Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS_ArboristReport_220830_v1 TreeSolutions.Net 2940 Westlake Ave. N #200 206-528-4670 Seattle, WA 98109 Project No. TS - 8461 Preliminary Arborist Report To: Elias Wolde Site: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton, WA 98059 Re: Response to City of Renton Notice of Violation - Trees Date: July 7, 2022 Project Arborist: Connor McDermott ISA Certified Arborist #PN-8704A, ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Reviewed By: Haley Galbraith ISA Board Certified Master Arborist #PN-7512BM ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Attached: Table of Trees Tree Site Map Summary On May 11, 2022, I visited the above addressed site to assess the on- and off-site trees in response to a violation notice issued by the City of Renton (COR). The City requested an Arborist Report to assess trees on- and off-site in relation to the unauthorized development of a patio within a critical area and to develop recommendations to remove the unauthorized structures and mitigate effects on the adjacent trees. I assessed all trees on-site, and off-site trees with overhanging canopies. Five trees on-site and six off- site trees with overhanging canopies are within the unauthorized development area. The developed area is within the May Valley Urban Separator Overlay and within critical areas that limit clearing vegetation and development outside of soft surface pedestrian trails. The City requires the removal of the unauthorized structures within the developed area and according to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-110-D.5. c. unapproved vegetation clearing will require replanting of Northwest native vegetation and erosion control. The trees appeared to be in a stable condition, however, the exact impacts to all trees are undetermined at this time as there was no documentation of root cutting during the development nor was an arborist present to monitor construction or assess root impacts. I recommend the tree impacts from the unauthorized structures to be assessed by the project arborist during demolition and restoration work. Long term tree retention should be assessed over a five-year time frame. In my experience, trees can take three to five years before displaying signs of negative impact from construction activity. I recommend the trees be monitored for visible changes in tree conditions over the next five years and be Preliminary Arborist Report Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022 Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 2 reassessed in three years’ time by the project arborist to determine if the trees are viable for long term retention. Assignment and Scope of Work This report outlines the site inspection by Connor McDermott, of Tree Solutions Inc, on May 11, 2022. I was asked to visit the site and assess all significant trees on and adjacent to the site. I was asked to produce an Arborist Report documenting my findings and management recommendations for a critical area permit in response to the unpermitted improvement adjacent to a creek. Elias Wolde, the property owner, requested these services to be in compliance with development requirements within critical areas. Observations and Discussion Site The 22,771 square-foot site fronts SE May Valley Rd in the COR. One single-family home with an attached garage and two patios exist on-site. A gravel patio was developed illegally on the south end of the site with concurrent stairway and retaining walls constructed to access the patio area (Photo 1 and Photo 2). In conversation with the property owner, Mr. Wolde, the patio and concurrent stairway and retaining walls were constructed adjacent to May Valley Creek between October and November of 2021. Based on prior imagery Mr. Wolde provided to me, prior to development the area was sparsely vegetated adjacent to the creek and stone or brick steps were in place the constructed stairway now stands (Figure 1). I observed a gravel pathway off-site that was likely used to for equipment to enter the site and bring in materials. If allowed by the city, I recommend this pathway be used for equipment and machinery needed to haul debris from the site (Photo 3). During my site visit, vegetation on-site was limited to the steep slope area where I observed predominantly invasive species including invasive ivy (Hedera spp.) and blackberry (Rufus bifrons) mixed with several native species including sword fern (Polysticum municum) and vine maple (Acer circinatum). According to COR Maps, there are Special Flood Hazard (100 year flood), Landslide Hazard, and Regulated Slope (over 25 and 40 percent) critical areas on-site (Figure 2). The subject property also resides within the May Valley Urban Separator Overlay that requires 50 percent of the gross land area to be open space retained by the property owner (RMC 4-3-110-E.2.a.i). On-site Trees On-site tree species included bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and western redcedar (Thuja plicata). I observed three of the trees on-site to be considered exceptional as defined in RMC 4-11-200. The conditions of trees varied between good and fair health and structural conditions. My observations of the tree conditions were limited to what I could see while on-site, however, the conditions on-site have changed rapidly due to the development and there is no documentation of root impacts from the Preliminary Arborist Report Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022 Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 3 development activities. It can take up to five years before trees display a negative response to construction impacts, so the