Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExh.18_Arborist_ReportArborist Report Cedar River Apartments City of Renton, Washington October 2018 Prepared for: City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Prepared on Behalf of: SRMRenton, LLC 111 N. Post, Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99201 EXHIBIT 18 RECEIVED 07/19/2019 mherrera PLANNING DIVISION DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 Title-page image: View of southern portion of project area, with existing retaining wall adjacent to Cedar River on left side of frame (September 12, 2017). Report Disclaimer: The information contained in this report is based on the application of technical guidelines currently accepted as the best available science and in conjunction with the manuals and criteria outlined in the methods section. All discussions, conclusions and recommendations reflect the best professional judgment of the author(s) and are based upon information available at the time the study was conducted. All work was completed within the constraints of budget, scope, and timing. The findings of this report are subject to verification and agreement by the appropriate local, state and federal regulatory authorities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The Watershed Company Reference Number: 170314 The Watershed Company Contact: Lucas Vannice, ISA Arborist and Landscape Architect DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 i Table of Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and Purpose ...................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Area .......................................................................................... 1 2. Methods ............................................................................................... 3 2.1 Trees Included in this Study – Regulated Trees ................................... 3 2.1.1 Off-Site Trees located near the project area ..................................... 3 2.2 Authority ............................................................................................... 4 2.3 Mapping ................................................................................................ 4 2.4 Attribute Data Collection ...................................................................... 4 2.5 Data Management ................................................................................ 5 3. Limitations............................................................................................ 6 4. Tree Inventory Results .......................................................................... 6 5. Local Regulations ................................................................................ 12 5.1 General Tree Retention ...................................................................... 12 5.2 Tree Protection ................................................................................... 13 6. Tree Retention Plan ............................................................................ 14 6.1 Tree Retention .................................................................................... 14 6.2 Tree Removal ...................................................................................... 15 6.3 Tree Replacement / Planting Plan ...................................................... 17 References ................................................................................................. 19 Appendix A Tree Inventory Table Appendix B Tree Retention Plan Appendix C Tree Retention Worksheet DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 ii List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity map. ....................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Study area map; parcel #: 1723059026 highlighted in yellow........................... 2 Figure 3. Tree #838 exhibiting significant decay at base of trunk with variable wound wood callous (Photo taken June 6, 2017). ............................................. 8 Figure 4. Tree #842 with trunk wound at base and moderate wound wood callous. Mechanical wound most-likely from beaver activity (Photo taken on June 6, 2017). ...................................................................................... 9 Figure 5. Tree # 858, a black cottonwood, growing out of existing ecoblock wall. Ivy was observed on the trunk at approximately 90% of the canopy foliage was necrotic (Photo taken on June 6, 2017). ....................................... 10 Figure 6. View looking west from existing settlement ponds at at cluster of bigleaf maple, black cottonwood, and red alder in southwest portion of the site. Wetland A, near culvert for Watercourse A (Photo taken May 24, 201). ................................................................................................... 11 Figure 7. Panorama from within the cluster of red alder in southeast portion of the site (Photo taken June 6, 2017). ................................................................ 11 Figure 8. View looking northwest from west property line of subject parcel. Douglas-fir trees on left side of photo are rooted off-site, but have canopies that extend onto subject parcel (Photo taken September 12, 2017). ............................................................................................................... 12 List of Tables Table 1. Attributes recorded for all inventoried vegetation and that are presented in the spreadsheet database. ........................................................... 5 Table 2. Trees to be removed in the study area based on improvements. .................. 