HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_Ngo_Tree_Removal_RVMP_Final_v2DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
D_Ngo_Tree_Removal_RVMP_Final_v2
PLANNING DIVISION
ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT
EVALUATION FORM & DECISION
DATE OF DECISION: September 12, 2024
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA24-000261, RVMP
PROJECT NAME: Ngo Tree Removal
PROJECT MANAGER: Nichole Perry, Associate Planner
APPLICANT/OWNER: Michael Ngo and Nhung Nguyen
1606 Kennewick Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056
PROJECT LOCATION: 1606 Kennewick Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 (APN 1828700140)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Michael Ngo, is requesting a Routine Vegetation Management Permit
(RVMP) to remove one (1) Douglas fir tree (Pseudotsuga menziesii) located at 1606
Kennewick Ave NE (APN 1828700140) within the Residential-8 (R-8) zone and within
the Kennydale Community Planning Area. The subject property is approximately 7,284
square feet (0.17 acres). According to the arborist, the proposed tree for removal is a
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and has a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 40
inches (40") and a height of 110 feet (110’).
An Arborist Report, prepared by Alan Haywood, dated July 29, 2024, was included with
the application (Attachment A). The report proposes the removal of a high-risk Douglas
fir tree. A combination of factors classifies this tree as a high risk, as outlined in the ISA
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form rating matrix (Attachment B). According to the
arborist's report, the tree exhibits signs of possible root disease and internal trunk
decay with excessive pitch, noticeable swelling, and flat siding on the back side of the
trunk. In addition, the top 15 feet (15’) of the tree is dead and there are large,
overextended branches which pose a hazard in high wind. Tree photos are included
that showcase these symptoms (Attachment C). Therefore, the arborist believes the
best method is to remove the tree due to its dead top and other features which may
indicate a more serious issue. Removal of the tree would mitigate the risk of hazards
with the current presence of defects.
CRITICAL AREA: None.
Docusign Envelope ID: 2FADDD62-C323-479F-A737-4B566C682373
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit
Ngo Tree Removal LUA24-000261, RVMP
Permit Date: September 12, 2024 Page 2 of 4
D_Ngo_Tree_Removal_RVMP_Final_v2
GENERAL REVIEW CRITERIA 4-9-195D4:
YES 1. The lot shall comply with minimum tree density requirements pursuant to RMC 4-4-130,
Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations.
Staff Comments: In accordance with RMC 4-4-130.H, compliance with tree credit
requirements necessitates a minimum rate of 30 tree credits per net acre. The tree risk
assessment area, which covers 7,284 square feet (0.17 acres), was located on the subject
property (APN 1828700140). As specified by the ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
(Attachment B), the tree proposed for removal has a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 40
inches (40”). Considering the site’s total area of approximately 0.17 net acres and applying
the rate of 30 credits per acre (30 credits x 0.17 acres = 5.1 credits), there is a requirement
of five (5) tree credits on the subject property. As stated in the arborist report and confirmed
with site plan and photos, there is a cherry tree with a caliper of 19 inches (19”), which
equates to eight (8) tree credits. The retainment of the cherry tree within the parcel exceeds
the minimum tree credit requirements. This compliance is subject to the removal of the one
(1) high-risk Douglas fir tree, and the retention of the one (1) preserved tree on the property
(Attachment C).
N/A 2. The land clearing and tree removal shall be consistent with restrictions for critical areas,
pursuant to RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations, and RMC 4-3-
050, Critical Areas Regulations.
Staff Comments: Not applicable. The subject lot is not mapped with applicable critical
areas.
YES 3. Removal of a landmark tree shall meet the review criteria for removal off a landmark tree,
pursuant to RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations.
i. The tree is determined to be a high-risk tree; or
ii. The tree is causing obvious physical damage to buildings (over 200 square feet),
driveways, parking lots, or utilities, and it can be demonstrated to the
Administrator’s satisfaction that no reasonable alternative to tree removal exist,
including tree root pruning, tree root barriers, tree cabling, or preventative
maintenance, such as cleaning leaf debris, deadwood removal, or
directional/clearance pruning; or
iii. Removal of tree(s) to provide solar access to buildings incorporating active solar
devices. Windows are solar devices only when they are south facing and include
special storage elements to distribute heat energy; or
iv. The Administrator determines the removal is necessary to achieve a specific and
articulable purpose or goal of this Title.