trees should be assessed for long term retention within this timeframe. I recommend monitoring of the site trees for changes in condition over the next five years and an updated assessment by the project arborist in three years or after abnormal weather events. If the condition of the trees the tree conditions have declined during this time period, the trees should be assessed for potential risk to adjacent targets. Tree 232, a Douglas-fir tree that I measured at 42 inches diameter at standard height (DSH) had two retaining walls built within the tree protection zone (TPZ); one at the top of the slope and one at the bottom of the slope. Roots from this tree were likely impacted in both areas. A stairway was also built adjacent to this tree, as close as 6 inches from the base. I observed signs of root disturbance from this work including one 2-inch-diameter root 10 feet from the base (Photo 4). Tree 234, a bigleaf maple that I measured at 23.3 inches DSH exhibited unusual trunk anatomy on the downslope side. I observed a retaining wall above the patio and on the downslope side of the tree which was constructed up to the base (Photo 5). My ability to assess root impacts was limited due to the retaining wall, however, based on the cut in the slope, I believe the majority of structural roots on the south side of the tree were cut possibly as close as right at the base during construction. This tree should be assessed for retention during demolition of the retaining wall. Trees 235 and 236 were large mature black cottonwoods in good health and structural condition. This species is an early-successional, relatively short-lived tree species that is prone to decay and structural issues upon maturity. Tree wells have been installed with lighting conduits at the base of the trees and the trunk flares were buried by fill. Based on the photos I reviewed, and through discussion with the Mr. Wolde, the original soil level was used as the subbase for the gravel and concrete and tile patio. I observed root cuts towards the creek bed where the retaining wall closest to the creek was constructed (Photo 6). Off-site Trees Off-site tree species included black cottonwood, Douglas-fir, and western redcedar. I observed varied impacts to off-site trees within the impacted area. Based on the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) best management practices (BMPs), construction impacts should be limited to six times DSH in distance from the trunk of trees to maintain structural stability. The majority of the impacts were outside of this area and likely limited to the feeder roots. I have attached an annotated survey of the site to serve as the site map and a table of trees that has detailed information about each of the on- and off-site trees I assessed. Invasive Ivy Removal Invasive ivy should be removed from the tree trunks and bases as the ivy can weaken the tree and cause it to decline in health or fall more readily with wind storms. According to the King County Noxious Weed Control Program the most effective control is to remove by hand, “Hand-pulling combined with loosening the soil with a shovel, cultivator or weeding fork will work on most stands of ivy. Older plants have thick, woody stems and roots and will require more effort to remove… Pry stems off with a large Preliminary Arborist Report Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022 Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 4 screwdriver or forked garden tool. Make sure to remove the stems from all around the trunk. Large vines can be cut using an axe or a pruning saw.”1 Discussion—Construction Impacts This report is preliminary as I have not reviewed design, grading or landscape plans for this area. Tree Protection The five on-site trees and six off-site trees are required to be protected throughout site development (RMC 4-4-130 H.9). According to RMC 4-4-130 H.9.b, a TPZ of 1.25-feet for each inch of trunk diameter is required. Work will need to occur up to the base of several site trees, therefore, tree protection fencing for the work necessary to remediate impacts of the unauthorized development will not meet the defined TPZ. All grading, trenching, excavation, or fill activities within the TPZ must be coordinated with the project arborist. Careful and alternative construction methods within the TPZ of on-site trees will be needed to remediate the rooting area below the trees. Machinery must not be staged on newly exposed soil. If it is necessary to drive machinery on exposed soil then 6 inches of arborist woodchips must be laid in the area and composite mats such as AlturnaMats®, steel plates, or project arborist approved equivalent placed on top. If the work is not conducted according to the specifications below and in Appendix C, work within the TPA could cause disturbance and damage to the fine and structural root system leading to health decline and structural instability of the trees. Route to remove debris from existing structures should be determined prior to construction. Removal of Unauthorized Structures- Trees 232, 234, 235, and 236 Removal of Stairway adjacent to Tree 232 The existing staircase is constructed from poured concrete and stone pavers up to 6 inches from the base of Douglas-fir tree 232. The removal of the existing staircase will need to be performed with hand implements such as a sledgehammer or jackhammer and the project arborist should be present to monitor for roots that are exposed. The stone steps should be pulled by hand and hauled off-site. Removal of the concrete base should start from the stair furthest from the construction entrance and move down towards where the debris can be hauled off-site (Photo 7). As excavation approaches the original or finished grade, excavation should be slowed to prevent damage to surface roots. Foot traffic and materials/equipment must not traffic or be staged over newly exposed soil. Once the work is completed, topsoil to a depth of 8 to 12 inches should be placed on top of the exposed soil along with 4 inches of arborist woodchips. The exposed soil can also be remediated by use of radial trenching or vertical mulching in order to alleviate compaction in the rooting area of the trees. 