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.