J It
I �z Y+wi XK : N_ iaC �RP3L EL E.P as
Ll Iz-rt F D}m nsl7(=ao�i wErYoax rn .ram xaJ +ix, m: \ w. 27 t w 2 .,) >� _ 'w a Id u '1 �vlJ.. ,✓ > L
41EN P81IY'.*JA'�" ?IE`l1'¢P.W HIIM'fE
��v us ice au..— -- �ly� 11 c l�
Frr Es'JdL»yx l q� 5'e+c'7•-.� PI r vm\ i R o a ar P' 3, - ,.Rf ¢• m
p q
4\ -� q ry Who M +Li Y' _�n.wRP1,L. •o)
G:J1V fE .A+. aLvw, EssAN4 w 4, Jf wrth \ \ �� t (`a:_..'d•' P.sl#ST�._ S '��'J� r_r _ >w, z
tu• ilr( Jrd1:i.G -3P.i' u&It1F'7.aP '\ 1 r%. _ *� \'` ? ,-' �� _._-_ { , r �+"'A ,Jsn�.k E' x .-, a�vxn \- C4
`:\ \r .,\' '.:\ C??1 .�t\ wr r3 — ( '¢q \rune¢. PRai ),w' N•+ ----_ +r, ` •ppm 14�
iVi'�
Il Rac .nw sx b G .1L Gu'sM. varywNq '\\ '\ - \ \ (`. z. \ A . n•+WJ r'FTaJ 1� o, � v.ra •w- eO.
\'\ 12 wvf INC E. c Ja-I a:e oa
rt H
\snjl r CA K44 .5z.+.'f
• '•YR:':� G. •;qu ilcr¢ 2Yrtl T av4t Lt t4n t'N .
91*,.-e.;,. wrr<>,leaul ..tr,..rr srize>,r?•-,:e:'+> o_ I�TE a p \ LEGAL D.-_G¢ PTION
GES L' ''CYNZ P..i yltifi NI E2Y.IEL fv1 9GhL6 T' ^D P�. \ uLT: P' ¢ 11 :N G. Is PP H.L. N%b2ATLE GIAR-I, '•4 E.OA
Pr $e:•L cA Tt 7,NF t M1 CfC P. hb ?H I^- 30L'R C R NO MC CP PLA•'b PN : 2,T YCGOKGD
?T ,-\.. M1i... Ls ivE¢1 I�`JRTN PP wIN - W- S?L T6 IN')fE ITY J-'U<w'_A OPJ.'TY
PEA' ;AAIn.T N •? R:: YCn :'s'Y+G ' ` :TATE OR WetN:NG.'(..N.
'suY'-? "'k.,KJ.P1• �. 'r.SCty IR1? e ' \ \
( >
F .r fil. HnRA•w£o. v 1\\ 1 InEM1 E(KA 'ri FORMA—IUN m
6 '0 P n 0 T V6 ENT \sue�.9 f p 4 h� ,T +YPP tl I^ (,4 Y NLv: Pµ�u.E/n<RHNDU03 ,W,
�: i P 'H L P r H'ix+�'¢x CDIGVEP �Y \ W :.•ESFRiSi'j-k r 41`+ y,: t ?PP6O _•�,y
R T' LL T11 RN hJ X 5iJ '^.L H _ 90 Yy T?rea Y �a: C +y{,I i{ YM _ P N ?Pal()µ 1102 JD.• R <
Y G n .d nR µ•V L E Yu, w •.N,.. TlAtw"W ZDN'n4 aT.;
"3c-}ir'ii L''. y LA c uee zJwe r.-: (aEGroNAL Kei L rx:m.eab) r '—. Z
CTIT v r <w _ +� .. ^}R a . A •� bPNh R4 TI?N TTPEto) •I •?• _ - <
l N Nn:
68 Rb INi N b L t G w k% 4� x 9 4r. NR- d N PULVY U �..�
�R nE N K TLL M P 6 V M^ W. my ¢W 3 C !I
K % B R). b h b N t TfBt PaR U,Y APP S �yy1� t W
NOT AKSA GUN. 4TAi OND gv9i: ;44. ^T.: %r of 0r1'E
P Wa
¢LDIN.Nr tlP { {• v�t-, £� GRpJ.7 PLubR wdFE'P45G r6. IS 7 �::4 .