1 King County, ‘English ivy identification and control’, Noxious Weed Control Program, 2020, Pg 3, https://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/animals-and-plants/noxious-weeds/weed-identification/english-ivy.aspx (Accessed 4/1/2021) Preliminary Arborist Report Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022 Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 5 Removal of Retaining Wall Adjacent to Tree 234 A retaining wall was constructed south of base of bigleaf maple tree 234. While the tree appeared stable at the time of my assessment, there were likely multiple structural roots removed on the south side of the tree to construct the retaining wall. The retaining wall should be removed using either a mini excavator staged on the existing hardscapes or approved soil protection outlined in Appendix C. The removal must be done slowly to allow for the project arborist to assess the previous root impacts and potential for long term retention. If it is determined the stability of the tree has been compromised, removal of the tree may be necessary. Removal of Patio and Fill Adjacent to Trees 235 and 236 There is a stone and concrete patio and extensive gravel fill within the TPZ of black cottonwood trees 235 and 236. The stone patio appeared to be laid on top of the gravel and the concrete patio poured slab on grade. Based on my observations of the creek shoreline, the existing grade has been raised approximately 4 feet adjacent to the shore and to a minimum of 2 feet moving north towards the stairway. Excavation of the gravel fill should be done with a small excavator staged on the existing fill and moving from the shoreline north towards the house. A flat-fronted bucket should be used. As excavation approaches the original grade, excavation should be slowed to prevent damage to surface roots and for the previous root impacts to be assessed (Photo 8). Replanting Practices As part of the restoration process, I recommend that steepest areas of the slope be covered with jute matt, which can be staked in place and workers can cut holes into it for planting. Using smaller plants (one or two gallon) will make planting on the slope easier and will likely reduce the rate of plant mortality during establishment, as younger plants will adapt more quickly to the challenging site conditions and transplant shock. I also recommend using coir logs staked in place with wooden stakes perpendicular to the slope. These coir logs create small “terraces” that help retain woodchip mulch and soil during planting and plant establishment. Recommendations • Provide Tree Solutions with civil plans, including demolition, grading, and landscaping in order to assess the impacts to the trees. • Obtain approval from the City of Renton to reduce the required tree protection area from 1.25 times trunk diameter to the area indicated on the attached Tree Site Map for site trees. • Monitor for visible changes in tree conditions and have the tree reassessed by Tree Solutions Inc within three years. • All work within the TPZ of trees must be monitored by the project arborist. Work should be conducted slowly as the original grade is approached to assess the previous root impacts and capacity to retain the trees long term. Preliminary Arborist Report Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022 Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 6 • Follow tree protection specifications located in Appendix C throughout the project. • Remove invasive ivy on the trunk and at the base of site trees using hand implements. • Existing native understory species should be prioritized to be retained. • Obtain all required permits from the City prior to construction. Respectfully submitted, Connor McDermott, Consulting Arborist Preliminary Arborist Report Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022 Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 7 Figures Figure 1. Imagery provided by the client of the conditions prior to development of patio adjacent to May Valley Creek (provided by Elias Wolde, not dated). The area at the base of the slope was sparsely vegetated and the existing stairway was built in the pathway of the previous stone/brick pathway. Preliminary Arborist Report Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022 Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 8 Figure 2. Aerial image of the site with the critical areas outlined overlayed on the site (COR Map, accessed 06/01/2022). Preliminary Arborist Report Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022 Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 9 Photographs Photo 1. The unauthorized development adjacent to May Valley Creek viewed from the north. Photo 2. The development viewed from the creek bed to the south. Existing stairway Preliminary Arborist Report Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022 Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 10 Photo 3. The gravel pathway east of the property is pointed out above. If allowed the pathway could be used to haul materials and machinery on and off the site. Photo 4. Base of tree 232 viewed from the east. A damaged root 2-inches in