16 DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 The Watershed Company October 2018 1 1. Introduction 1.1 Background and Purpose SRMRenton, LLC (SRM) is proposing a mixed-use, multifamily development located near the Interstate 405 and Highway 169 interchange, within the City of Renton (parcel #: 1723059026). This report discusses, describes, and classifies existing trees, supports the Tree Retention Plan, and meets the City of Renton’s criteria for an arborist report. A tree inventory was conducted on the property to quantify and characterize all significant trees prior to site plan development. This report accompanies the Tree Inventory Plan prepared by The Watershed Company on October 24, 2018 (Appendix B), as well as the Tree Retention Worksheet (Appendix C). 1.2 Project Area The project area is located at 1915 Maple Valley Highway; Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 05 East of the Public Land Survey System (Figures 1 and 2). The property is zoned Commercial Office / Residential (COR). The project area (study area) includes the entirety of parcel #: 1723059026, which totals 12.54 acres according to King County iMap. The property is bordered to the west by Cedar River Park, to the east by a developed commercial parcel, to the north by Maple Valley Highway, and to the south by the Cedar River. Across the Maple Valley Highway from the parcel is an undeveloped, forested open-space tract. Another undeveloped, forested parcel, owned by the City of Renton, is present along the southern bank of the Cedar River across from the project area. The largest groves of trees are within the southwest and southeast corners of the site. All trees inventoried within the project area are within the 100-foot standard shoreline buffer of the Cedar River. In the southwest portion of the site, existing vegetation within the shoreline buffer is a mix of native and invasive species on the river bank between the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the river and grade break at top of bank. In the southeast corner of the site there is a depression with an existing grove of trees. Between these groves, intermittent small trees exist waterward of or growing out of the existing retaining wall. Landward of this grade break in the west and retaining wall to the south, the site is predominantly a crushed rock parking lot. DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 Arborist Report Cedar River Apartments 2 Figure 1. Vicinity map. Figure 2. Study area map; parcel #: 1723059026 highlighted in yellow. Lake Washington Puget Sound DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 The Watershed Company October 2018 3 2. Methods Lucas Vannice, ISA-certified arborist, from the Watershed Company, conducted a field-based tree inventory on June 6th, 2017, using the methods detailed below. The methodology was developed to identify, describe, and map all regulated trees within the study area. 2.1 Trees Included in this Study – Regulated Trees For the purpose of this study, regulated trees include all trees defined in RMC 4-11-200 Definitions T, as follows: A woody perennial usually having one dominant trunk, or, for certain species, a multi- stemmed trunk system, with a potential minimum height of ten feet (10') at maturity. Any trees listed on the Complete King County Weed List shall not qualify as a tree. A. Tree, Dangerous: Any tree that has been certified, in a written report, as dead, terminally diseased, damaged, or otherwise dangerous to persons or property by a licensed landscape architect, or certified arborist. B. Tree, Landmark: A tree with a caliper of thirty inches (30") or greater. C. Tree, Protected: A significant tree identified to be retained as a condition of approval for a Land Development Permit. D. Tree, Significant: A tree with a caliper of at least six inches (6”), or an alder or cottonwood tree with a caliper of at least eight inches (8”). Trees qualified as dangerous shall not be considered significant. Trees planted within the most recent ten (10) years shall qualify as significant trees, regardless of the actual caliper. A round one-and-one-quarter-inch-wide, numbered aluminum tag was affixed to the trunk of all regulated trees presumed to be located within the subject study area (tree tag #835 – 882, tree tag #861 was not used). Six trees were growing south of the existing retaining wall, and access to these trees was restricted by the river and existing fence, so these trees were not tagged, and an alternative numbering system was used (T-1 – T-6). 2.1.1 Off-Site Trees located near the project area All visible regulated trees that have driplines extending on to the subject property line were observed from subject parcel. These trees were not tagged due to being off-site, but their canopy radius was estimated in order to understand any disturbance within the dripline caused by the proposed project. DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 Arborist Report Cedar River Apartments 4 2.2 Authority Online resources were referenced to verify both the scientific and common names of subject plants for reporting purposes. For landscape trees and shrubs (plants not native to Washington State), the Oregon State University Department of Horticulture online landscape plant database (Oregon State University 2017) was referenced. Native trees and shrub names were verified using the University of Washington WTU herbarium website (University of Washington 2017) and the USDA plant database (United States Department of Agriculture 2017). 2.3 Mapping D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. survey-located the subject trees on August 16, 2017, following Watershed field work. Survey data was provided to Watershed in AutoCAD file format. 