bT 'O N ) RA J Ia B wR - TR '1 .DPv0
9 •2
111111*
. TG 3 DPoR - TA T a. T w GD NH Nf5 Y 4 '_' .L-i-, 2P LP?R L 1 IL?Pt GP151 Ir-P P 35.DAY' ¢
teMa yv(!44
Yme rj 11 IA:I, Nn N, euMVJ pno. GMb.1:M N NAA¢ TER n9rE '1 -{. (1�1 °-1 \ 5 YF1.11 l 1 E✓f q Vl.'W a t
,• + w ,�• m r� 1p FFi7 ARCHP n ZZJ,NI N %4 J- ._-_ ; W',.
F - .. I\ »x •.a 0, . ?T4L E N .PLO R ... 'I D __. N r
' TT :. r�IL •., T A bLDI4G TP.. hI U.. <.
wG-•sY nLT£K --- - .IF •
P.Rlr!-
1 -
J ;.Y.'�' ' _,_1 >'� IfT- 7 �• 3 ➢PP.G3 >R¢A %: ZT P. 1^_ %• LL E-5: "0'P • IJ %TA �S
iP'hL R_Ra R--P bG( LLb i ] Y
✓ _ E r « mr Ptov or,. ar l.Lb 0 a,
�` NG:,i {.vA.+r I i {{ t.. 1 �t LPMrAG, u.. O
_ ♦ � 5"AN nKp 13 4 l �. etl h.
f y
R£OLIKE �eNONN) 2 5P (VMI. J%7 .l2-T.:'.) �D�3
'`'-,•i ,-rr rl CM EM IKONMONT :ONE J 6.& 0 : 9
'5�: '� b.+l._ I'., • +�LX TAL
` 140-TH -TOTAL b:TC: AREA. EU-PE':'?Z 1nP.b t•. _
04 2 Sow
' If1906
"' ® l (r♦� ___4j Thuja plicata
Western red cedar
1901
13,4'� _ 1 Fraxinus latifolia
Oregon ash
#i90s — \
Cr �� Paper birch
# 1904 ` �i.
r
I Sallx sltchensis
Sitka willow
#1908
3# 19.03 I \ 22.8" �i
10.4-....c.,' \
®
,
t
` #'(90Z \..........
LEGEND 11.2" MAZAK MACHINE WORKS \ _._. - ♦♦
• 111111 11111 11111 • Limit of Work j r #1909
\ I \ 23.7" � I
Property Line #19001
.lY
........ Approx. River Environment lone Extents
Approx. High Water Mark I :• ��
Approx. River Water Line \ % % \ 0� - ` 8 Amelanchier
/ \
J • / u121.3"
" ® \ /
�r
f Existing Trees to Be Preserved \ At1917 @
I . 17.9" i
® Trees Proposed for Removal
EXISTING PARKING LOT
t' \
0 Woodchip Overlook \ 28.6"
j A
PLANT SCHEDULE /
QTY BOTANICAL NAME
/ — — 20.1" — j „
Is.r 19._
COMMON NAME SIZE COMMENTS
9 Amelanchier alnifolia
Serviceberry
2" caliper, 24" dia. root ball
3 Betula papyrifera
Paper birch
2" caliper
Full, balanced branching, B&B,
trunk at the center of root ball,
I Fraxinus latifolia
Oregon ash
2" caliper, 24" dia. rootball,
rootball depth at least 60% width
no I roots or circlingg roots, rootball
no greater than 1/IOth trunk dia.
4 Thuja pliaa
Western red cedar
6-8' all (root ball dia. should be
24" if 6', 26" if 7', 28" if 8'),
rootball depth at least 60% width
WILLOW STARES
2 Salix scouleriana Scouler willow 1/2" dia. Kept moist and shaded,
I Salix sitchensis Sitka willow 1/2" dia. harvested from drrmant stock,
Installed only Oct IS - Mar IS
20 TOTAL TREES (MEETS REQUIRED NUMBER OF REPLACEMENTS)
MITIGATION SCHEDULE
TREE No.
