Loading...
14-102061FILE �Y OF Fleral Way February 13, 2015 Paul Green Azure Green Consultants 409 East Pioneer Puyallup, WA 98372 RE: Permit #14-102061-00-CO; PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS Highpoint Mixed Use,1066 South 3201h Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. Green: CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway.. com Jim Ferrell, Mayor The Planning Division has reviewed the landscape and grading plans associated with the Highpoint development located at 1066 South 320th Street. The landscape plan and responses adequately address items from the landscape portion of the October 22, 2014, comment letter. Be advised that outstanding items remain on that October letter and will need to be addressed on the applicable permits that correspond with the outstanding comments. The following item from the January 8, 2015, grading plan resubmittal requires attention prior to the division's sign -off. Walls —The wall section along the SE corner of Building `A' coupled with the "foundation wall" as called out on Sheet G7 results in a wall that is effectively 10 feet in height. It is difficult to discern how this will ultimately look with the submitted Building `A' building permit plan and grading permit plan. Drawings and renderings associated with the Use Process III application did not detail this and it is not compliant with wall regulations in the clearing and grading coder or design policies in the City Center Community Design Guidelines. Please provide south east and west elevation drawings that detail how the retaining wall fence and building will appear together. Closing Please contact me at 253-835-2638 or matt.herrera c@cityoffederaiway.com if you have questions regarding this letter or your development project. SInL�E' ' Matth Herrera, AICP Senior Planner enc: Bulletin 129 Resubmittal Information c: Scott Sproul, Assistant Building Official Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer 1 FWRC 19.120.120(3) Dm LD. 67991 Matt Herrera From: Matt Herrera Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 9:21 AM To: Stephen Sullivan(stephen.sullivan@heartlandwa.com) Cc: Peter Lawrence; Kevin Peterson; Scott Sproul Subject: Highpoint Building Permits Good Morning Steve, I wanted to give you the heads -up that I have signed off on all the buildings that had recent resubmittals. Looks like the remaining buildings for me are F, G, J, and L. I also wanted to give you a run-down of the following items I still need to see as these were conditions of approval for the Use Process III decision: 1. Building t—The RDA site plans show Building L within in the new ROW. The approved Use Process III site plan provided a setback departure for Building L of 5-feet from the new street. This will need to be shown on the resubmittal. 2. Lighting Plan —The exterior lighting plan has not been corrected per the October 22, 2014 letter. This should be included with the onsite EN permit. 3. Pedestrian Pathways — Method of delineation of pedestrian pathways is not shown on the onsite EN plan set as identified in the Oct. 22 letter. This needs to be done prior to sign -off. 4. Transportation Demand Management Plan — Corrections to this plan and identified in the Oct. 22 letter will need to be resubmitted prior to C of O of the first building. 5. Historical Exhibit —An onsite site Federal Way historical exhibit was a condition of Use Process III approval that was to be integrated into Building E. To date I have not seen any details of this requirement. This will need to be reviewed, sign -off, and implemented prior to C of O for Building E. I would recommend contacting the Federal Way Historical Society for assistance. And finally, we'll need to work out a plan on expectations for landscaping and street furniture installation as I assume it will be phased with building construction. Where practical, I'll need portions of these items installed prior to C of O as the buildings go up. Probably an item for future discussion as you have not yet started to go vertical, but something I wanted to bring up for planning purposes. Let me know if you have questions. Thanks, -Matt Matt Herrera, AICP Senior Planner �= Federal Way 33325 8tn Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253.835.2638 Fax: 253.835.2609 www.cit offedera1v,,a� corn FILE CITY or Federal October 22, 2014 Paul Green Azure Green Consultants 409 East Pioneer Puyallup, WA 98372 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Feder y Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com RE: File #14-102061-00-CO; PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS Highpoint Mixed