2.4 Attribute Data Collection The attributes collected during the field survey are described in Table 1, below. The database, included with this study in Appendix A, contains the data collected for each tree inventoried. General attributes documented for all inventoried trees include the date of assessment, unique identification number of trees, and name of plant species. Physical attributes include number of stems, dbh, height, canopy radius, condition, and assessment notes. In general, tree diameter was measured at four feet above the ground surface (diameter at breast height, or “dbh”) using a graduated metal logger’s dbh tape. Red alder (Alnus rubra) or black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), were measured at 54 inches above the ground surface. Trees with multiple trunks arising from the ground were measured using methodology from Guide for Plant Appraisal (Gooding, et al. 2000). The cross-sectional areas of stems contributing to the canopy were summed and used to generate a singular combined dbh for the tree. The singular dbh number allows for comparison to other single-stemmed trees and for more accurate permitting and tree retention calculations. When dbh resulted in a fraction, it was rounded to the nearest whole number. Methodology for measuring diameter of trees with major leans, on steep slopes, and with multiple trunks or stems generally followed those outlined in the Guide for Plant Appraisal (Gooding, et al. 2000). Visual estimates of trunk diameter were used where direct access to the tree was not allowed or not feasible. DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 The Watershed Company October 2018 5 2.5 Data Management Tree data was collected in the field and sketched onto site survey. Tree attribute information and related points were then delivered to the surveyor as a sketch to inform survey. Attribute data collected in the field (as shown in Table 1) is summarized in Appendix A. Table 1. Attributes recorded for all inventoried vegetation and that are presented in the spreadsheet database. Attribute Description of Attribute DATE OF ASSESSMENT Date that the Watershed Company field crew tagged and assessed the tree or shrub. ID NUMBER Unique number assigned to an assessed tree. This number corresponds to the tag number in the field. SCIENTIFIC NAME Formal scientific name conforming to the International Code of Nomenclature. COMMON NAME Name that is based on normal or common language of the Pacific Northwest. DECIDUOUS/EVERGREEN Notes whether a tree is considered deciduous or evergreen. STEMS Number of trunks or shoots that contribute significantly to the canopy. DBH Diameter at Breast Height; or 4.5 feet from the ground surface. See Section 2.4 for variations. DBH2 DBH of secondary and other minor stems. HEIGHT Approximate distance from the ground surface at the trunk to the highest point of the subject tree as visually estimated. CANOPY RADIUS Measurement from the stem to the average drip line, or end of branches. Critical root zone DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 Arborist Report Cedar River Apartments 6 Attribute Description of Attribute CONDITION Health rating of an assessed tree using a 5-tier system as follows: 1 – Excellent: No apparent problems with the tree. Form is exemplary for the species. 2 – Good: Few minor defects such as crossed branches, minor foliage die- back, minor trunk damage, or unbalance canopy. 3 – Fair: Several minor problems exist. 4 – Poor: Major defects visible such as significant trunk decay, codominant leaders with included bark, significant canopy die-back, major cracks in a stem or major limbs, and/or other structural problems. Topped trees are generally considered poor. 5 – Dead or dying: Tree is dead or is in a state of significant decline. 3. Limitations Trees presumed to be located outside of subject property were not tagged and were assessed from various distances. For off-site trees, attribute data requiring direct contact (such as trunk diameter) is a visual estimate only and may vary slightly from the conditions at the time of the assessment. Trees were identified using the vegetative characteristics present at the time of the inventory. Tree size and condition vary with time. The attributes presented in this study represent a snapshot at the time of the field work and may not necessarily be accurate in the future. The condition of any remaining tree following the proposed development will ultimately be affected by root disturbance, new wind exposure (windthrow), etc. The health condition ratings indicated in the supporting material attached to this report does not represent the condition of the tree during or following construction. Follow-up monitoring may be required to ensure changing site conditions do not result in hazardous trees or tree components. 4. Tree Inventory Res ults A total of 53 regulated trees were inventoried as part of the tree study. A copy of the tree data table, including tree species, size, height and condition, is included in the Tree Inventory Table (Appendix A). DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 The Watershed Company October 2018 7 The largest tree on-site is a two-stem 48-inch-diameter black cottonwood (#839). Four other deciduous trees, all black cottonwood, measure over thirty inches in diameter at fifty-four inches above the ground on the property. These five trees represent the only landmark trees on the parcel. All of the trees inventoried were deciduous. DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 Arborist Report Cedar River Apartments 8 Figure 3. Tree #838 exhibiting significant decay at base of trunk with variable wound wood callous (Photo taken June 6, 2017). DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 The Watershed Company October 2018 9 Figure 4. Tree #842 with trunk wound at base and moderate wound wood callous. Mechanical wound most-likely from beaver activity (Photo taken on June 6, 2017). DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 Arborist Report Cedar River Apartments 10 Figure 5. Tree # 858, a black cottonwood, growing out of existing ecoblock wall. Ivy was observed on the trunk at approximately 90% of the canopy foliage was necrotic (Photo taken on June 6, 2017). DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 The Watershed Company October 2018 11 Figure 6. View looking west from existing settlement ponds at at cluster of bigleaf maple, black cottonwood, and red alder in southwest portion of the site. Wetland A, near culvert for Watercourse A (Photo taken May 24, 201). Figure 7. Panorama from within the cluster of red alder in southeast portion of the site (Photo taken June 6, 2017). DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 Arborist Report Cedar River Apartments 12 Figure 8. View looking northwest from west property line of subject parcel. Douglas-fir trees on left side of photo are rooted off-site, but have canopies that extend onto subject parcel (Photo taken September 12, 2017). 