Staff Comments: The removal of this landmark tree meets criterion i, the tree has been
determined to be a high-risk tree per the ISA Certified Arborist’s evaluation. The applicant
is requesting the removal of one (1) landmark tree — Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii).
The tree has a 40-inch (40”) DBH (Attachment B). A Routine Vegetation Management
Permit is mandatory for the removal of a landmark tree, not associated with a land
development permit. As stated by the arborist, the tree poses a risk and meets the criteria
for removal. Based on the arborist's assessment, the tree exhibits several signs of decline,
including a dead top, excessive pitch accumulation, swelling, and flattening of the trunk
indicating possible disease and internal trunk decay. The arborist has outlined mitigation
options to address the tree’s health and potential hazards. First, the arborist maintains
Docusign Envelope ID: 2FADDD62-C323-479F-A737-4B566C682373
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit
Ngo Tree Removal LUA24-000261, RVMP
Permit Date: September 12, 2024 Page 3 of 4
D_Ngo_Tree_Removal_RVMP_Final_v2
removal is the best option due to its dead top and other features that may indicate a more
serious problem. If removal is denied, the arborist recommends for the dead top to be
removed, cutting back to the live branches, and to have the dead top examined for
infestation and to monitor the tree. After this, if more dieback occurs, the arborist
recommends a Level 3 Tree Risk Assessment to determine any decay or disease which may
then indicate removal.
N/A 4. Street frontage and parking lot trees and landscaping shall be preserved unless otherwise
approved by the Administrator.
Staff Comments: Not Applicable. The tree is not a part of street frontage, parking lot or
landscaping trees.
N/A 5. The land clearing and tree removal shall not remove any landscaping or protected trees
required as part of a land development permit.
Staff Comments: Not Applicable. The tree was not required as part of a land development
permit for landscaping or tree requirements. Neither street frontage nor parking
landscaping is proposed to be removed.
YES 6. The land clearing and tree removal shall maintain visual screening and buffering between
land uses of differing intensity, consistent with applicable landscaping and setback
provisions.
Staff Comments: The tree is adjacent to lots with detached dwellings and is a use of equal
intensity. Removal of the tree would not remove required visual screening and buffering
between land uses of differing intensity.
YES 7. The land clearing and tree removal shall not create or contribute to a hazardous condition,
such as increased potential for blowdown, pest infestation, disease, or other problems that
may result from selectively removing trees and other vegetation from a lot.
Staff Comments: Provided documentation did not indicate that the removal of the tree
would create or contribute to a hazardous condition.
N/A 8. The land clearing and tree removal shall be consistent with the requirement of the
Shoreline Master Program, pursuant to RMC 4-3-090F1, Vegetation Conservation and
RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations.
Staff Comments: Not applicable. The property is not located within shoreline jurisdiction.
DECISION: The Ngo Tree Removal, LUA24-000261, RVMP is Approved .
SIGNATURE & DATE OF DECISION:
________________________________________ ____________________________________
Matthew Herrera, Planning Director Date
Docusign Envelope ID: 2FADDD62-C323-479F-A737-4B566C682373
9/12/2024 | 4:08 PM PDT
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit
Ngo Tree Removal LUA24-000261, RVMP
Permit Date: September 12, 2024 Page 4 of 4
D_Ngo_Tree_Removal_RVMP_Final_v2
RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that the decision be reopened
by the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable
prior the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the
reconsideration request, if the approval body finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will
be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal
appeal within the 14-day appeal time frame.