Use, 1066 South 320`h Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. Green: This technical comment letter includes items from the above -referenced CO permit and the 15 MF permits that have been submitted for the Highpoint Mixed Use development. The following items must be addressed prior to Planning Division approval. Comments in this letter are needed for clarification, to comply with Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) requirements or satisfy conditions of the Use Process III decision. Code -required changes include the specific citation, and changes needed to satisfy conditions are followed by 'Cl. Please be advised that these comments reflect only the comments from the Planning Division and any comments from the Building Division or the Public Works Department will be sent under separate cover. RDA Plans 1. Cover page on all. plan sets do not accurately reflect the project scope, parking, open space and setbacks. Please revise the cover sheets to include 300 housing units, 501 parking spaces, 30,181sf open space, and required yards for the residential stand-alone buildings as 20-front, 5-side, 5-rear and 20 feet from north property line. Note that departures from required front yard setback were granted to buildings A, G, J and L. 2. Remove all references to vinyl siding within the plan sheets. The Use Process III plan set and decision findings specifically called out cementitious lap siding as the approved exterior cladding material. C 3. Replace "Kitts Corner" project name with Highpoint Mixed Use on Sheet A7.1 and A9 series sheets. 4. East and west elevations for Building A (Sheet A3.10) depict a portion of the porch entries within the proposed ROW. Please clarify the location of the building as it relates to the ROW as no portion of the building has been authorized to be placed on public property. Additionally, please clarify what is meant by the "steel canopy" call -out on the east elevation. 5. Clarify grade and first floor elevations for Building F (Sheet A3.12). Grade elevation is shown at 453.50 and FFE is 451.41. Mr. Green October 22, 2014 Page 2 6. Show trellis and light on Building D rear elevation. 7. The northern portion of Building H is limited to 40ft above Average Building Elevation (ABE) due to its proximity to the neighboring single-family residential zone (F)VRC 19.230.060(5)). The limitation area appears to exceed the 40ft ABE and the 39ft 9inch call -out height is incorrect (Sheet A3.14). Please clarify the height of structure and verify it meets the 40ft ABE limitation for the northern portion within the 100-foot single-family residential zoning boundary. 8. The northern portion of Building J is also within the 40ft limitation due to the neighboring SFR zone. Height calculations on the north and south elevations (Sheet A3.15) are difficult to verify as the ground elevation and gable midpoint (referred to as A.B.H. on the sheet) do not add up to the shown 39'9" measurement. Please verify the northern portion of the building is 40' ABE or below. GGLO Plans The base of west and southwest elevations of Building E shall be articulated or screened with evergreen landscaping. C Landscape Plan 1. Provide a Type I perimeter pla:.tirg screen wiu�iii• a:. 11.25-foot-v✓ide strip along the northern border to reflect the granted Use Process III landscape modification. C 2. Twenty-five percent of the evergreen trees within the Type I perimeter screen shall have planting heights of 10-14 feet and shall be interspersed along the northern border. C 3. With the exception of the rain garden, deduct those parking lot landscape islands and bulbs less than 64sf and more than 305sf from the total parking lot landscaping provided. Provide additional landscaping in islands and bulbs between 64sf and 305sf if it is necessary to meet the 8,005sf total landscaping requirement. (F),VRC 19.125.070(3)) 4. Include an operation and management manual using best management practices and integrated pest management for fertilizer and pesticide/herbicide applications. The manual shall include recommendations regarding the quantity, timing and type of fertilizers applied to lawns and gardens to protect groundwater quality. C 5. Provide detail cut -sheets for all streetscape and open space amenities. These amenities include: benches, trash receptacles, bicycle racks, weather protected seating areas, tables, decorative paving, planters, lighting, playground equipment, BBQs, rain garden interpretive signage, and historical exhibit. C 6. Provide graffiti resistant plantings at the base of the retaining walls such as thorns, vines, creepers, etc. C 7. Show the areas along the