5. Local Regulations Regulations regarding the removal, retention, replacement, and protection of trees in the subject property are detailed under Chapter 4-4-130 Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations, as well as Chapter 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program Regulations of the RMC. 5.1 General Tree Retention Per RMC 4-4-130.F.1, an approved land development permit, as defined in RMC 4-11-120, Definitions L, is required in order to conduct tree removal or land clearing on any site for the sake of preparing the site for future development. According to RMC 4-4-130.H.1.a.iii, at least ten percent (10%) of the significant trees shall be considered protected and retained in commercial or industrial developments. Tree retention standards only apply to the developable DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 The Watershed Company October 2018 13 area of a property; therefore, land within required buffers is excluded from the number of significant trees required to be retained. Trees shall be retained in the priority order set forth in RMC 4-4-130H.1.b. Plan Compliance. On the subject parcel, all trees occur within the 100-foot standard shoreline buffer. No trees occur within the developable portion of the property. Therefore, tree retention standards in RMC 4-4-130.H.1 do not apply. 5.2 Tree Protection The following standard in the RMC addresses on and offsite tree protection. RMC 4-4-130.H.9. Protection Measures During Construction: Protection measures in this subsection shall apply for all trees that are to be retained on site and off site. Off-site trees containing drip lines that encroach onto the site under construction shall be considered protected trees… a. Construction Storage Prohibited: The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack, or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the dripline of any tree to be retained. b. Fenced Protection Area Required: Prior to development activity, the applicant shall erect and maintain six-foot (6’) high chain link temporary construction fencing around the drip lines of all retained trees or at a distance surrounding the tree equal to one and one-quarter feet for every one inch of trunk caliper, whichever is greater. Place cards shall be placed on fencing every fifty feet indicating the words “No Trespassing – Protected Trees” or on each side of the fencing if less than fifty feet. Site access to individually protected trees or groups of trees has be fence and signed. Individual trees shall be fenced on four sides. In addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near trees. c. Protection from Grade Changes: If the grade level adjoining to a tree to be retained is to be raised, the applicant shall construct a dry rock wall or rock well around the tree. The diameter of this wall or well must be equal to the tree’s drip line. d. Impervious Surfaces Prohibited within the Drip Line: The applicant may not install impervious surface material within the area defined by the dripline of any tree to be retained. e. Restrictions on Grading within the Drip Lines of Retained Trees: The grade level around any tree to be retained may not be lowered within the greater of the following areas: (i) the area defined by the drip line of the tree, or (ii) an area around the tree equal to one and one-half feet (1-1/2') in diameter for each one inch (1") of tree caliper. f. Mulch Layer Required: All areas within the required fencing shall be covered completely and evenly with a minimum of three inches (3") of wood chip mulch prior to installation DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 Arborist Report Cedar River Apartments 14 of the protective fencing. Exceptions may be approved if the mulch will adversely affect protected ground cover plants. g. Monitoring Required during Construction:The applicant shall retain a certified arborist or licensed landscape architect to ensure trees are protected from development activities and/or to prune branches and roots, fertilize, and water as appropriate for any trees and ground cover that are to be retained. Plan Compliance. Retained trees within the shoreline buffer will be protected from construction using tree protection fencing as shown in the Tree Inventory Plan (Appendix B). Protected trees should not be disturbed during demolition or construction activities. As shown on the Tree Inventory Plan, fencing will be placed at the driplines of existing trees. There is a grove of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) trees off-site to the northwest, which have driplines extending into the project area. Driplines of these trees have been estimated based on measurements from aerial photography. Minor impacts to these trees could occur as the result of grading, and installation of a mandatory fire lane. Minor impacts are anticipated to involve cutting of roots smaller than 3” in diameter. If larger roots are discovered, project arborist should be notified. At this location, mitigation measures should be employed to minimize potential root zone impacts to retained trees. The fire lane will be constructed of pervious pavement to reduce tree impacts. Other recommended mitigation measures are described in Section 8 (Tree Retention Plan), below. 