APPEALS: Appeals of permit issuance must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on September 26, 2024. An
appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Appeals
must be submitted electronically to the City Clerk at cityclerk@rentonwa.gov or delivered to City Hall 1st floor
Lobby Hub Monday through Friday. The appeal fee, normally due at the time an appeal is submitted, will be
collected at a future date if your appeal is submitted electronically. The appeal submitted in person may be paid
on the first floor in our Finance Department. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4 -8-110 and
additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office,
cityclerk@rentonwa.gov.
EXPIRATION: One (1) year from the date of decision (date signed).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Arborist Report, prepared by Alan Haywood, dated July 29, 2024
Attachment B: ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form, dated June 28, 2024
Attachment C: Site Plan and Tree Photos, dated September 11, 2024
Docusign Envelope ID: 2FADDD62-C323-479F-A737-4B566C682373
1
Alan Haywood
Arborist & Horticulturist, LLC.
Michael Ngo
1606 Kennewick Ave NE
Renton, WA 98056
310-634-9396
July 29, 2024
Thank you for contacting me about your tree concern at your residence at 1606 Kennewick Ave
NE in Renton, Washington. I am sending you this simple report as a follow up to the site visit I
made on June 28, 2024, to look at the large Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) tree in your
backyard. You explained to me that you were the new owner of the property and that you were
concerned about the tree, because it had a dead top. You asked me to assess the tree and
determine if it was unhealthy or unsafe. You expressed that you would like to have it removed if
it posed a threat to your house.
When I arrived at your house, I found that the large Douglas fir and a fruiting cherry tree
(Prunus avium) were the only two trees on the property.
I examined the tree using the standard visual tree assessment method, as outlined in the Tree Risk
Assessment Manual published by the International Society of Arboriculture. This is considered a
Level 2 Basic Tree Risk Assessment. All of my observations were made at ground level. I did
not climb the trees, excavate any soil, or perform any invasive tests. I used a Diameter tape to
measure the diameter at breast height (DBH – taken at 4.5’ above ground level), binoculars to
observe the upper crown of the tree and a rubber mallet to sound the tree’s trunk.
The tree risk assessment methodology is based on three factors:
- How likely is the tree, or part of the tree, to fail?
- How likely is the tree, or tree part, to hit a target of value when it fails?
- How likely is the tree, or tree part, to damage the target if it hits it?
Tree risk is categorized as Low, Moderate, High or Extreme. A normal healthy tree is generally
considered low risk, because it is not likely to fail. It is the presence of defects in the tree that
increases the level of risk. Even normal, healthy, low risk trees can fail in extreme weather
conditions. High risk trees are usually considered hazards and extreme risk trees are always
hazards. The occupancy of the target is also factored into the risk rating.
RECEIVED
08/26/2024 nperry
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 2FADDD62-C323-479F-A737-4B566C682373
2
I measured the tree and found it to be 40” DBH and 110’ tall, with a crown spread of 50’ and a
Live Crown Ratio (LCR) of 70%. The top 15’ of the tree was dead. It appeared to have died
fairly recently, as there were still dead needles (foliage) present. Dead needles usually persist on
a tree for several months before falling off.
There was also oozing pitch on the lower trunk and one side of the lower trunk had noticeable
swelling. The back side of the trunk (facing away from the house) was kind of flat, as opposed to
round. This indicates slower growth on that side of the tree.
Based on this Level 2 Basic Tree Risk Assessment, I rate this as a High Risk tree. The top could
break out during a high wind. It will become more likely to break out as time goes on as it dries
out and becomes more brittle. If it lasts long enough, it will decay and get soft and easily break.
This risk can be abated by pruning off the dead top, so removal isn’t warranted just because the
top is dead.
The question with this tree is, “Why did the top die?” Also, “Why is the trunk oozing pitch, why
is its trunk swollen and why does its trunk have a flat side?” The dead top is obvious, but why
did it die? The top may have died as a result of drought or a bark beetle infestation. Drought
seems unlikely because the rest of the tree below the dead top looks fine, with no thinning of
foliage. A dead top due to drought is possible, but the tree would usually have signs of stress
throughout and this one doesn’t. Bark beetles are possible, but they usually attack lower on the
trunk, where the trunk is thicker. A stem canker is also possible. Cytospora canker is known to
occur on Douglas firs. If it was a canker, pruning the diseased portion off the tree is advised .