northern border that will retain the existing hedge. C 8. No evergreen tree species are shown within the Type III perimeter screens along the eastern perimeter and the section along 11'' Place South just north of Building A. At least a 50% mix of evergreen/deciduous trees is needed to qualify for a Type III screen. (F)VRC 19.125.050(3)) 14-102061 Doc LD, 66981 Mr. Green October 22, 2014 Page 3 9. At least 25 % of new landscaping must consist of drought -tolerant species. Indicate the drought - tolerant species in the plant schedule. (F)ATRC 19.125.040(6)) 10. Type I and Type III landscaping screens require large shrubs which are at least 24 inches measured from top of shrub to the ground. Please correct the plant schedule to reflect this requirement. (F)VRC 19.125.040(9)) Miscellaneous 1. Corrections to the lighting plan submitted with the Use Process III application are needed to ensure CPTED policies are implemented and potential offsite glare is minimized. Resubmit sheets that provide a minimum average footcandle rating of at least He in and around the west garbage enclosure and lower the footcandle rating below lfc along the west and northwest property lines via house side shielding, relocation of building -mounted fixtures and/or other best practices. C 2.. All landscape, architectural and civil site plan sheets shall reflect the private 11.25-foot-wide north perimeter east of the roundabout. C 3. The transportation demand management plan shall note that it: is to be implemented for the life of the project; identify the reduced -fare transit passes for residents and employees as indicated in the parking study; and provide employee use of the shower facilities. C 4. The chain -link fence detail shall be removed from the lock and load wall design as this type of fencing is not permitted in the City Center Frame zone. The guard rail option noted in the detail is the appropriate alternative. (FWRC 19.115.090(3)(i)) Indicate the method of delineating the parking lot pedestrian pathways on the civil sheets. Acceptable methods of delineating pathways is using stone, brick or granite pavers; exposed aggregate; or stamped and colored concrete. Paint striping on asphalt will not be accepted. C Closing Please include four copies of corrected plans with the enclosed resubmittal handout. Any questions regarding this letter may be directed to me at 253-835-2638 or matt.lTerre;-aO..citvoffederalway.com. Sincerel Matthew Herrera, Al `P Senior Planner enc: ResubmittalInformation c: Scott Sproul, Assistant Building Official Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer Sarady Long, Senior Transportation Planning Engineer 14-102061 Doc. I.D. 66981 CITY OF 'A Federal Way CITY OF FEDERAL WAY ARBORIST CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: September 18, 2014 Consultant: Mr. Bryce Landrud Thundering Oak Enterprises PO Box 1847 Auburn, WA 98071 Project: Highpoint Mixed Use — Grading Project Location: 1066 South 320" Street, Federal Way, WA 98003 City File No.: 14-102061-CO Applicant Contact: Paul Green Azure Green Consultants 409 E Pioneer Puyallup, WA 98371 253.770-3144 City Staff Contact: Matthew Herrera, Senior Planner— 253.835.2638 Documents to be Provided: • Arborist Report prepared by Gilles Consulting — Evaluation of English Laurel Shrubs along the North Property Boundary at Highpoint Development. August 26, 2014. • Highpoint Approved Site/Landscape Plan - Resubmitted May 28, 2014 Task Scope: Prior to the city's issuance of site development permits, the applicant is required to comply with the Hearing Examiner's added condition regarding the northern property line as it relates to screening of the new development. The examiner's condition states in full: "The Laurel trees/shrubs located within the proposed landscape butler along the northern property line shall be retained. Specific Laurel trees/shrubs may be removed if the applicant demonstrates by an arborist report that site grading will damage the roots of the tree(s) and thereby make the tree(s) unsafe, or if the trees are already unsafe. If root or other damage or disease precludes the retention of a significant number of trees, the applicant shall have an arborist evaluate whether increasing the buffer width from I1.5 feet to 15 feet will enable the C.