diameter approximately 10 feet from the base is pointed out in the foreground in yellow. Tree 232 Gravel pathway off-site Preliminary Arborist Report Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022 Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 11 Photo 5. Base of tree 234 viewed from the south. The constructed retaining wall was built to the base of the tree and structural roots were likely cut to accommodate the construction. Capacity to retain the tree long term should be assessed at the time of demolition of structures. Photo 6. Observed root cuts outlined in red south of tree 235 and adjacent to the creek bed. Tree 235 Tree 234 Preliminary Arborist Report Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022 Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 12 Photo 7. The staircase viewed from the southeast. Work should be conducted using hand implements and starting furthest from where materials will be hauled backwards. Photo 8. The base of Tree 235 viewed from the northeast. Work should be done using a mini excavator with a flat fronted bucket moving from the stream south to the north. No equipment may be staged on newly exposed soil. If access into newly exposed soil is required then soil protection of 6 inches of arborist woodchips must be laid in the area and composite matts such as AlturnaMats®, or steel plates placed on top. Tree 235 Excavate this way Tree 232 Conduct Work this way Preliminary Arborist Report Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022 Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 13 Tree Protection Specifications The following is a list of protection measures that must be employed before, during and after construction to ensure the long-term viability of retained trees. 1. Project Arborist: The project arborists shall at minimum have an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certification and ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification. 2. Tree Protection Zone (TPZ): The city of Renton requires a tree protection zone (TPZ) of 1.25-feet per diameter inch. In some cases, the TPZ may extend outside tree protection fencing. Work within the TPZ must be approved by the project arborist. 3. Tree Protection Fencing: Tree protection shall consist of 6-foot chain-link fencing installed at the TPZ or as approved by the project arborist. Fence posts shall be anchored into the ground or bolted to existing hardscape surfaces. a. Where trees are being retained as a group the fencing shall encompass the entire area including all landscape beds or lawn areas associated with the grove. b. Per arborist approval, TPZ fencing may be placed at the edge of existing hardscape within the TPZ to allow for staging and traffic. c. Where work is planned within the TPZ, install fencing at edge of TPZ and move to limits of disturbance at the time that the work within the TPZ is planned to occur. This ensures that work within the TPZ is completed to specification. d. Where trees are protected at the edge of the project boundary, construction limits fencing shall be incorporated as the boundary of tree protection fencing. 4. Access Beyond Tree Protection Fencing: In areas where work such as installation of utilities is required within the TPZ, a locking gate will be installed in the fencing to facilitate access. The project manager or project arborist shall be present when tree protection areas are accessed. 5. Tree Protection Signage: Tree protection signage shall be affixed to fencing every 20 feet. Signage shall be fluorescent, at least 2’ x 2’ in size. Signage will note: “NO TRESPASSING – Protected Trees: Entry into the tree protection area is prohibited unless authorized by the project manager.” Signage shall include the contact information for the project manager and instructions for gaining access to the area. 6. Filter / Silt Fencing: Filter / silt fencing within or at the edge of the TPZ of retained trees shall be installed in a manner that does not sever roots. Install so that filter / silt fencing sits on the ground and is weighed in place by sandbags or gravel. Do not trench to insert filter / silt fencing into the ground. 7. Monitoring: The project arborist shall monitor all ground disturbance at the edge of or within the TPZ, including where the TPZ extends beyond the tree protection fencing. 8. Soil Protection: No parking, foot traffic, materials storage, or dumping (including excavated soils) are allowed within the TPZ. Heavy machinery shall remain outside of the TPZ. Access to the tree protection area will be granted under the supervision of the project arborist. If project arborist allows, heavy machinery can enter the area if soils are protected from the load. Acceptable methods of soil protection include applying 3/4-inch plywood over 4 to 6 inches of wood chip mulch or use of AlturnaMats® (or equivalent product approved by the project arborist). Retain existing paved surfaces within or at the edge of the TPZ for as long as possible. 9. Soil Remediation: Soil compacted within the TPZ of retained trees shall be remediated using pneumatic air excavation according to a specification produced by the project arborist. 10. Canopy Protection: Where fencing is installed at the limits of disturbance within the TPZ, canopy management (pruning or tying back) shall be conducted to ensure that vehicular traffic does not Preliminary Arborist Report Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022 Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 14 damage canopy parts. Exhaust from machinery shall be located five feet outside the dripline of retained trees. No exhaust shall come in contact with foliage for prolonged periods of time. 11. Duff/Mulch: Apply 6 inches of arborist wood chip mulch or hog fuel over bare soil within the TPZ to prevent compaction and evaporation. TPZ shall be free of invasive weeds to facilitate mulch application. Keep mulch 1 foot away from the base of trees and 6 inches from retained understory vegetation. Retain and protect as much of the existing duff and understory vegetation as possible. 