This would keep the disease from spreading.
The swelling of the trunk and the pitch oozing would not be related to a canker disease or from
drought. Swelling can be caused by internal decay and the tree’s response to strengthen the trunk
where it is weak. A flat side and slow growth on one side of a tree can be due to root stunting on
that side of the tree. This can be from physical injury to the roots, competition from other trees
on that side of the tree, poor soil on that side of the tree or a root disease. It would take an
internal investigation of the tree to determine this.
Pitch is a defense mechanism of the tree. It produces pitch when it has been injured. The pitch
helps to prevent disease infection and insect infestation. There is usually some sort of wound
associated with pitch. If nothing is visible on the outside of the trees, then the wound can be on
the inside. Internal cracks in a tree can cause pitch production, as can old injuries with pockets of
dead wood that have been callused over. A root disease, such as Armillaria, can cause pitching
on a tree. It can also cause a flat side to develop. This would also take an internal investigation to
determine.
Docusign Envelope ID: 2FADDD62-C323-479F-A737-4B566C682373
3
The 40” DBH Douglas fir is classified as a Landmark tree by Renton City Code. Landmark trees
can only be removed if:
- They are determined to be a High Risk by an ISA Certified Arborist with the Tree Risk
Assessment Qualification or,
- If they are causing physical damage to buildings or infrastructure or,
- If they block active solar collection devices or,
- If they are in conflict with a City goal or purpose.
The cherry tree was not carefully assessed, as it was not part of the assignment. I did note that
the tree was healthy and bearing ripe cherries when I was there. You later measured the tree per
my instructions and found it to be 19” DBH.
My recommendation for this tree is as follows:
1. Propose removal of the tree due to its dead top and other features that may indicate a
more serious problem.
2. If the City denies the removal proposal, have the tree climbed and the dead top removed,
cutting it back to a live branch or branches. Have the dead top examined for cankers, bark
beetles, etc. Continue to monitor the tree. If further dieback occurs, have the tree
reassessed. Or,
3. Have a qualified arborist perform a Level 3 Tree Risk Assessment, where the lower trunk
is examined and the roots on the flat side, to determine if there is any decay or disease
present.
This assessment is based on the information I gathered on the day of my site visit. I attest that all
of the information within this report is accurate and true, to the best of my knowledge. It does not
provide any guarantees or implications that the condition of the trees on this site won’t change
over time. All trees eventually fail and even sound, healthy trees fa il during severe weather
events, such as high winds, heavy rain or snow, or ice. A tree risk rating is usually considered
valid for a one-year period, unless otherwise noted.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about this report or have further need of
my services.
Sincerely,
Alan Haywood
ISA Certified Arborist/Municipal Specialist – PN 0330-AM
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
ASCA Qualified Tree and Plant Appraiser WSNLA Certified Professional Horticulturist - 2332
ecoPRO Certified Sustainable Landscape Professional – 6017
WSDA Licensed Pesticide Consultant – 7627
PO Box 1086 Enumclaw, WA 98022 253-259-4474 alan@haywoodarborist.com
Docusign Envelope ID: 2FADDD62-C323-479F-A737-4B566C682373
4
Docusign Envelope ID: 2FADDD62-C323-479F-A737-4B566C682373
— Trunk —
— Crown and Branches —
— Roots and Root Collar —
Unbalanced crown LCR ______%
Dead twigs/branches ____% overall Max. dia. ______
Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ______
Over-extended branches
Pruning history
Crown cleaned
Reduced
Flush cuts
Thinned
Topped
Other
Raised
Lion-tailed
Cracks ___________________________________ Lightning damage
Codominant __________________________________ Included bark
Weak attachments ___________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ.