\Users\jhwWen\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\CoMentoudook\GBO84WTSWA b rist Review Scope of Work0914.docx retention of a larger number of trees that will in turn create a materially more effective screeningfor adjoiningproperties. The landscape buffer will be increased to 15 feet if the arborist concludes that increasing the buffer will be materially beneficial in screening the adjoining properties. The arborist analysis required by this condition shall be subject to third party review funded by the applicant. The proposed fence will not be required if the landscaping width is increased to 15 feet. " The city requests the following tasks to be completed in order to verify compliance with the Hearing Examiner's condition: • Review applicant's arborist report documents for adequacy. 0 Site visit and reconnaissance to verify existing conditions. ■ Provide a memorandum to city identifying compliance issues or gaps to be addressed prior site development permit issuance, or b Alternatively, provide written confirmation the applicant's report meets Hearing Examiner's condition. ■ Additional reviews, meetings and/or task expediting will require supplemental cost and authorization. Task Schedule: Provide task cost estimate as soon as possible. Task Cost: Not to exceed S 750.00 without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. Acceptance: Bryce Landrud 9/25/14 (Consultant — Thundering Oak) Date (Applicant - C:IUsem%jhundrnWppDatalLocal\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary intemet Files\Content.Outlook\GB084WTS\Morist Review Scope of Work0914.docx I Gilles Consulting Brian K. Gilles 4 2 5 - 8 2 2 - 4 9 9 4 EVALUATION OF ENGLISH LAUREL SHRUBS ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY BOUNDARY AT THE HIGHPOINT DEVELOPMENT NE 320TH Street Between III and 131 Avenues, South Federal Way, WA 98003 August 26, 2014 PREPARED FOR: DevCo, Inc. Attn: Jack flunden 10900 NE 8" Street, Suite 1200 Bellevue, WA 98004 PREPARED BY: GILLES CONSULTING Brian K. Gilles, Consulting Arborist ISA Certified Arborist # PN-0260A ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist # RCA-418 ISA TRAQ Qualified ISA TR,4Q Certified Instructor I r,%ETY _ - °F fax:425-822-6314 asc*3 �0 email: bkgllles@comcast.net ! AMERICAN SOCIETY.f � MEMW CONSULTING ARBORISTS � ���� P.O. Box 2366 Kirkland, WA 98083 Evaluation of English Laurel Shrubs along the North Boundary AT the Highpoint Development, Federal Way, WA Gilles Consulting August 26, 2014 Page 2 of 14 CONTENTS ASSIGNMENT.................................................................................................................. 3 METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................... 3 OBSERVATIONS............................................................................................................. 4 General Observations ....................... . ......... ..................................................................... 4 AdditionalTesting.......................................................................................................... 4 SpecificObservations..................................................................................................... 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................... 8 Clearing, Grubbing, and Excavation for the Sidewalk ................................................... 8 Side Pruning of Laurel Branches and Twigs.................................................................. 9 North Property Line Fence.............................................................................................. 9 WAIVEROF LIABILITY.............................................................................................10 ATTACHMENTS...........................................................................................................12 Evaluation of English Laurel Shrubs along the North Boundary AT the Highpoint Development, Federal Way, WA Gilles Consulting August 26, 2014 Page 3 of 14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY It is my professional judgment that altering the eastern portion of the north property line buffer from 11.25 to 15.00 feet will in no way change the number of English Laurel plants that can be retained or the survivability of the Laurel Plants. ASSIGNMENT Jack Hunden, of DevCo Inc., contracted with Gilles Consulting to evaluate the English Laurel shrubs in the north property line buffer at the High Point development on 320t' Street in Federal way. The Hearing examiner made the following requests: Process IV Decision -- 19 A. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for remediation, the applicant shall prepare a dust control plan that ensures that contaminated dust will not adversely affect neighboring properties during remediation of the property. The plan shall be subject to third party review funded by the applicant. B. The Laurel trees/shrubs located within the proposed landscape buffer along the northern property line shall be retained. Specific Laurel trees/shrubs may be removed if the applicant demonstrates by an arborist report that site grading will damage the roots of the tree(s) and thereby make the tree(s) unsafe, or if the trees are already unsafe. If root or other damage or disease precludes the retention of a significant number of trees, the applicant shall have an arborist evaluate whether increasing the buffer width from 11.25 feet to 15 feet will enable the retention of a larger number of trees that will in turn create a materially more effective screening for adjoining properties. The landscape buffer will be increased to 15 feet if the arborist concludes that increasing the buffer will be materially beneficial in screening the adjoining properties. The arborist analysis required by this condition shall be subject to third party review funded by the applicant. The proposed fence will not be required if the landscaping width is increased to 15 feet. Section A is being worked on by the general contractor. This report fulfills section B's request. METHODOLOGY On Wednesday, August 20, 2014, I met with members of the design team to evaluate the English Laurel shrubs, determine their current health, and determine whether "increasing the buffer width from 11.25 to 15 feet will enable the retention of a larger number of trees that will in turn create a materially more effective screening for adjoining properties." Evaluation of English Laurel Shrubs along the North Boundary AT the Highpoint Development, Federal Way, WA Gilles Consulting August 26, 2014 Page 4 of 14 To evaluate the shrubs and trees for risk and health, as well as to prepare this 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 followed the protocol of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for tree risk assessment. Published in 2011, the Best Management Practices, Tree Risk Assessment, ANSNI A300 Part 9 was developed to aid in the interpretation of professional standards and guide work practices based upon current science and technology. Using this process, now called the Tree Risk Assessment Qualification, or TRAQ for short, I performed a Level Two assessment which included looking at the overall health of the tree 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 tree itself. In examining each Laurel plant, I looked at such factors as: size, vigor, canopy and foliage condition, injury, insect activity, root damage and root collar health, crown health, evidence of disease -causing bacteria, fungi or virus, dead wood and hanging limbs. OBSERVATIONS General Observations The English Laurel plants appear to have been planted in a row paralleling the north property line and within what I judge to be approximately 2 to 4 feet of the north property line. The trunks, however, tend to fork near the ground and grow horizontally for many feet and yards in multiple directions, although, mostly to the north. This means that the survey point of an individual Laurel Plant may not coincide with the majority of its above ground biomass. Given the lack of maintenance and the amount of trash dumped on the area, it is amazing that the plants are almost exclusively in Good, Very Good, or Excellent condition. They have healthy canopies with dense lush foliage. The crowns, the top 15% of the canopies, are healthy and strong indicating good health and vigor. There are almost no incidences of decay in the lower trunks or root collars. There are some damaged plants from the occasional chopping or whittling done by children but none that have developed into a risk at this time. There are a few laurels that were cut by adjacent residents some years in the past. This was determined by the amount of oxidation and/or decay in the stumps. Additional Testing The trees and shrubs all presented signs and/or symptoms that were readily discernible using the visual tree evaluation system. Many of the trees had signs and/or symptoms indicate extensive internal decay and/or structural defects. These were identified in my Evaluation of English Laurel Shrubs along the North Boundary AT the Highpoint Development, Federal Way, WA Gilles Consulting August 26, 2014 Page 5 of 14 original report titled, "Evaluation of Selected Trees Along the North Property line at The Old MOT NE 320t` Street Between 11 m and 13t` Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003," dated December 12, 2013. Most of the Laurel shrubs had solid trunks and a distinct lack of disease. Therefore, no additional tests were performed during this site visit. Specific Observations I walked the north property line from east to west and back. I took note of the hub numbers