The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit PL15-0030 - GARY ANDEREGG - MACHINE TOOL WORKS TREE REMOVAL PHASE 1 SHORELINETREE PERMIT SHORELINE Parent Project: PL15-0030 APPROVED This File: L15-0037 �' \ i ClEy of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director February 24, 2016 Gary and Risa Anderegg 14600 Interurban Ave. S. Tukwila, WA 98168 randereqg@machinetoolworks.com Re: Tree Permit L15-0037 Final inspection Mr. and Mrs. Anderegg, This letter serves to verify that the city has completed the final inspection of permit L15-0037 at 14600 Interurban Ave. S. Five (5) replacement trees (all Eddie's White Wonder Dogwood species) have been installed in accordance with the City's requirements. Moving forward, please ensure that the following items are addressed: • Trees should be watered weekly or as necessary during the dry months (generally July - September or as necessary depending on conditions) for the first two growing seasons. • Submit annual photos of the trees to the city's Urban Environmentalist to ensure proper maintenance and 100% survival for three years following the initial landscaping inspection. Photos shall be submitted annually by June 30 for 2017, 2018, and 2019. The city appreciates your efforts to prepare this difficult site for the successful establishment of the trees. Please be aware that often contractors have a one-year warranty on plant stock. If any of the trees do not survive, deepening on your agreement with them, you may be able to have the contractor replace the tree(s) for free within the first year after planting. Best, Valerie Lonneman Assistant Planner Cc: Andrea Cummins, Urban Environmentalist Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov i City of Tukwila Department of Community Development July 15, 2015 NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Gary Anderegg, Applicant/Owner King County Department of Assessments Jim Haggerton, Mayor Jack Pace, Director This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. Project File Number:. Applicant: Type of Permit: Project Description: Location: Associated Files: Comprehensive Plan Designation/Zoning District: I. PROJECT INFORMATION L15-0037 Gary Anderegg Tree Permit Request to approve removal and replacement of five (5) previously topped trees in the parking lot of a site within the shoreline jurisdiction. 14600 Interurban Ave S. PL 15-0030 Commercial/Light Industrial II. DECISION SEPA Determination: The City SEPA Responsible Official has previously determined that this application does not require a SEPA threshold determination because it is categorically exempt. Decision on Substantive Permit: The City Planning Supervisor has determined that the application for a Tree Permit does comply with applicable City and State Code requirements and has approved the application with the following conditions: • Planting and maintenance shall be in accordance with best management practices for landscaping to ensure the vegetation's long-term health and survival per TMC 18.54.130.3.c(3). • Trees should be planted as specified in the attached planting detail, entitled "TREE w/ BERM (EXISTING SOIL MODIFIED)". • Three inches of compost should be placed on top of soil in planting area and incorporated (rototilled) to a depth of at least 10 inches. Page 1 of 3 7/15/2015 W:\Users\Valerie\Notice of Decision\Machine Toolworks Tree Removal Phase #1 • Entire planting area should be mulched with 3-4 inches of medium bark or wood chips. Mulch should not be placed against the trunks of the trees — leave a 4 inch circle around the trunk un-mulched. • Trees should be watered weekly during the dry months (generally July -September or as necessary depending on conditions) for the first two growing seasons. • Applicant shall submit annual photos of all five (5) trees to the city's Urban Environmentalist to ensure proper maintenance and a 100% survival rate for three years following initial landscaping inspection. III. FINDINGS This tree clearing permit application is a request to remove five (5) maple trees that were previously topped and replace them one -for -one with five (5) trees of a minimum 2" caliper. Tree species to