6. Tree Retention Plan The development proposal includes constructing a residential, multifamily apartment complex, a commercial development pad, and extensive shoreline buffer restoration and public access improvements on a 12.54 acre lot adjacent to the Cedar River which was formally used by a concrete facility. This Tree Retention Plan is based upon site plans provided by KPFF Engineers for areas outside of the standards shoreline buffer and site plan provided by The Watershed Company for site improvements within the shoreline buffer. Both plans are dated October 24, 2018. 6.1 Tree Retention A total of 34 trees will be retained on subject parcel. By number, this represents 64 percent of inventoried trees on subject parcel. Tree protection fencing will protect retained trees as shown in the Tree Inventory Plan. Retained trees should not be damaged during demolition of existing structures or construction of new features. All of the trees to be retained on subject parcel are located within the standard shoreline buffer. DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 The Watershed Company October 2018 15 The largest stand of native forest on-site is located in the southwest and southeast corners of the property. Both of these areas are dominated by bigleaf maple, red alder, and black cottonwood. Both of these stands will remain largely intact under this tree retention plan, with the only tree removal required to reduce hazard trees and / or provide public access within the shoreline jurisdiction. Some trees located on-site that are proposed for retention will sustain drip-line impacts (#862 - #882) based on the proposed plans. These impacts will be associated with the construction of an elevated boardwalk system for public access. Due to the elevated nature of this system, it is not anticipated to result in compact to adjacent tree roots. Douglas-fir trees just off-site to the northwest will also sustain dripline impacts. These impacts are considered to be relatively minor due the resiliency of Douglas-fir tree, in tandem with the pervious construction within their dripline. Care should be taken to prevent damage to trees when driplines are located in construction work areas. In order to minimize drip-line impacts, mitigation measures should be employed when feasible while conducting work within the driplines of all retained trees. Recommended mitigation measures include the following: Reduce compaction: Where root removal will not be required, temporarily apply 6 to12 inches of coarse mulch in retained tree driplines located outside of tree protection fencing to prevent compaction of soil by heavy equipment. Minimize injury: When tree roots must be removed, cut roots cleanly using a sharp saw or pruners. Do not rip or cut tree roots with heavy equipment. Construction oversight: The City may require an ISA-certified arborist to be present on-site during construction activities within the driplines of retained trees to monitor tree protection, assist with changes in the field, and document construction impacts. Monitor: An ISA-certified arborist should monitor retained trees after construction activities to identify changes in the health and structural conditions. Despite best efforts, retained trees may fail as a result of construction and may require removal. 6.2 Tree Removal The proposed design directly or significantly impacts 19 regulated trees in the study area. These trees should be removed prior to construction activities (Table 3). Eight trees (#867, #868, #869, #875, #876, #877, #878 and #882) are located within the proposed boardwalk footprint areas and require removal. The boardwalk and associated tree removal are DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 Arborist Report Cedar River Apartments 16 proposed to provide line-of-sight from the right of way, consistent with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. One (1) tree (#838) will require removal to reduce risk of failure on proposed features including trail and fencing. This tree should be snagged into a habitat features at a height that would not be considered hazardous. Five trees (#853, #854, #858, #859, and #860) are growing out of the existing wall and should be removed to preserve structural integrity of wall. Four trees (#852, #855, #856, and #857) will require removal due to impacts associated with grading the shoreline buffer to provide public access near the shoreline. One tree (19#D) is growing near the property line, along the Maple Valley Highway. This tree will require removal to accommodate public access to the walking path within the buffer. This tree was not included in the tree inventory. Trees proposed for removal are shown in Table 2 below and generally consist of native trees in dead or dying condition, or trees that are rooted within the footprint of proposed improvements. In contrast, larger and healthier black cottonwood and bigleaf maple trees will be retained. Table 2. Trees to be removed in the study area based on improvements. Tree ID Common Name Scientific Name DBH* (in.) Condition 838 Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera 21 5 – Dead or dying 852 Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera 39 3 - Fair 853 Bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 7 2 - Good 854 Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera 19 3 - Fair 855 Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera 8 3 - Fair 856 Red alder Alnus rubra 10 4 - Poor 857 Red alder Alnus rubra 13 3 - Fair 858 Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera 10 5 – Dead or dying 859 Bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 8 5 – Dead or dying 860 Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera 12 5 – Dead or dying DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 The Watershed