the survey crew had installed. Between each hub I noted whether or not there were any Laurel plants that would be impacted by changing the width of the north property line buffer by 3.75 feet, that is, widening the east end of the buffer from 11.25 to 15.00 feet. I also noted whether or not any pruning would be needed to provide safe clearance along the proposed sidewalk. Please refer to Attachment 1, the Northern Portion of the Proposed Site Plan which shows the property line, the buffer, and the sidewalk as well as the survey hubs. Hub 40635 is the furthest east. Hub 40574 is the furthest west. Between hubs 40576 and 40575 the current design of the north property line buffer gradually grows from 11.25 to 15.00 feet wide. The sidewalk gradually moves to the south to accommodate this swelling of the buffer. I have summarized these observations below. I begin the list from hub # 40643. This is the hub to the west that is at the end of the transition of the buffer from 11.25 to 15.00 feet wide. I then proceed east noting whether any actions are needed between each hub as I encountered it. So, the list below reads that between Hub # 40643 and # 40573 there are no additional laurels that can be saved but some side pruning of branches and twigs is needed for sidewalk clearance. Specific tree numbers are referenced in the list below. These numbers come from my previous report dated December 2, 2013. • Hub # 40643 o No Laurels located in the 11.25-foot proposed buffer will need to be removed. o There are no additional laurels that can be saved by widening the buffer. o Side prune for sidewalk clearance. • Hub # 40573 o No Laurels located in the 11.25-foot proposed buffer will need to be removed. o Removal of 4 senescent Red Alder's. However, there is a strong and dense line of English Laurel in the buffer north of the sidewalk screening the views to the north. o There are no additional laurels that can be saved by widening the buffer. o Side prune for sidewalk clearance. Evaluation of English Laurel Shrubs along the North Boundary AT the Highpoint Development, Federal Way, WA Gilles Consulting August 26, 2014 Page 6 of 14 • Hub # 40575 o No Laurels located in the 11.25-foot proposed buffer will need to be removed. o There are no additional laurels that can be saved by widening the buffer. o Side prune for sidewalk clearance. o There exists a dense screen of English Laurels to the north. o Doug Fir # 16 will need to be removed as well as Red Alders #'s 17, 18 and 19 which need to be removed for safety. • Hub # 40576 o No Laurels located in the 11.25-foot proposed buffer will need to be removed. o There are no additional laurels that can be saved by widening the buffer. o Side prune for sidewalk clearance. • Hub # 40580 o No Laurels located in the 11.25-foot proposed buffer will need to be removed. o There are no additional laurels that can be saved by widening the buffer. o Side prune for sidewalk clearance. o Diseased tree # 12 should be removed or shortened to 10 feet for safety. • Hub # 40581 o No Laurels located in the 11.25-foot proposed buffer will need to be removed. o There are no additional laurels that can be saved by widening the buffer. o Side prune for sidewalk clearance. • Hub # 40583 o No Laurels located in the 11.25-foot proposed buffer will need to be removed. o There are no additional laurels that can be saved by widening the buffer. o Side prune for sidewalk clearance. o Supplemental planting needed for screening. • Hub # 40606 o No Laurels located in the 11.25-foot proposed buffer will need to be removed. o There are no additional laurels that can be saved by widening the buffer. o Side prune for sidewalk clearance. • Hub # 40620 o No Laurels located in the 11.25-foot proposed buffer will need to be removed. o There are no additional laurels that can be saved by widening the buffer. o Side prune for sidewalk clearance. • Hub # 40621 o No Laurels located in the 11.25-foot proposed buffer will need to be removed. Evaluation of English Laurel Shrubs along the North Boundary AT the Highpoint Development, Federal Way, WA Gilles Consulting August 26, 2014 Page 7 of 14 o There is 1 English laurel with a diameter of 4.0 inches that will need to be removed. o Moving the sidewalk 3.75 feet to the south will not save it. o Remaining English laurels provide a dense screen. Hub # 40624 o No Laurels located in the 11.25-foot proposed buffer will need to be removed. o There is 1 English Laurel with a diameter of 3.5 inches that will need to be removed. Widening the buffer will still not allow the retention of this plant. o Near the shed, in adjacent yard, are 1 or 2 supplemental trees