be planted on site are Eddie's White Wonder dogwood (Cornus `Eddie's White Wonder'), a native hybrid recommended by the City's Urban Environmentalist. Per TMC 18.44.080 in the shoreline jurisdiction, trees that are topped are considered to be removed and must be replaced. Per TMC 18.44.080(C)(3)(a) one native tree is required for each 20 lineal feet of parking lot perimeter landscaping. The existing landscaping is nonconforming (trees are approximately 30' apart), however no changes or expansions of the parking area are proposed. Therefore, a one -for -one replacement of these five (5) trees is sufficient to meet the replacement requirement. Removal or topping of trees in required landscaped areas requires tree replacement with a species that will achieve a similar canopy at maturity (unless there are limitations of space). Landscape trees must be replaced on a one-to-one ratio and at the size requirements specified in the code. The City's Urban Environmentalist has recommended Eddie's Wonder as a more appropriately sized species than the existing maple trees, given the size constraints of the landscaping strips. The replacement trees should not require pruning if placed in the footprint of removed trees as they are expected to mature to approximately 20-25 feet in width. IV. 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. V. 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. The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code Ch. 18.116. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials MUST include: 1. The name of the appealing party. 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. Page 2 of 3 • 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision, including any specific challenge to an MDNS. 4. The Notice of Appeal shall identify (a) the specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; (b) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and (c) the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. 5. Appeal fee per the current fee schedule, additional hourly charges may apply. In addition all hearing examiner costs will be passed through to the appellant. VI. 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. VII. 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 Valerie Lonneman, who may be contacted at 206-433-7140 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 Page 3 of 3 eitti of J uIwiea Department Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, Valerie Lonneman, HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Application X Notice of Decision Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Short Subdivision Agenda Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit Shoreline Mgmt Permit Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Official Notice Notice of Action Other: Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on this 15 day of July, 2015 Project Name: Machine Toolworks Tree Removal Phase 1 Project Number: L15-0037 Associated File Number (s): PL15-0030 Mailing requested by: Valerie Lonneman Mailer's signature: i',-?J-------------------- W:\USERS\VALERIE\AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION.DOC Gary Anderegg <ganderegg@machinetoolworks.com> Risa Anderegg <randeregg@machinetoolworks.com> W:\USERS\VALERIE\AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION.DOC July 1, 2015 Valerie Lonneman Assistant Planner CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Valerie, Please review the following application and information for tree removal and replacement at our property located at: 14600 Interurban Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98168. I have enclosed the fee of $110.25 as per TMC 18.54. SITE PLAN: 10 (a) See attached drawing (b) See attached drawing (c) See attached drawing (d) None (e) Not Required (f) See attached drawing (g) See attached report from Brian Gilles ISA Certified Arborist (h) Tree Number Diameter Species Replacement 1913 19.5" Maple (1) 2" Dogwood 1914 20.1" Maple (1) 2" Dogwood 1915 15.7" Maple (1) 2" Dogwood 1916 19.1" Maple (1) 2" Dogwood 1917 17.9" Maple (1) 2" Dogwood Wage Machine Toolworks, Inc-14600 Interurban Ave South Tukwila, WA 98168 - (206) 575-3390 J / LANDSCAPE PLAN: 11 (a) Trees will be replaced one-to-one in the exact locations as existing locations once removed. (b) None retained (c) Replacement Trees will be Dogwoods. The trees will be planted in October when optimal planting conditions occur. (d) Not required (e) None (f) None Please let me know if you require any additional information. Regards, Gary Anderegg President Machine Toolworks, Inc. 2IPage Machine Toolworks, Inc-14600 Interurban Ave South Tukwila, WA 98168 - (206) 575-3390 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 lUL 0�201a Cemmoment pese*op AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY STATE OF WASHINGTON ss COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at /VG 6 v / x.;�c, ,/Lys .goo w A[iE S 71,&-a-/z.4 _�v// 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 7z-itavit Q (city), GIi4 (state), on Li L' y / , 20 / (Print Name) /•7'G66 /w7Y. i2 gflti s (Address) ref- 539 U (Phone Number) (Signatf r ) On this day personally appeared before me U ary " tib, y Q to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she signed tlfeRame as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS r DAY OF J `'t IY , 20 I - - — — — — I Notary Public h �SLYI 1-00640 State of Washington NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington W /,' c1 KENSEN HIROHATA residing at vsnV, -Tut)L My Appointment Expires Apr 26, 2019 O LF / n / 6 { 2 ' q P My Commission expires on / 1 / CL W./ / Long Range Planning/ Shoreline/ Nev Permits/ 1-15-13Revised 9iorelineTree & Vegetation Clearing Permit 09✓ 19/ 201410:29AM Gilles C`i nsulting Brian K. Gilles 425-822-4994 RISK ASSESSMENT OF TREES AT MAZAK MACHINE WORKS 14600 Interurban Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98188 April, 23, 2012 PREPARED FOR: V_ac Nine f)!-k Greg &z Lisa ...:.uiercgg 14b8C .:rtercI Jan A%-enue South _,ukwik, INA 98:83 ECEpVED JUL 022015 Community Development 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 ico-7 f•M blflr to),. ry iE7Y d -Ai. O4,3 P fax: 425-822-6314 email: bkgilles@comcast.net P.O. Box 2366 Kirkland, WA 98083 c1 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 Additional Testing 9 CONCLUSIONS 9 WAIVER OF LIABILITY 9 ATTACHMENTS 11 /1 �1 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 0 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: 1. 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. Photo # 1: looking NE from the driveway entrance to the parking lot looking at trees # 1901 —1906 Note the small amount of soil volume available for the trees to develop adequate 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. Alt 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. 0 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. I 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. Photo # 2: looking east along the north wall of the building towards tree # 1907 Note the weak area where the tree was previously topped and how it has regenerated to be now taller than the building Note also the small berm limiting the critical root zone of jA the 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. Note the poor pruning cuts, dead branches, and rot pockets on the trunks f1 J 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 7 of 20 r lsthrPhoto # 5: The large decay column in tree # 1910. Not only does the decay extend up into the trunk it extends down into the base of the trunk leaving it vulnerable to windthrow in a severe storm event. 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. �1 �1 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. [ 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 ABBREVIATED LEGEND —SEE C .SSARYIN REPORTATTPGHNENTS FOR GREATER DETAL 01 Teett.lvn: Ib0ie placement d the bee. 414 anent HW, firing A description ofgererd health raging team dead dying Read, poor, suppressed, far, good, lay good to e0Wert. R R.* The utgle tag renter ofeach tree 616 Sankt Based tpon the size dills tank arc the Ca6iticn Retina, does the tree hree SgYBcart or HtnSgdcart Sacs. 1O S'pedsr MG raga Riling Pam the use andreaparcy of the area that wand he stock by the defect he pat ABRPn ,,, El x- Fn. air.., r'g., 0- no curer use, no irpo meats, NO HAZARD CF/Pm Dx0,4o F<,..,.a 3"o rat", .: 1- Low use, bwtarget endue RAW %3zi M04r r cv: abnrr. 