Company October 2018 17 Tree ID Common Name Scientific Name DBH* (in.) Condition 867 Red alder Alnus rubra 12 3 - Fair 868 Red alder Alnus rubra 13 3 - Fair 869 Red alder Alnus rubra 9 3 - Fair 875 Red alder Alnus rubra 11 3 - Fair 876 Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera 9 4 - Poor 877 Red alder Alnus rubra 10 3 - Fair 878 Red alder Alnus rubra 13 3 - Fair 882 Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera 12 3 - Fair 19”D Unknown deciduous Unknown deciduous 19 unknown 6.3 Tree Replacement / Planting Plan Based on the City of Renton’s Tree Retention Worksheet (Appendix C), no replacement trees are required due to all trees being within the standard shoreline buffer. However, the Minimum Tree Density requirements of this worksheet require four (4) significant trees for every five thousand square feet of the project area. For this project, 437 trees are required to meet the Minimum Tree Density standard. This project will retain 34 existing trees, with a gross equivalent of 570 inches. This number of gross equivalent caliper inches substitutes for retention of 95 trees. Additionally, 122 trees will be planted within the standard shoreline buffer as part of restoration efforts. An additional 220 trees will be planted outside of the standard shoreline buffer. Lot Size Significant Trees Required New Trees in Shoreline Buffer New Trees outside of Shoreline Buffer Retained Trees Compliant 546,121 SF 437 122 220 34 (570 caliper inches) Yes Large native coniferous trees (such as Douglas-fir, western red cedar, grand fir, and western white pine) should be used where practicable to restore some forest functions. All replacement DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 Arborist Report Cedar River Apartments 18 trees at time of installation shall be at least six feet tall if a conifer or at least a two-inch caliper if deciduous. See Planting Plan prepared by project landscape architects for tree replacement within standard shoreline buffer and upland area. Additional impacts to trees are not anticipated as specific lot plans develop. If additional impacts occur as a result of demolition or construction activities, tree replacement may be required to compensate for any impacts not presented in this report. Tree replacement should occur after on-site construction and individual lot improvements are complete. DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 The Watershed Company October 2018 19 References Allen, E. A., D. J. Morrison, and G. W. Wallis. 1996. Common Tree Diseases of British Columbia. Victoria, British Columbia: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service. Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers. 2000. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition. Chicago: International Society of Arboriculture. Dunster, Julian A., E. Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly. 2013. Tree Risk Assessment. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture. Gooding, Richard F., James B. Ingram, James R. Urban, Lewis B. Bloch, William M. Steigerwaldt, Richard W. Harris, and Ellis N. Allen. 2000. Guide for Plant Appraisal. 9th. Edited by Peggy Currid. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture. Jacobson, Arthur Lee. 2006. Trees of Seattle, Second Edition. Seattle: Arthur Lee Jacobson. Matheny, Nelda P., and James R. Clark. 1994. A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Tress in Urban Areas. Pleasanton: HortScience, Inc. Oregon State University. 2017. Landscape Plants: Images, Identification, and Information. Edited by Patrick Breen. October 04. Accessed 2017. http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/. United States Department of Agriculture. 2017. Natural Resources Conservation Service. October 04. Accessed 2017. http://plants.usda.gov/java/. University of Washington. 2017. WTU Image Collection: Plants of Washington. October 04. Accessed 2017. http://biology.burke.washington.edu/herbarium/imagecollection.php. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. n.d. Priorty Habitats and Species (PHS). Accessed April 8, 2016. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 Appendix A Tree Inventory Table DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 CEDAR RIVER APARTMENTS 1915 Maple Valley Hwy, Renton WA, 98057 parcel # 1723059026 Table Issued: 5/26/2017 Site Visit: 5/24/2017 TAG #TREE NAME EV / DEC# STEMSCOMB DBH (IN, ROUNDED)HEIGHT (FT)RADIUS (FT)CONDITIONNOTES 835 Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf maple)D 7 22 35 15 4 DBH 6 = 10.4, DBH 7 = 6; co-dominant; included bark; topped for power lines 836 Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf maple)D 2 12 35 15 4 topped for power lines 837 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 24 60 15 3 ivy on trunk 838 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 21 40 10 5 significant decay on trunk 839 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 2 48 60 20 4 epicormic shoots; co-dominant at base; included bark 840 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 36 60 20 3 841 Alnus rubra (Red alder)D 2 21 40 20 4 co-dominant; included bark; wound at base 842 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 24 50 8 4 low lcr, trunk wound at base 843 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 33 50 30 4 chlorotic foliage 844 Alnus rubra (Red alder)D 1 11 25 12 3 845 Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf maple)D 2 16 55 20 4 low lcr 846 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 16 55 15 3 5degree lean to north 847 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 9 35 10 3 848 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 37 60 25 2 849 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 23 65 25 4 trunk wounds at base 850 Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf maple)D 2 10 30 20 3 included