that will continue to provide screening. Hub # 40625 o No Laurels located in the 11.25-foot proposed buffer will need to be removed. o There are no additional laurels that can be saved by widening the buffer. Hub # 40626 o No Laurels located in the 11.25-foot proposed buffer will need to be removed. o There are no additional laurels that can be saved by widening the buffer. o Side prune for sidewalk clearance. Hub # 40627 o No Laurels located in the 11.25-foot proposed buffer will need to be removed. o Trees # 6, 7 and 8 are Red Alders with center rot, base rot, root rot and carpenter ant infestations that need to be removed for safety. o There are no additional laurels that can be saved by widening the buffer. Hub # 40629 o No Laurels located in the 11.25-foot proposed buffer will need to be removed. o There are no additional laurels that can be saved by widening the buffer. Hub # 40630 o No Laurels located in the 11.25-foot proposed buffer will need to be removed. o There are no additional laurels that can be saved by widening the buffer. o Supplemental planting required for screening. Hub # 40631 o No Laurels located in the 11.25-foot proposed buffer will need to be removed. o Tree 4 is a Red Alder that needs to be removed for safety. o There are 2 English Laurel that are 2.3 and 2.5 inches in diameter that need to be removed. However, widening the buffer will not save them due to their location. Evaluation of English Laurel Shrubs along the North Boundary AT the Highpoint Development, Federal Way, WA Gilles Consulting August 26, 2014 Page 8 of 14 o Moving the sidewalk 3.75 feet to the south will not save them, they are in the sidewalk. o Supplemental planting needed for screening. • Hub # 40632 o No Laurels located in the 11.25-foot proposed buffer will need to be removed. o Tree 3 is a Red Alder and trees # 1 and 2 are Bitter Cherry's that need to be removed for safety. ■ Hub # 40634 o No Laurels located in the 11.25-foot proposed buffer will need to be removed. o There are no additional laurels that can be saved by widening the buffer. Hub # 40635 o No Laurels located in the 11.25-foot proposed buffer will need to be removed. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is my professional judgment that altering the eastern portion of the north property line buffer from 11.25 to 15.00 feet will in no way change the number of English Laurel plants that can be retained or their long term survivability. No Laurels located in the 11.25-foot proposed buffer will need to be removed and no additional Laurels will be retained by widening the proposed buffer to 15 feet. All of the bases of the large Laurels are located close to the northern property line away from the sidewalk. They can all be retained. It is my judgment that the sidewalk can be accommodated with property excavation techniques. The sidewalk and the northern property line fence can be accommodated by proper pruning techniques. Clearing. Grubbing, and Excavation for the Sidewalk When the area is cleared, grubbed, and excavated for the sidewalk, the work must be done as described below to minimize damage to the Laurel roots and provide the highest potential for their long term survival. The following procedures must be followed: 1. When clearing, grubbing, and excavation occurs near trees that are scheduled for retention, the following procedure must be followed to protect the long term survivability of the tree: a. An International Society of Arboriculture, (ISA) Certified Arborist must be working with all equipment operators. i. The Certified Arborist should be outfitted with a shovel, hand pruners, a pair of loppers, a handsaw, and a power saw (a "sawsall" is recommended). Evaluation of English Laurel Shrubs along the North Boundary AT the Highpoint Development, Federal Way, WA Gilles Consulting August 26, 2014 Page 9 of 14 b. The hoe must be placed to "comb" the material directly away from the trunk as opposed to cutting across the roots. i. Combing is the gradual excavation of the ground cover plants and soil in depths that only extend as deep as the tines of the hoe. c. When any roots of one inch diameter or greater, of the tree to be retained, is struck by the equipment, the Certified Arborist should stop the equipment operator. d. The Certified Arborist should then excavate around the tree root by hand/shovel and cleanly cut the tree root. i. The Certified Arborist should then instruct the equipment operator to continue. 2. Tree Protection Fences a. The new north property line fence, located north of the sidewalk will provide all the tree protection fencing needed. b. Nothing must be parked or stored within the north property line buffer — no equipment, vehicles, soil, debris, or construction supplies of any sorts. 