2- Medan use, nedun target salts, i.e.: little used plajgasrq era road ScPiPs Sacs Pre. Fla. s+r..3no 3- Medan to high use, nmedunto high Read vale VNNSb Wevpang W4uir ma;:. bao:'ro o 4-Constant use, high rauetaget(s), La: pooer lines, house, mast roans 04 !Ht Mirk daneta 14.8 above average gourd lend 417 Slur of De alloo fiat Rates the size of the pad nest ikey to W. The lager the pad that fails, the greeter the pdatia fern damage. AS O/p Una The racks, the dstace fan the inn* to tefrihea Bach tips. 1- Benches ad sterna up to 4indes in diameter. fg L.CR Live Own Patio- the amwt dB. canopy expressed as a% ofthe elite tree height. 2-Branches and Sena between 4 and 2) inches in diarMer. 0T Symmay. General share of campy and emigre dshibticn Olt. Woman -id 0e bank. 3-Branches and Sera greater than 20 inches darner. M Fdlagr Gerard description d k4ogo density that indictee tree health adeiga. 018 Rolad011yatFellu r Idrtiim likey Niue pangs), arc ram the Ikeihmod that the stnvu0 debct(s) WI resat in fatten 89 Otte Conde/ore The noel innate. edema! indwtionoftree 1.elth ad sign. 1- Minor detect rd ikdy to lead to irrrineul Aaiun Nat other action regrind MO Thais Description demur wrcftion or abnandtim if any. 2-One cc non defects, but wand typically not led totatue for se.ral yeas. M1 Root Collar The base of the bee inhere the tank lax trio therocts-deformities or nobler. de role! ten. Schedule teeook fa 1 to 5 yeas axed 612 fbotr Fled pabbrrs are rioted hems 3-Qbct is setts-halua is ikdy. Action is regrind in weds or worths: possibly before the red storm season 913 Defamers. fNdlicna obs0rdio s about the beds °o dual. 4-Debd(s) are sails and tenement baize is Body. Action is rewired in days. 6-Tres or component part Is already telling. Target value nigh. An Brergerwy 4Nutirn requiring treatment today. M91SA Hazard Rating Usig the Irtaretionel Sootb d y ofArt. .Rae scale RO Rswnrnardefan: A rewrtnadation fornensgerrat of the tree in order to raise the disk d talkie enact damage to are acceptable lend 1 1 2 3 4 6 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 21 PROPERTY IRE LOCATOR 1Rff0 fa7®� D@1 DRIP UAE lCR SMREIRY FOLtAOE CROWN COMMON TfaNc ROOT COLLAR Ii0O7S CONVENTS CURRENT STATUS TAR3Er RATK3 SEEOF PART PROBABILITY OF ISAFWARD RAIN rat FAIUIIE �008NBVD4110N West Nkll Beim 1901 ABRPrn 120' 14 80V0 Bier esynrnetry Asses Walk Boned Vilest R AD Restricted Doting on bum betheen tide and pa,.ed trail. Dead trarshae in canopy, H0h potability d Tree Is too close to the beck} Wald cause trued.. lei re 4 t fails, Base is 10 Al damn. Red and 93 Wet hest eel of tlg7, Poor pet puirg practices Good Good yet 3 2 3 B Panora Abet Wall Berm ABPIPn 11.2' 13 75% fAcia1932 oeYometry Asero a Weak Leers West HAD Restricted Growing on ham between bldp end paved bail, Dad teaches in cammpy. Hdr pobatl4ity of ��'Tee is too close to the hide- weird case ftrdatm bike 0 it NU, B his 77 Wdust wet of Bag and fardation Peer past pricing practices Far Sp1rat 3 2 3 8 Fence Barn 191A OF/Prn 10.4 12 8310 Moja , Araaee Average Nibs rnori tom. leas w 2 de to cad ad bees antt,e Wedgy F.ed Partially Fted Restricted ksudng on bmnbtw 00q� ad weed trail' , �d6ud me�in canopy, Base is l d1 Ties tailed art slam and is keYrp into the campy of1904, Poer pert prig piatkxs �ro � t 3 2 5 10 Reeve Nkst l 1904 OF/Pm 10Betm.0' 12 89% s a', Average Aveage was stragt. rvwsligl'4 Imo diet t the cresstre cf0 1903 NAD Restricted Groningen been behseen tld0 and ...hail, Deal bnaedhm in canopy, high probability d franks, Base is 84 from east tar0elim wall, Poor post paring parer&rs, Tnrr, basdrod cater and rod lase are blirg drew to peswre tan 1901 Diving Nen-Sigikat 3 2 4 9 Re Remo. iAbst Wall Ber 1905 CF/Pm 121" 14 9% Wider asynnetty Dense healthy Straight HAD Restricted (orirg on bambetveen hMg ad pen. hail, Dead bandies in campy, Figh pmbdity at wodd cause titre, Tree is too close to the li�s btffilicn failure Sit fail, Base is 41r W chat fxMdkn wet, Poor pest Farina practices Fair fira Sigt 3 2 3 8 Ramos BdBfeWmham 1908 [F/Pm 16.1" 16 95% asyrreretty