bark 851 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 25 60 20 3 852 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 3 39 60 20 3 co-dominant at base; included bark; beaver evidence at base of trunk 853 Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf maple)D 1 7 15 10 2 growing out of wall 854 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 19 35 12 3 growing out of wall 855 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 8 30 10 3 DBH 6 = 10.4, DBH 7 = 6; co-dominant; included bark; topped for power lines 856 Alnus rubra (Red alder)D 1 10 20 10 4 above wall 857 Alnus rubra (Red alder)D 2 13 30 15 3 trunk wound 858 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 10 35 10 5 growing out of ecoblock wall; ivy on trunk; 90% necrotic foliage T-1 Alnus rubra (Red alder)D 1 12 45 15 3 no tag left - tree out of reach T-2 Salix sp. (Willow species)D 4 13 20 15 4 no tag left - tree out of reach T-3 Salix sp. (Willow species)D 2 10 20 10 4 no tag left - tree out of reach T-4 Alnus rubra (Red alder)D 2 13 30 15 3 no tag left - tree out of reach T-5 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 13 35 12 3 no tag left - tree out of reach T-6 Alnus rubra (Red alder)D 1 8 20 12 3 no tag left - tree out of reach 859 Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf maple)D 1 8 20 10 5 growing out of wall; 80% necrotic foliage 860 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 12 35 12 5 growing out of wall; 95% necrotic foliage 861 Not used () 862 Alnus rubra (Red alder)D 1 9 40 15 3 863 Alnus rubra (Red alder)D 1 10 40 20 3 864 Alnus rubra (Red alder)D 1 10 40 15 3 865 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 8 40 10 3 866 Alnus rubra (Red alder)D 1 9 40 15 3 867 Alnus rubra (Red alder)D 1 12 45 20 3 868 Alnus rubra (Red alder)D 1 13 40 20 3 869 Alnus rubra (Red alder)D 1 9 45 10 3 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 1 OF 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 CEDAR RIVER APARTMENTS 1915 Maple Valley Hwy, Renton WA, 98057 parcel # 1723059026 Table Issued: 5/26/2017 Site Visit: 5/24/2017 TAG #TREE NAME EV / DEC# STEMSCOMB DBH (IN, ROUNDED)HEIGHT (FT)RADIUS (FT)CONDITIONNOTES 870 Alnus rubra (Red alder)D 2 13 40 12 3 871 Alnus rubra (Red alder)D 1 12 45 15 3 872 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 9 45 10 3 873 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 10 50 10 3 874 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 12 50 15 3 875 Alnus rubra (Red alder)D 2 11 50 10 3 876 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 9 45 8 4 877 Alnus rubra (Red alder)D 1 10 50 10 3 878 Alnus rubra (Red alder)D 3 13 45 20 3 879 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 8 50 10 3 880 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 16 45 15 3 881 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 1 8 40 12 3 882 Populus balsamifera (Black cottonwood)D 2 12 35 12 3 red twig dogwood in understory of trees 862-882 750 6th Street South (425) 822-5242 PAGE 2 OF 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 Arborist Report Cedar River Apartments Appendix B Tree Inventory Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 MAPLE VALLEY HWY EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREES TO REMAIN (14 EA.):EVERGREEN SPECIES WITH DRIPLINEDECIDUOUS SPECIES WITH DRIPLINEEXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREES TO BE REMOVED:EVERGREEN SPECIESDECIDUOUS SPECIESTREE PRESERVATION:TREE PROTECTION FENCING (463 LF)1. PER RMC 4-11-200, MEANS A TREE WITH A CALIPER OFAT LEAST SIX INCHES (6”), OR AN ALDER ORCOTTONWOOD TREE WITH A CALIPER OF AT LEASTEIGHT INCHES (8”). TREES QUALIFIED AS DANGEROUSSHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT. TREESPLANTED WITHIN THE MOST RECENT TEN (10) YEARSSHALL QUALIFY AS SIGNIFICANT TREES, REGARDLESSOF THE ACTUAL CALIPER.2. TREES DESIGNATED FOR REMOVAL WITHIN TREEPROTECTION FENCE FOR NEARBY TREE SHOULD BEFLUSH CUT TO MINIMIZE ROOT DAMAGE TO REMAININGTREES. DO NOT REMOVE TREES DESIGNATED FORREMOVAL WITHIN TREE PROTECTION FENCING AREABY PUSHING OVER WITH MACHINERY.3. SEE W9 FOR COMPLETE TABLE OF ALL TREESINVENTORIED ON-SITE AND THEIR ASSOCIATEDATTRIBUTES.EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREES TO BE SNAGGED:DECIDUOUS SPECIESSHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONNO.DATESUBMITTALS & REVISIONSBYDATEPRINTED BY FILENAMEGENERAL NOTES:© Copyright- The Watershed CompanySHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 30" x 42".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.PROJECT MANAGER: SSDESIGNED: AM, LVDRAFTED: GMCHECKED: LV, AM, SSJOB NUMBER:S c i e n c e & D e s i g n750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comCEDAR RIVER APARTMENTSSHORELINE LANDSCAPE PERMIT SETSRM DEVELOPMENT1915 MAPLE VALLEY HWYRENTON, WA 98057170314OF 91 10-24-18 REVIEW SET GM2 11-1-18 SSDP SET GM11/8/2018 GRAYSON MORRIS 170314_SRM_CEDAR RIVER_CLEARING AND TREE INVENTORY.DWGPERMIT SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONTREE INVENTORY PLAN200'50'25'0'100'ON-SITE TREE INVENTORYLEGENDW82W9TREE SNAG1W92W9DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONNO.DATESUBMITTALS & REVISIONSBYDATEPRINTED BY FILENAMEGENERAL NOTES:© Copyright- The Watershed CompanySHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 30" x 42".