12. Excavation: Excavation done at the edge of or within the TPZ shall use alternative methods such as pneumatic air excavation or hand digging. If heavy machinery is used, use flat front buckets with the project arborist spotting for roots. When roots are encountered, stop excavation and cleanly sever roots. The project arborist shall monitor all excavation done within the TPZ. 13. Fill: Limit fill to 1 foot of uncompacted well-draining soil, within the TPZ of retained trees. In areas where additional fill is required, consult with the project arborist. Fill must be kept at least 1 foot from the trunks of trees. 14. Root Pruning: Limit root pruning to the extent possible. All roots shall be pruned with a sharp saw making clean cuts. Do not fracture or break roots with excavation equipment. 15. Root Moisture: Root cuts and exposed roots shall be immediately covered with soil, mulch, or clear polyethylene sheeting and kept moist. Water to maintain moist condition until the area is back filled. Do not allow exposed roots to dry out before replacing permanent back fill. 16. Hardscape Removal: Retain hardscape surfaces for as long as practical. Remove hardscape in a manner that does not require machinery to traverse newly exposed soil within the TPZ. Where equipment must traverse the newly exposed soil, apply soil protection as described in section 8. Replace fencing at edge of TPZ if soil exposed by hardscape removal will remain for any period of time. 17. Tree Removal: All trees to be removed that are located within the TPZ of retained trees shall not be ripped, pulled, or pushed over. The tree should be cut to the base and the stump either left or ground out. A flat front bucket can also be used to sever roots around all sides of the stump, or the roots can be exposed using hydro or air excavation and then cut before removing the stump. 18. Irrigation: Retained trees with soil disturbance within the TPZ will require supplemental water from June through September. Acceptable methods of irrigation include drip, sprinkler, or watering truck. Trees shall be watered three times per month during this time. 19. Pruning: Pruning required for construction and safety clearance shall be done with a pruning specification provided by the project arborist in accordance with American National Standards Institute ANSI-A300 2017 Standard Practices for Pruning. Pruning shall be conducted or monitored by an arborist with an ISA Certification. 20. Plan Updates: All plan updates or field modification that result in impacts within the TPZ or change the retained status of trees shall be reviewed by the senior project manager and project arborist prior to conducting the work. 21. Materials: Contractor shall have the following materials onsite and available for use during work in the TPZ: • Sharp and clean bypass hand pruners • Sharp and clean bypass loppers • Sharp hand-held root saw • Reciprocating saw with new blades • Shovels • Trowels • Clear polyethylene sheeting • Burlap • Water Preliminary Arborist Report Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022 Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 15 Glossary ANSI A300: American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for tree care crown: the aboveground portions of a tree (Lilly 2001) DBH or DSH: diameter at breast or standard height; the diameter of the trunk measured 54 inches (4.5 feet) above grade (Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers 2019) ISA: International Society of Arboriculture Significant tree: 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 (RMC 4-11-200 Definitions “T”) structural defects: flaws, decay, or other faults in the trunk, branches, or root collar of a tree, which may lead to failure (Lilly 2001) Visual Tree Assessment (VTA): method of evaluating structural defects and stability in trees by noting the pattern of growth (Mattheck & Breloer 1994) Preliminary Arborist Report Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022 Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 16 References Accredited Standards Committee A300 (ASC 300). ANSI A300 (Part 1) Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management – Standard Practices (Pruning). Londonderry: Tree Care Industry Association, 2017. Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition Second Printing. Atlanta, GA: The International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2019. Dunster & Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd. Assessing Trees in Urban Areas and the Urban- Rural Interface, US Release 1.0. Silverton: Pacific Northwest Chapter ISA, 2006. Dunster, Julian A., E. Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly. Tree Risk Assessment Manual. Champaign, Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture, 2013. E. Smiley, N. Matheny, S. Lilly. Best Management Practices: TREE RISK ASSESSMENT. ISA 2011. Lilly, Sharon. Arborists’ Certification Study Guide. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, 2001. Matheny, Nelda and James R. Clark. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. Mattheck, Claus and Helge Breloer, The Body Language of Trees.: A Handbook for Failure Analysis. London: HMSO, 1994. Renton Municipal Code, 4-4-130. Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations Renton Municipal Code, Title 4, Chapter 11. Definitions Preliminary Arborist Report Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022 Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 17 Methods Measuring I measured the diameter of each tree at 54 inches above grade, diameter at standard height (DSH). If a tree had multiple stems, I measured each stem individually at standard height and determined a single- stem equivalent diameter by using the method outlined in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition Second Printing published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. Evaluating I evaluated tree health and structure utilizing visual tree assessment (VTA) methods. The basis behind VTA is the identification of symptoms, which the tree produces in reaction to a weak spot or area of mechanical stress. A tree reacts to mechanical and physiological stresses by growing more vigorously to re-enforce weak areas, while depriving less stressed parts. An understanding of the uniform stress allows the arborist to make informed judgments about the condition of a tree. Rating When rating tree health, I took into consideration crown indicators such as foliar density, size, color, stem and shoot extensions. When rating tree structure, I evaluated the tree for form and structural defects, including past damage and decay. Tree Solutions has adapted our ratings based on the Purdue University Extension formula values for health condition (Purdue University Extension bulletin FNR-473- W - Tree Appraisal). These values are a general representation used to assist arborists in assigning ratings. Health Excellent - Perfect specimen with excellent form and vigor, well-balanced crown. Normal to exceeding shoot length on new growth. Leaf size and color normal. Trunk is sound and solid. Root zone undisturbed. No apparent pest problems. Long safe useful life expectancy for the species. Good - Imperfect canopy density in few parts of the tree, up to 10% of the canopy. Normal to less than ¾ typical growth rate of shoots and minor deficiency in typical leaf development. Few pest issues or damage, and if they exist, they are controllable, or tree is reacting appropriately. Normal branch and stem development with healthy growth. Safe useful life expectancy typical for the species. Fair - Crown decline and dieback up to 30% of the canopy. Leaf color is somewhat chlorotic/necrotic with smaller leaves and “off” coloration. Shoot extensions indicate some stunting and stressed growing conditions. Stress cone crop clearly visible. Obvious signs of pest problems contributing to lesser condition, control might be possible. Some decay areas found in main stem and branches. Below average safe useful life expectancy Poor - Lacking full crown, more than 50% decline and dieback, especially affecting larger branches. Stunting of shoots is obvious with little evidence of growth on smaller stems. Leaf size and color reveals overall stress in the plant. Insect or disease infestation may be severe and uncontrollable. Extensive decay or hollows in branches and trunk. Short safe useful life expectancy. Structure Excellent - Root plate undisturbed and clear of any obstructions. Trunk flare has normal development. No visible trunk defects or cavities. Branch spacing/structure and attachments are free of any defects. Preliminary Arborist Report Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022 Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 18 Good - Root plate appears normal, with only minor damage. Possible signs of root dysfunction around trunk flare. Minor trunk defects from previous injury, with good closure and less than 25% of bark section missing. Good branch habit; minor dieback with some signs of previous pruning. Codominant stem formation may be present, requiring minor corrections. Fair - Root plate reveals previous damage or disturbance. Dysfunctional roots may be visible around the main stem. Evidence of trunk damage or cavities, with decay or defects present and less than 30% of bark sections missing on trunk. Co-dominant stems are present. Branching habit and attachments indicate poor pruning or damage, which requires moderate corrections. Poor - Root plate disturbance and defects indicate major damage, with girdling roots around the trunk flare. Trunk reveals more than 50% of bark section missing. Branch structure has poor attachments, with several structurally important branches dead or broken. Canopy reveals signs of damage or previous topping or lion-tailing, with major corrective action required. Preliminary Arborist Report Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022 Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 19 Assumptions & Limiting Conditions 1 Consultant assumes that the site and its use do not violate, and is in compliance with, all applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or regulations. 2 The consultant may provide a report or recommendation based on published municipal regulations. The consultant assumes that the municipal regulations published on the date of the report are current municipal regulations and assumes no obligation related to unpublished city regulation information. 3 Any report by the consultant and any values expressed therein represent the opinion of the consultant, and the consultant’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specific value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, or upon any finding to be reported. 