Dense Heathy Straight HNDMtjer Sulam Dead parches in racily, Hgh pabet44y d fatae, Tree Is too close to tee Lida- woad case budalicn blue if 0 fails. Poor pest prising practices, Base is 9O from NNbrnrdlor comer, Gro ire a 2 sided berm a NW corer of tide, This Mee has eve area for roots het appaertly the.al Ls so scathe/ cart pteirate Good Sigfcat 3 2 3 8 Rants Rath skb d ticb 1907 S P/Pa 1a4' 10 69/5 Generally symmetrical Osran Regenercting. &awe Faked near by dtlkg, Straight Nysi D Reg rbd Fly. pdabtty dfaikse. Tree is too dose to the bra ward case tan:bean Ukre 8 it fails especially as t gels idler then the t ilrlrg. SSA, Base is 4 Al dbrdle n wet, 3Oinks hire a highs pWnYiity of failure under stern ben especiaty as they get tater ad heater Far Sigh 1 1 2 3 6 Renoe Risk Assessment of Trees at Mazak Machine Works 14600 Interurban Ave S, Tukwila, WA 98188 Gilles Consulting April 23, 2012 Page 13 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 T!d£ LOCATION TREES SPBO� OBI DRIP UM lQt SMY8IETRY FOINOE CROWN CONDITIONTRW( ROOF COLLAR ROOTS OONT. 4TS CURRENT RATING STATUS TAT RATING SIZE OF PART PROBABIJTYOF FAILURE ISA HAZARD RATING East sided k� l 1908 WVV/Sb 22,8 24 55% Major asymmetry Amsage HegeteaUrg Leans East omen River, Typical Probable base rat Poor past pruning practices, Font Pockets in primary rounds, This is to best the tree WA ever d stlue WII decline from rev get--it's Ft�lih anc on Recent a ceetim of removal along berm tom the E side ofthe foundation, Base is about 102' E cif the E budatim veil h daoiec NnSigitrart 1 3 3 7 Consider Minaret East sided tldg 1909 WVV/Sb 217' al40% Wins asynrrretry Average, Regenerating- atirg- eeklikely Las Eat et Di Rver, Typical Probable base Restricted Poor past paring practices, Dead &aches in h decline MnSigiicant 1 2 3 6 Consider Hempel Canopy- large token teaches from recall stain Rot Pockets en pinery route, lFis is the best the bee WU ea be, it's health and shrive WII not eerinpoe Recent eccaetion of removal along born tom E side ofthe budationwll, Base Ls abal 9 E at E bvdltion veal Near SE coma ddcp 1910 WVNSb 27.3' 20' �'/ Minor asymmetry Average Average Gerber rot Probate base rot Restriote4 P e root rct ic, Base is N Poor past pnrig practices, parking la and S E of perking lot orb and 14. SE of SE deg, Deal branches in canopy. The is the hest the Sewall U eve tare all claw -dill tun tree P00r t,Er'Sigrirat 3 3 3 9 Remake East of pattinglot1911 W AUSb 28.6' 20 35% or asymmetry Regenerating, AmerdOe Ca Carter rot Base rat Restricted, Sufaoe Poe font Ruing Practices, WG Adaoerl Cater Art infestation , This is the best Ms pe tree WI emer do- al Bann Fill from tyre Poor NnSigiicat 2 3 3 8 Renew East of perking lasymns9icat 1912 RM'Ar 21.8' 20 80'h Go.O0y Average Regenerating, Healthy Typed Base rot Restricted S'raOe Base is abort 8 S ofplot art and abet 63' SE of light standard and abort 64' E of parking Id cub N of perking lot on aclaoet property to the S. Poor past p ruirg practices, This is the test this tree WO ever be- all down hill from here Far Spiral 2 2 1 5 Witch o� roots, Witch11Ti' sell eject, monitor South of re PattiPre+cusly 1913 R4NAr 16 22 70% Generally symmetrical Average Regenetatirg Average Slight lean SE. typical D WO5' Faesirioted, Sukce Poor past pruning practices, Craning In plater bed betveen2 parking lots that are arty 7 Aide, Topped a 17-14 Fair p S5cart 3 2 2 7 Shc inject, monitor South of Paddng 1914 R IAr 20.1" 22 60% Generally symmetrical Regenerating- A a age SlightI®n S, yp� NAD Restricted, Sutaoe past paring practices, Gael] In Rate Bed beeneen 2 perking lots 15 are arty 7 Hide, Some decay in largest Sutace root Far Sig ice t 3 2 2 7 Soil eject, ailer m South d Fire lot 1915 RM'Ar 15.7' 20 70% Generally symmetrical Regenerating- Average Slight an leS, t pca Patially exposed Fastricted, Suface Poor past puling D puling practices,oting in pater bed bel8ern 2 parking kts that are only 7 Nile, Far SpYcal 3 2 2 7 Shc ilea, trailer To the South d parking lot entry 1916 RiNAr 19.1" 24 60% Generally symnetrtcal Average Regenerating- TypicalTypicale75Osed Partially Restricted Sufaee Par past pnrirg practice, Melo.sly Topped a 14 ad 