1901
CALIPER (IN-)
12.0
No. REPLACEMENTS
,2—
I902
11.2
2
1903
I0.4
2
1904
10.0
2
1905
12.1
4
1906
16.1
4
1907
13.4
4
TOTAL CALIPER
REMOVAL 85.2
TOTAL REPLACEMENTS:0
PER TUKWILA
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION`18`S10—
J
(AC
Ad-,
MITIGATION NOTES
REPLACEMENT SIZE:
2" caliper for deciduous trees, roothall no greater than 1/10th trunk diameter, no j roots or circling roots.
Thuja plirata: 6' height - 24" dia. rootball; 7' height - 26" rootball; 8' height - 28" rootball; oothall depth at least 60% width.
Fraxinus americans: 24" dia. rootball; rootball depth at least 60% width.
Amelanchier alnifolia: 24" dia. roothall.
6-8' tall for evergreens, rootball no greater than 1/10th trunk diameter, no j roots or circling roots.
1/2" diameter for live stakes, harvested from dormant stock and installed between Oct IS and Mar 15.
REPLACEMENT DENSITY:
Outside River Buffer Zone: 70 trees/acre max. (including existing trees) q—e/
Wthin River Buffer Zone: IS-20' spating for trees, �LJ
3-or shrubs,
1.2'
fo
r stakes,
2 solo scouleriana
Scowler willow
— ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
WATER LINE RIVER LEVEL EL. 3.0
Landscape Archit
Phone: 201 183 5840
PIALHINt
TOOLWORKS, 1
14600 INTERURBAN AV
TII0IAIIIA IAIA 00100
STATE Of-
WASHINGTOI
REGISTEREC
�DSCA
'® PERMIT DRAW
DESIGNED BY: SH
DRAWN BY: jK / SH / S(
41REVISIONS .
/%+REVISIONS
Sheet True
CALL 2 DAYS
MITGATI(
BEFORE YOU DIG
1-800-424-5555
PLAN
Sheer Nunher
a 5' in, 70'
1 •i
?\nuS CO( bHc� "a"CM-6 C
ICQQe' L'--� Q-fQ' 04*L6 �''e425iC
�ep�cse�'�n3 . -Cc ees-ty b4e �
v
S
PLANT SCHEDULE
Mahonia i),,'
W1 P9 k m munitum
Sward Fem
�GS mphoricupas mdks
eeping Snowberry
MAIAK MACHINE WORKS
Western Red Cedu
LEGEND
" � � � � � m Limit of Work
Property line
... _ . _ . — River Environment lone Extents
I Katsun
High Water Mark
/ 0
River Water line
GSalix scouleriam
3 Scouter Willow
.�._.,
y
♦ 3
faliz atshemn
) • �
♦ Sitka WiOow
_
\ r
Existing Trees
♦ Q
\
♦ 15 Amelandlier alnhlia
Sen aberry
♦
�
Woodchip Overlook
61 Viburnum du{,
Vacdnium matun
i
++ A
+
EXISTING PARKING LOT
-
++
+ o
\
+
+1 ++
++;
1
+ +
1916
+
—#191S
1'A;`#1914
1 �-
10.1" 1
1913
19.5"
++
i +
QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE COMMENTS
LEES
r
�I
IN`��'�
e..
10 41
\,
o
�
t/
E
�.--
Aruosu h os uvalNsi 0
W Kinnikinmk
Comus canademu
BunahberrY Dogwood
MULCH ENTIRE PLANTING AREA
W/ NIX. 3" ARBORIST CHIN, TTP.
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
ER LINE RIVER LEVEL EL. 3.0
9 I Lonic,ra dhws
"I 1714 NE Silk I..
Aaas Wneiv. 9810S
Landscape Arcbitecta Ps
Ph.. : 206 781 S840
F. 206 706 191E
MACHINE
TOOLWORKS, INC.