4 All photographs included in this report were taken by Tree Solutions, Inc. during the documented site visit, unless otherwise noted. Sketches, drawings and photographs (included in, and attached to, this report) are intended as visual aids and are not necessarily to scale. They should not be construed as engineering drawings, architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of any information generated by architects, engineers or other consultants and any sketches, drawings or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of such information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by the consultant as to the sufficiency or accuracy of the information. 5 Unless otherwise agreed, (1) information contained in any report by consultant covers only the items examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection; and (2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, climbing, or coring. 6 These findings are based on the observations and opinions of the authoring arborist, and do not provide guarantees regarding the future performance, health, vigor, structural stability or safety of the plants described and assessed. 7 Measurements are subject to typical margins of error, considering the oval or asymmetrical cross-section of most trunks and canopies. 8 Tree Solutions did not review any reports or perform any tests related to the soil located on the subject property unless outlined in the scope of services. Tree Solutions staff are not and do not claim to be soils experts. An independent inventory and evaluation of the site’s soil should be obtained by a qualified professional if an additional understanding of the site’s characteristics is needed to make an informed decision. 9 Our assessments are made in conformity with acceptable evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture. Table of Trees 13701 SE May Valley Rd Renton, WA 98059 Arborist: C McDermott Date of Inventory: 05/11/2022 Table Prepared: 07/07/2022 DSH (Diameter at Standard Height) was measured 4.5 feet above grade, or as specified in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition , published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. DSH for multi-stem trees are noted as a single stem equivalent, which was calculated using the method defined in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition . Letters were used to identify trees on neighboring property with overhanging canopies. Tree protection area is equal to the dripline or 1.25 feet per inch of diameter as required in Renton Municipal Code 4-4-130 H.9.b. Dripline was measured from the center of the tree to the outermost extent of the canopy. Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name DSH (inches) DSH Multistem Health Condition Structural Condition Dripline Radius (ft) Tree Protection Area (ft) Landmark Status Notes 232 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 42.0 Good Fair 21.8 52.5 Landmark Ivy removed from canopy, kink in trunk at 30 feet, deadwood in canopy, lighting conduit installed on west side of trunk, light installed at 25 feet above base, stairway installed at base of tree, likely structural roots impacted 233 Thuja plicata Western Redcedar 24.2 Good Good 17.0 30.3 - Grown on slope, old blm stumps to north of tree, staircase 13 ft north 234 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 23.3 17, 16 Good Fair 26.0 29.2 - Codominant at base, likely old stump sprout, south and eastern trunks removed in past, interesting root anatomy at base, retaining wall above the patio is placed at base of trunk, likely structural root impacts at site of retaining wall 235 Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood 39.6 Good Good 35.6 49.5 Landmark Heavily impacted by construction, trunk buried, tree well planted 1 foot around base, lights installed at base 236 Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood 74.0 Good Good 38.1 92.5 Landmark Heavily impacted by construction, trunk buried and backfilled, whole rooting area impacted, 1.5 inch cavity observed on south side of base, 237 Thuja plicata Western Redcedar 23.0 Good Good 15.0 28.8 - Outside of fence line but within property limits, north side of root zone compacted by traffic at base A Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 32.0 Good Good 30.3 40.0 Landmark New fence installed 11 feet from base and root cuts were likely, deadwood on lower third of canopy due to forest grown conditions B Thuja plicata Western Redcedar 11.0 Good Good 12.5 13.8 - New fence installed 5 feet from base, potential impacts on southwest side of tree, C Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 45.0 Good Good 12.9 56.3 Landmark Odd anatomy 10 feet above base, lights strung into tree, tight live canopy, deadwood in lower half of tree due to forest grown conditions D Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 48.0 Good Fair 22.0 60.0 Landmark Off-site tree, tear out of codominant trunk at 15 feet, response wood observed, root cuts for retaining wall observed at 19ft southwest of base E Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood 45.0 Fair Poor 23.9 56.3 Landmark Dieback in canopy, large trunk cavity on north side of trunk at 40 feet to 50 feet, 15 feet from patio F Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 22.0 Good Fair 17.9 27.5 - Suppressed, previously topped at 70 feet, reiteratitice top, 20 ft from patio Tree Solutions, Inc. 2940 Westlake Ave. N #200 Seattle, WA 98109 Page 1 of 1 www.treesolutions.net 206-528-4670 ± 2940 Westlake Ave N #200Seattle, WA 98109206-528-4670 Arborist: Connor McDermott ISA #PN-8704A ISA TRAQ Date: July 7, 2022Wolde, Elias13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton,WA, 98059Parcel # 3424059113Site Map A B C 232 D 233 234 E F 235 236 237 EagleView Technologies, Inc. 0 40 8020 Feet Legend Assessed Trees King County parcels