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.PROJECT MANAGER: SSDESIGNED: AM, LVDRAFTED: GMCHECKED: LV, AM, SSJOB NUMBER:S c i e n c e & D e s i g n750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comCEDAR RIVER APARTMENTSSHORELINE LANDSCAPE PERMIT SETSRM DEVELOPMENT1915 MAPLE VALLEY HWYRENTON, WA 98057170314OF 91 10-24-18 REVIEW SET GM2 11-1-18 SSDP SET GM11/8/2018 GRAYSON MORRIS 170314_SRM_CEDAR RIVER_CLEARING AND TREE INVENTORY.DWGPERMIT SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONTREE PRESERVATION DETAILS AND TABLEON-SITE TREE INVENTORYScale: NTSTREE PROTECTION FENCING14'-0"TREE PROTECTIONFENCE: HIGH DENSITYPOLETHYLENEFENCING WITH 3.5" X1.5" OPENINGS; COLOR- ORANGE.STEELPOSTS INSTALLED AT8' O.C.2" X 6' STEEL POSTSOR APPROVED EQUAL.5" THICK LAYEROF MULCH.MAINTAIN EXISTING GRADEWITH THE TREE PROTECTIONFENCE UNLESS OTHERWISEINDICATED ON THE PLANS.8.5" x 11" SIGNLAMINATED IN PLASTICSPACED EVERY 50'ALONG FENCE.SECTION221.70'KEEP OUTTREEPROTECTIONAREACROWN DRIP LINE OR OTHER LIMIT OF TREE PROTECTION AREA.SEE TREE RETENTION PLAN FOR FENCE ALIGNMENT.NOTES:1.NO PRUNING SHALL BE PERFORMED UNLESSUNDER THE DIRECTION OF AN ARBORIST.2.NO EQUIPMENT SHALL BE STORED OR OPERATEDINSIDE THE PROTECTIVE FENCING INCLUDINGDURING FENCE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL.3. NO STORAGE OF MATERIALS SHALL OCCURINSIDE THE PROTECTIVE FENCING.4. REFER TO TREE RETENTION PLAN FOR ANYMODIFICATIONS TO THE TREE PROTECTIONAREA.5. UNAUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES IN TREE PROTECTIONAREA MAY REQUIRE EVALUATION BY PRIVATEARBORIST TO IDENTIFY IMPACTS ANDMITIGATION REQUIRED.6. EXPOSED ROOTS: FOR ROOTS GREATER THAN 1"DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION, MAKE ACLEAN, STRAIGHT CUT TO REMOVE DAMAGEDPORTION AND INFORM CITY ARBORIST.SNAG NOTES:SEE TREE SNAG TABLE FOR TREES WHICH ARE TO BE RETAINED ASSNAGS. ALL TREES SHOULD BE:1. SNAGS ON SITE ARE TO BE TOPPED BY CLIMBING ARBORIST ORBROKEN WITH MACHINE TO HEIGHT AS INDIVIDUALLY CONFIRMEDON TREE SNAG TABLE.2. ONCE TOP HAS BEEN REMOVED ARBORIST IS TO MAKE A CORONETCUT TO GIVE A NATURAL BREAK APPEARANCE IF BROKEN BYMACHINE CORONET CUT IS NOT NECESSARY.3. RETAIN ALL BRANCHES FOR PERCHES AND HABITAT STRUCTURES-DO NOT LIMB.4. LIVE TREES SHOULD BE DEADENED BY CUTTINGTWO 6” WIDE, ANGLED BAND AROUND THE BASE OF THE TREE WITHAN AXE OR BY MAKING TWO CUTS AROUND THE TREE WITH A CHAINSAW TO A DEPTH OF APPROXIMATELY 1 INCH BELOW THE BARKLAYER.5. WATERSPOUTS MAY DEVELOP BELOW GIRDLING CUT DEPENDINGON SPECIES. THESE SHOULD BE REMOVED WITH ROUTINEMAINTENANCE AND MONITORING.GIRDLE CUTALL LIMBS REMAINCORONET CUTOR MACHINE BREAKGROUND6"Scale: NTSTREE SNAG2W9DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 Appendix C Tree Retention Worksheet DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 | www.rentonwa.gov 1.Total number of trees over 6” diameter 1, or alder or cottonwood trees at least 8” in diameter on project site trees 2.Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dangerous 2 trees Trees in proposed public streets trees Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts trees Trees in critical areas3 and buffers trees Total number of excluded trees: trees 3.Subtract line 2 from line 1:trees 4.Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained 4, multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones RC, R-1, R-4, R-6 or R-8 0.2 in all other residential zones 0.1 in all commercial and industrial zones trees 5.List the number of 6” in diameter, or alder or cottonwood trees over 8” in diameter that you are proposing5 to retain4:trees 6.Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: (if line 6 is zero or less, stop here. No replacement trees are required) trees 7.Multiply line 6 by 12” for number of required replacement inches:inches 8.Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2” caliper trees required for replacement, otherwise enter 0)inches per tree 9.Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees 6: (If remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) trees 1 Measured at 4.5’ above grade. 2 A tree certified, in a written report, as dead, terminally diseased, damaged, or otherwise dangerous to persons or property by a licensed landscape architect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City. 3 Critical areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in RMC 4-3-050. 4 Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. 5 The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a. 6 When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, replacement trees, with at least a two-inch (2") caliper or an evergreen at least six feet (6') tall, shall be planted. See RMC 4-4-130.H.1.e.(ii) for prohibited types of replacement trees. 1 H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\Tree Retention Worksheet.docx 08/2015 4 (also within buffer) 53 0 0 53 53 0 0 34 (34) (408) Print Form Reset Form Save FormDocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1 Minimum Tree Density A minimum tree density shall be maintained on each residentially zoned lot (exempting single-family dwellings in R-10 and R-14). The tree density may consist of existing trees, replacement trees, or a combination. Detached single-family development 7: Two (2) significant trees 8 for every five thousand (5,000) sq. ft. of lot area. For example, a lot with 9,600 square feet and a detached single-family house is required to have four (4) significant trees or their equivalent in caliper inches (one or more trees with a combined diameter of 24”). This is determined with the following formula: Multi-family development (attached dwellings): Four (4) significant trees8 for every five thousand (5,000) sq. ft. of lot area. Example Tree Density Table: Lot Lot size Min significant trees required New Trees Retained Trees Compliant 1 5,000 2 2 @ 2” caliper 0 Yes 2 10,000 4 0 1 tree (24 caliper inches) Yes 3 15,000 6 2 @ 2” caliper 1 Maple – 15 caliper inches 1 Fir – 9 caliper inches. Yes 7 Lots developed with detached dwellings in the R-10 and R-14 zoned are exempt from maintaining a minimum number of significant trees onsite, however they are not exempt from the annual tree removal limits. 8 Or the gross equivalent of caliper inches provided by one (1) or more trees. 2 H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\Tree Retention Worksheet.docx 08/2015 437 Trees Needed 546,121 DocuSign Envelope ID: 99BA427F-FE67-49CC-B142-9BE0760232C1