14600 INTERURBAN AVE SOUTH
TUKWILA. WA 98188
STATE OP
WASHINGTON
R"VaS'EREO
,J�"�I.RC�.TMT
PERMIT DRAWINGS
DESIGNED BY: SH
DRAWN BY: JK / SH / SG
IS Amelanchier alnifolia Serviceberry 2" caliper, 24" dia. root ball QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE COMMENTS e Knnikmnk Q Mack Orange Paper Birch Date Issue
,r"'�SHRUBS 1 2 PERMIT SUBMITTAL
6 Betula papyrifera Paper Birch 2" caliper 1 0 1 6 Corpus sericea Red -Osier Dogwood I gal. Comm anademu IP Svmphoricarpos Abm 6 Camus auin a Q 16/ 1 REVISIONS
Full, balanced branching, B&B, + �a.J' S Philadefphrs kwisii Mack Orange I gal. Bundherry Dogwood Snowberry At $ier Dogwood
4 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon Ash 2" cal r, 24" dia. Football, trunk at the center of root ball Full and well -rooted,
rootbal depth at least 60% width no J roots or cirding roots, roadsall 12 S7mphoicaspos albus Snowberry I gal. no circling roots, �v
no greater than III th trunk dia um ovations Evergreen i S VacciniEver Huckleberry I il
8 enm�'nura� ^2" caliper B RY B not root bound {L�
`�-cTncw►Rt'fi V�{TggJk �.�(���—c—� (" B 6 Viburnum edule Highbush Cranberry I gal.
2 Thuo plicata Western Red Cedar 6-8' tall (root ball dia should be 9 Lonicera ciliosa Trumpet Honeysuckle I gal.
14" if 6', 26" if 7', 28" H 81,
3S TOTAL TREES rootball depth at least 60% width , 7�
GROUNDCOVERS CALL 2 DAYS MITGATION
WILLOW STAKES BEFORE YOU DIG
® 375 kctosuphldos ura-uni Ninnikinnik 4" pots 12" O.C.
16 Salix scouleriana Scouler Willow 1/2" dia Kept moist and shaded, . 37S Comus canadensis Bunchberry Dogwood 4" pots 12" O.C. 1-800-424-5555 PLAN
� 26 Salix sitchensis Sitka Willow I/2" dia Full and well -rooted, harvested from dormant stock,
installed only Oct IS - Mar IS no circling roots,
S2 TOTAL STABS 100 M lystic nervosa Low Oregon Grape I gal. 36" O.C. not roorbound ® u..r Nwlkv
4S Polystichum muniam Sword Fern 1 gal. 36" O.0
17 TOTAL M111GATNFN (MEETS REQUIRED NUMBER OF REPLAGEMENTS) 125 Symphoricarpos moiis Creeping Snowberry I gal. 24" O.C. Q 0 S. 10, 10' �_ 1L O
SCALE: I"=10'-0" NORTH
1�0 `CN�\ `� 0 ` L.� (���� t �..� t� �` "��StCN m' ��`�► � Q.-` �,35`NAAJ�—
uva-uru \) \ 5
16.1
#1�04�'�: sFf
�4
71 G
3#190�r C
#1957
17.9" /
41907
J 13.4
JL �
MAZAK MACHINE WORKS
EXISTING PARKING LOT
LEGEND
- — — — — — M Limit of Work
_ _ Property line
_ . _ . _ . _ . _ Approx. River Environment Zone Extents
— - — Approx. High Water Mark
#2.8" —— — — _——
#1909 — \
/ 23.7"
\
t#19
10 --
—
Ir
I
#1916 _
\ / e #191S I ® If1914 I —� ® #1913
19.S"
a
♦
t ♦
f
♦ It
-
, ,.
♦` Y'
Tav, a _
p
"�
t SAW Lr r
REMOVAL &
RESTORATION AREA
LIMIT OF WORK
TE KEY
ALE: I" = 30' 0"
MITIGATION SCHEDULE
TREE No.
CALIPER (IN.)
No. REPLACEMENTS
1901
12.0
6
1901
11.1
6
1903
10.4
6
1904
10.0
6
1905
I2.1
6
1906
16.1
6
1907
13.4
6
1908
11.1
8
1909
13.1
8
1910
11.3
8
1911
11.6
8
TOTAL CALIPER REMOVAL 187.6 TOTAL REPLACEMENTS: 74
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
ER LINE RIVER LEVEL W,3.0
\
MITIGATION NOTES
Approx. River Water Line
Existing Trees to Be Preserved
Imasire Plants To Be Removed
kenneth it
1724 a[ 55's Scot
kmk, Wv6iq. 98105
L a a d a c a p e Architects Ps
Rave: 106 783 5N0
f. 206 706 1915
MACHINE
TOOLWORKS, INC.