36, Decay in Sutras rods Fair Sig'ticart 3 2 2 7 Soil inject. manor NrtFn d the Taking lot 1917 RkNAr 17.0' W 75% C -�ly symm�iral Average Healthy Fork @ 55 W bark down 12', Typical NAD Restricted23' Butner Base is 25 S dundegardutdiy malt, as E of, NE of 3 Wolf parking a5' ng lot cub d 5.N of the entry dive ante Far p S6rat 3 2 2 7 Soil inject, -cater 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 Tong -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, 11 0 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) Dying Crown —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 /1 r1 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 1. Harris, Richard W. et al. Arboriculture, Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs, and Vines. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2004. 2. Matheny, Nelda P. and Clark, James R. Evaluation of Hazard Trees. 2nd 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. 5. 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. CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Dev Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Telephone: (206) 431-3670 r.covei3 v. SHORELINE .1uA 0t20 evelopment muniry WA 9: : wpm pev-lop REE REMOVAL ANI) VEGETATION CLEARING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type: P-TREE Planner: File Number: Qom• I 663-3— Application Complete Date: Project File Number: ;l /` < 4 Application Incomplete Date: Other File Numbers: NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: /ri,4,eNi0..,G rbae-cccc&es 7ne-4 e LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. /-Goa .4--,, S. ye rv,c.4 , kv,4 96 /o F. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). ,41/ '</zc o - o89 9-7— 4 DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner/applicant in meetings with City staff, • has Rill 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: 4 si 7 /4A/0 26-ll, Address: /1GoG 0,4.- AP-ve S Phone: 20G . 947- %43g FAX: Zo 4- r7 r- F3 9 -7. E-mail: 4 Aivp i1 4S & A-i a-e-,',v.�E rz c.z_2/es, -o,.y Signature: Date: 6- SC7-/ CL WJ / Long Range Planning/ Shoreline/ New Permits/ 1-15-13 Revised thordineTree& Vegetation Clearing Permit 09/ 19/ 201410:29AM l LEGEND -- #1906 I6.r® ••••••M.�s J#I907 13.4"® '#I9D3 11.4' -- r` 11.2" - - MAZAK MACHINE WORKS REMOVAL & RESTORATION AREA LIMIT OF WORK SHE REY SCALE 1" = 30'-0" /I, } #1909 23.7" OrP EXISTING PARKING LOT / • \ MITIGATION SCHEDULE TREE No. CALIPER (111) 901 12.0 902 11.2 903 10.4 904 10.0 90S 11.1 906 14.1 901 13.4 108 22.8 909 23.7 910 21.3 111 28.6 TOTAL CAMPER REMOVAL 187.6 No. REPUEEMEMES OTAL REPLACEMENTS 14 i • q0� �hERE� # 19 1 2 .3"10 ♦♦ • Limit of Wort Property lino - . _ . — . _ . _ Approx. Rim Environment Ione Extents - — — — — Approx. High Wain Nark Approx. River Water Line • a • Existing Trees to Be Preserved Trees Proposed for Removal Invasive Wants To Be Removed NOM JUTE NE%INIG FOR EROSION ` EROOSION OL TIP. ♦ (SEE DETAIL`6, L•3.0) \\\ ♦‘ ORDIXART HIGH WATER MARK • • ♦` MITIGATION NOTES A L01E IMEI LEVEL EL 3.0 REPLACEMENT SIZE: 1" caliper br dtiliois trees, rootball wo greaten da 1/10d tmek diameter, eo J roots r riding roots. Ihu,(a plintx 6' hei86t - 24" dia. nob* 1' height • 26" rootbAR 8' keig0t • 18" roothalt oobai depi at least f0% wild. Frain anerwaa: 24" di. nodal; model depth as least f0'/. width. Mrlaadier alaifolia: 24" dia. rootba8. 61' tal for millions, rootball so great dal 1110d tuna diameter, so J root or ckdig mots. 1/2" diameter for be stales, Wrvested from dormant stock and :nuked between Oct 15 aid Mr IS. RANCHER! DENSII%: Onside River 8afkr lose: 100 treeslxre ma. (Willi/ existing tees) Willi Aim Baler /one: IS-20' splcig for tees. 3.5' be drubs, 1.2' lot sakes, 1-I3' be grwadcoser {� Cs L .-G c • 2R1 m SI. Siwr Smile, Waling.. 11111 Landscape Arckitects MACHINE TOOLWORKS, INC. 14600 INTERURBAN AVE SOUTH TUKWILA, WA 98188 STATE OF WASHINGTON REGISTERED UNOSCABE ARCHrfECT PERMIT DRAWINGS DESIGNED BY: SH DRAWN BY: JI I SR I SG Dar Isms 0d/21112 PE1Mff SUBMERA. AS, 91R6/I2 REVISIONS L'S3r CALL 2 DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 0 5' 10' SEALE: I"=10'41" 10' NORTH Lea Ink TREE REMOVAL PLAN 7Yn awry L-I.0