3. Cement trucks must not be allowed to deposit waste or wash out materials from their trucks within the north property line buffer. 4. The area within the north property line buffer must be covered 2 to 4 inches of quality mulch. a. The mulch should be placed across the buffer as part of the landscape planting. Side Pruning of Laurel Branches and Twigs Several of the English Laurel plants have branches and twigs that are growing into what will become the area above the sidewalk. They are also growing in a way that will inhibit the construction of the north property line fence. These branches and twigs will need to be properly pruned. This work needs to be done following all current local, state, and federal safety standards as well as American National Standards Institute, (ANSI), current pruning standards as outlined in ANSI A300. The pruning must be done by a qualified and insured International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist using ANSI A300 pruning techniques and clean equipment. All work must be supervised and approved by the Project Arborist. North Property Line Fence If the north property line fence is to be place on the north property line it is my judgment that there will be a significant loss of foliage and screening. This is because there is more foliage on the north side of the plants where they could grow to reach more sun light. I Evaluation of English Laurel Shrubs along the North Boundary AT the Highpoint Development, Federal Way, WA Gilles Consulting August 26, 2014 Page 10 of 14 would recommend placing the fence between the north side of the sidewalk and the south side of the line of English Laurel plants where they have been trimmed for clearance. 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. 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. Evaluation of English Laurel Shrubs along the North Boundary AT the Highpoint Development, Federal Way, WA Gilles Consulting August 26, 2014 Page 11 of 14 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, C� /-c /Y/1- Brian K. Gilles, Consulting Arborist ISA Certified Arborist # PN-0260A ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist # RCA-418 ISA TRAQ Qualified ISA TRAQ Certified Instructor Evaluation of English Laurel Shrubs along the North Boundary AT the Highpoint Development, Federal Way, WA Gilles Consulting August 26, 2014 Page 12 of 14 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 - SITE PLAN WITH SURVEY HUBS ............................................. 13 ATTACHMENT 2 - REFERENCES................................................................................ 14 Lj 0 Evaluation of English Laurel Shrubs along the North Boundary AT the Highpoint Development, Federal Way, WA Gilles Consulting August 26, 2014 Page 13 of 14 ATTACHMENT 1- SITE PLAN WITH SURVEY HUBS C ca N 80 I x 140w:11 14CI �10 4cts I Ci:21 I U0626 Evaluation of English Laurel Shrubs along the North Boundary AT the Highpoint Development, Federal Way, WA Gilles Consulting August 26, 2014 Page 14 of 14 ATTACHMENT 2 - REFERENCES 1. Brenzel, Kathleen Norris. Western Garden Book. Sunset Publishing Corporation, 2001. 2. Dirr, Michael A. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants, Their Identification, Ornamental Characteristics, Culture, Propagation, and Uses. Champaign: Stipes Publishing Company, 1990. 3. Harris, Richard W, James Clark, and Nelda Matheny. Arboriculture, Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs, and Vines. 4 h ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2004. 4. Matheny, Nelda P. and Clark, James R. Evaluation of Hazard Trees. 2nd ed. Savoy: The International Society of Arboriculture Press, 1994. 5. 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. 6. Mattheck, Claus and Breloer, Helge. The Body Language of Trees, A Handbook for Failure Analysis. London: HMSO, 1994. 7. 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. Sinclair, Wayne A., Lyon, Howard H., and Johnson, Warren T. Diseases of Trees and Shrubs. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1987. 9. Smiley, E. Thomas, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly, Tree Risk Assessment Best Management Practices, ANSI A300 Part 9: Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management —Standard Practices (Tree Risk Assessment a. Tree Structure Assessment). The International Society of Arboriculture Press. Champaign. IL. 2011. 10. Watson, Gary W., and Neely, Dan, eds. Trees & Building Sites. Savoy: The International Society of Arboriculture Press, 1995.