14600 INTERURBAN AVE SOUTH
TURWILA, WA 98188
�L�
STATE OF
WASHINGTON
R=(Y, S7Rr-O
L SeSCR ' A4CWEcGT
KE'vvE R. n:iP "
Gamnf'C>TE �0 5<b
PERMIT DRAWINGS
DESIGNED BY: SH
DRAWN BY: JK / SH / SG
Date Issue
06/21/12 PERMIT SUBMITTAL
Q 01/26/12 REVISIONS
REPLACEMENT SIZE: e' plit% up®Z —
1" caliper for deciduous trees, rooeha7Pno greater than I/IOtb trunk diameter, no I roots or circling room.
Thus plicata: 6' height - 24" da rootbalt 7' height - 76" rootba4 8' height - 28" motball; ooba0 depth at Least 60Y width.
From xnrs,mzna: 14" dia. matba0; motb0 depth at few 60% xidth.
W. T6k
Amelanthier alnifoln: 24" dla. rootball.
6.8' ta8 for evergreens, ruodialoo greater than 1/106 trunk diameter, no J roots or circling room.
CALL 2 DAYS
TREE
1/2" diameter for live stakes, harvested from dormant stock and installed between Oct IS and Mar IS,
BEFORE YOU DIG
REMOVAL
REPLACEMENT DENSITY:
1-800-424-5555
PLAN
Outside River Buffer font: 100 trees/acre ma. (including existing trees)
VAthin Auer Buffer lone: IS-20' spacing for trees,
3-S' for shrubs,
I•Y for cakes,
saws awau
I•IS' lar groundcarer
0
0 S' 10' 20'
I
L
0
SCALE I"=10'-0" XOATH,, ��
a, �
TWICE SIZE OF ROOTBALL
DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING
1 scue xrs
KEEP MULCH 2.3" FROM TRUNK
PROVIDE WATER SAUCER
WHERE ROOM ALLOWS VERIFY
WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
MIN. 3" DEPTH MULCH
OF ARBORIST CHIPS.
FINISH GRADE,
INSTALL FERTILIZER PER
SPECIFICATIONS A MFR.
INSTRUCTIONS.
REMOVE UNTREATED BURLAP
FROM TOP 2/3 OF ROOT BALL,
REMOVE TREATED BURLAP OR
WIRE BASKETS COMPLETELY.
BACKFILL PLANTING PIT WITH
SOIL ALREADY AMENDED ON SHE.
MOUND CENTER OF PLANTING PIT
COMPACT TO SUBGRADE DENSITY.
%1 CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING
L scw_ xrs
REMOVE UNTREATED BURLAP
FROM TOP 2/3 OF ROOTBALL
REMOVE TREATED BURLAP
1.5 D
OR WIRE BASKETS COMPLETELY.
ROOTBALL
CONTAINER PLANTS -SCORE ROOT
KEEP MULCH 2-3" FROM
INAMETEI
BALLS IN 3 PLACES TO 1/2"
CROWN AND TRUNK
(D)
DEPTH.
INSTALL I' ABOVE
m 0
INSTALL GROUNDCOVERS
CONTAINER DEPTH.
e
TOP DRESSING FERTIUZER
SEE SPECIFICATIONS.
AS SPECIFIED 2D
TYPICAL FINISHED GRADE
W/ 2" LATER OF MULCH
MIN. 3" DEPTH MULCH
D
OF ARBORIST CHIPS.
OF ARBORIST CHIPS.
PROVIDE WATER SAUCER
FINISH GRADE OF SOIL
LOOSEN ROOTS
PRIOR TO PWFTI
\
INSTALL FERTILIZER PER
BACKFILL MINING
/AAj
SPECIFICATIONS AND
PIT WITH SOIL ALREADY
\\
MANUFACTURER'S
SCORE ROOTBALL
PLANTING FERTILIZER AROUND
AMENDED ON SITE.
\
\ /
<( O \ /\
RECOMMENDATIONS.
3 PLACES TO 1/2 DEPTH
ROOTBALL BACKFILL W/ SOIL
AMENDED
MOUND CENTER OF
INSTALL I" ABOVE
CONTAINER DEPTH
ALREADY ON SITE
PLANTING PH COMPACT
TO SUBGRADE DENSITY.
SHRUB PLANTING
uale xrs
GROUNDCOVER PLANTING
Y sae xa
LEAVE AT LEAST 2
MODES ABOVE GROUND
INSTALL 3/4 LENGTH
Y SPACING BETWEEN STARES BELOW THE GROUND
i MIN. 3" DEPTH OF MULCH
I OF ARBORIST (NIPS.
SOIL ALREADY AMENDED ON SITE.
USE PILOT HOLES IF NECESSARY
WILLOW LIVE STAKE PLANTING ( [ 1 UTE NETTING EROSION CONTROL
7 uau: xrs U scat£ Nrs
. 3- U[YIM MULLM Ut
ORIST CHIPS.
EROSION CONTROL
RIC OVER EXISTING SOIL
PLE BEFORE COVERING
H SPECIFIED MULCH.
STAPLES DRIVEN THROUGH
,NKET @ 12" O.C.
iTING SOIL
KEEP MULCH 2-3" FROM TRUNK
MIN. 3" DEPTH MULCH
OF ARBONST CHIPS.
REMOVE UNTREATED
BURLAP FROM TOP
213 OF ROOT BALL,
REMOVE TREATED
BURLAP OR WIRE
BASKETS COMPLETELY.
FINISH GRADE.
INSTALL FERTILIZER PER
SPECIFICATIONS AND
MANUFACTURER'S
RECOMMENDATIONS.
BACKFILL PLANTING PIT
WITH SOIL ALREADY
AMENDED ON SITE.
MOUND CENTER OF
PLANTING PIT
COMPACT TO SUBGRADE
DENSITY.
SITE PREPARATION & SOIL AMENDMENT NOTES:
I. SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL OCCUR IN ENTIRE PLANTING AREA PRIOR TO PLANTING ACCORDING TO SHORELINE REGULATIONS AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.
2. REMOVE INVASIVE SPECIES BY HAND GRUBBING PRIOR TO SOIL AMENDMENT.
3. DURING INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL, INSTALL JUTE NETTING NEAR THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK TO PREVENT EROSION.
4. SOIL SHALL THEN BE DECOMPACTED BY AIRSPADE TO 18" DEPTH IN PLANTING AREA
S. COMPOST (CEDAR GROVE OR EQUIVALENT) SHALL BE TILLED INTO ENTIRE PLANTING AREA AFTER DECOMPACTION.
In\
PLANTING NOTES:
I. NO GRADING SHALL OCCUR IN THE DRIPUNE OF EXISTING TREES.
2. INSTALLATION OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL WITHIN DRIPLINE OF EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PIT PLANTED. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IS TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY ROOT MASS
DISCOVERED DURING EXCAVATION, AND CONSULTED PRIOR TO CONTINUED WORK IN THE AREA
3. RELOCATION, PRUNING, AND REMOVAL OF EXISTING PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE COORDINATED ON SITE BY PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
4. FINAL PLANT LAYOUT TO BE APPROVED ON SITE BY PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PLANTING.
S. ALL MIN. SLOPED PLANTING AREAS TO BE CLEARED, GRUBBED, AND ROTOYATED PRIOR TO SOIL PREP.
6. PLANTING BEDS TOPSOILS PER LANDSCAPE SPECIFICATIONS.
7. LAWN AREAS PER LANDSCAPE SPECIFICATIONS.
8. ALL PLANTING BEDS TO BE TOP -DRESSED WITH 2" LAYER OF COMPOSTED MULCH, PER LANDSCAPE SPECIFICATIONS.
9. LOCATE ALL UTILITIES 48 HOURS PRIOR TO START OF WORK CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING MARKS.
10. EROSION CONTROL NETTING TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS AND LANDSCAPE SPECIFICATIONS ON ALL SLOPES OF 3:1 OR STEEPER
NT pUiT,JFE RAEFQB.kB N51BlE W$"RfP1A(l", STOCK NOT MEETING THESE STANDARDS.
12. PLANTS MUST BE WATERED DURING DAY PERIODS UNTIL ESTABLISHED (2-3 YEARS)
2724 NE 55 Soee
Solve, w.kinpw 98I05
Landscape Architects PS
Phone: 206 M SOW
F. 206 706 1915
MACHINE
TOOLWORKS, INC.
14600 INTERURBAN AVE SOUTH
TUKWILA, WA 98188
14-11 `al,\
STA7 OF
WASHNGTON
AEG:S7R__D
PERMIT DRAWINGS
DESIGNED BY: SH
DRAWN BY: JK / SH / SG
Date Issue
06121/12 PERMIT SUBMITTAL
07/16/12 REVISIONS
Shn fitle itle
Z 0 PLANTING
F—SobDETAILS
1 CALL 2 DAYS & NOTES
BEFORE YOU DIG SM1te ,
1-800-424-5555 L-3.0
fzv 4\:--,
1. GENERA ORNOTES:
OWNER RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL NECESSARY PERMITS AND SCHEDULING ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS.
2. ALL WORK INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ITEMS SUCH AS TRENCH EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL PIPE BENDING PIPE INSTALLATION, CLEANING AND TESTING,
ROADWAY REPAIR ETC. SHALL CONFORM TO MUNICIPAL REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. A COPY OF THESE DOCUMENTS SMALL BE ON SITE
DURING CONSTRUCTION.
3. A COPY OF THE APPROVED PLAN MUST BE ON SITE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROCESS.
4. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE AND ATTEND A PRECORSTRUCHON CONFERENCE WITH THE MUNICIPALITY, ARCHITECT, AND
OWNER WITH NOTIFICATION OF TIME AND LOCATION.
S. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY MUNICIPALITY, ARCHITECT, AND OWNER TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS IN ADVANCE OF ALL WATER SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS, HYDRANT
SHUT -OFFS, AND STREET CLOSURES OR OTHER ACCESS BLOCKAGE.
6. ALL LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN HEREIN HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY FIELD SURVEY OR OBTAINED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND SHOULD
THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE ONLY AND NOT NECESSARILY COMPLETE. IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO INDEPENDENTLY
VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN, AND TO FURTHER DISCOVER AND AVOID ANY OTHER UTILITIES NOT SHOWN HEREIN WHICH MAY BE
EFFECTED BY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PLAN.
7. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT AN UNDERGROUND LOCATING SERVICE AT LEAST FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION (BOO-424-5555) AND LOCATE
AND PROTECT ALL CASTINGS AND UTILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION
8. UTILITY SERVICE CONNECTIONS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED PRIVATELY, NOT BY THE MUNICIPALITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FOR ALL TESTS REQUIRED BY
THE STREET USE INSPECTOR
9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION COLLECTION FACILITIES TO INSURE THAT SEDIMENT -LADEN WATER DOES NOT ENTER
THE NATURAL OR PUBLIC DRAINAGE SYSTEM. AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES AND UNEXPECTED (SEASONAL) CONDITIONS DICTATE, MORE SILTATION CONTROL
FACILITIES MAY BE REQUIRED TO INSURE COMPLETE SILTATION CONTROL OF THE PROJECT. THEREFORE, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO
ADDRESS ANY NEW CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE CREATED BY HIS ACTIVITIES AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FACILITIES THAT MAY BE NEEDED TO PROTECT ADJACENT
PROPERTIES
10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP OFF -SITE STREETS CLEAN AT ALL TIMES BY SWEEPING. WASHING OF THESE STREETS WITH WATER WILL NOT BE ALLOWED
WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE MUNICIPALITY WITH JURISDICTION.
11. ALL WORK REQUIRED TO BE PERFORMED AS A MUNICIPAL SERVICE CONCERNING THE REMOVAL OR RELOCATION OF UTILITIES SHALL BE DONE AT THE
CONTRACTORS EXPENSE.
12. CONTRACTOR TO MAKE SURE DRAIN LINES AND INFILTRATION TRENCHES DO NOT CONFUCT WITH THE FOOTINGS FOR STRUCTURES. ALL FOOTINGS SHALL BE
MARKED AND STAKED FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
13 CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE EAT RA CARE NOT TO DISTURB OR INCONVENIENCE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD DURING CONSTRUCTION
R) A"u IF—t - C cm
5 A? FCP-g