Previous branch failures _______________ Similar branches present
Dead/Missing bark Cankers/Galls/Burls Sapwood damage/decay
Conks Heartwood decay ________________________
Response growth
Collar buried/Not visible Depth________ Stem girdling
Dead Decay Conks/Mushrooms
Ooze Cavity _____% circ.
Cracks Cut/Damaged roots Distance from trunk _______
Root plate lifting Soil weakness
Response growth
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Dead/Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/color
Codominant stems Included bark Cracks
Sapwood damage/decay Cankers/Galls/Burls Sap ooze
Lightning damage Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms
Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper
Lean _____° Corrected? ________________________________
Response growth
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Time frame_____________ Tools used______________________________
Target Assessment
Ta
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
t
o
m
o
v
e
t
a
r
g
e
t
?
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
?
1
2
3
4
History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____
Site changes None Grade change Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________
Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________
Prevailing wind direction ______ Common weather Strong winds Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low Normal High Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____%
Pests _____________________________________________________ Abiotic ________________________________________________________
Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large
Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss _____________________
Recent or planned change in load factors _________________________________________________________________________________________
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy rate
1–rare
2 – occasional
3 – frequent
4 – constant
Likelihood of failureLikelihood of failure
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Page 1 of 2
Site Factors
Target zone
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
wi
t
h
i
n
1
x
H
t
.
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Improbable Possible Probable Imminent Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
RECEIVED
08/26/2024 nperry
PLANNING DIVISION
Michael Ngo 6-28-24 4:30 pm
1606 Kennewick Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 1 1 2
Douglas fir - Pseudotsuga menziesii 40"110'50'
Alan Haywood - PN 0330AM 1 yr Diameter Tape, binoculars, rubber mallet
Large, overextended branches fail in the wind, Whole tree failure from root diseas
10
Winter storms
No No4Owner's House 4
Neighbor's House to the South 4
Neighbor's House to the North 4
Unknown - probably lost branches
n
4
S - SW
n 90
Root diseases, bark beetles, adelgids,
n n
n
n
n
No
No
70
n
East
No
No
n
Dead top
n
5%Yes
trunk
Excessive pitch, swelling and flat side of
side on trunk
Possible root disease causing pitch and flat
n n
n n
Docusign Envelope ID: 2FADDD62-C323-479F-A737-4B566C682373
1
2
3
4
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impacting Target
Very low Low Medium High
Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely
Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely
Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely
Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
n
u
m
b
e
r
Pa
r
t
s
i
z
e
Fa
l
l
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
Target
protection
Conditions
of concern
Failure Impact Failure & Impact
(from Matrix 1)
Likelihood
Im
p
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
Im
m
i
n
e
n
t
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Ve
r
y
l
o
w
Un
l
i
k
e
l
y
Ne
g
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
Me
d
i
u
m
Li
k
e
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Pr
o
b
a
b
l
e
Lo
w
So
m
e
w
h
a
t
Mi
n
o
r
Hi
g
h
Ve
r
y
l
i
k
e
l
y
Se
v
e
r
e
Consequences
Risk
rating
of part
(from
Matrix 2)Tree part
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
N e g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe
Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme
Likely Low Moderate High High
Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate
Unlikely Low Low Low Low
Data Final Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________
Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________
Notes, explanations, descriptions
Mitigation options _____________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme Work priority 1 2 3 4
Overall residual risk Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists – 2013
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Ta
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
2 No
HighTop
30'
110'60'2
60'3
1
6"1 No100'
3 No
dead
Roots and
lower
trunk
Possible disease 40"No
No
No
High
High
Mod
Mod
Mod
50'1 No ModBranchesLarge and over
extended
25'
2 No
3 No
Low
Low
NoneRemove tree
Prune off top
Prune off top and shorten long branches
Moderate
Moderate
n n
n
n n Annual
Possible root disease and internal trunk decay
Trunk internal and roots underground
Docusign Envelope ID: 2FADDD62-C323-479F-A737-4B566C682373
ATTACHMENT C
RECEIVED
09/11/2024 nperry
PLANNING DIVISION
Docusign Envelope ID: 2FADDD62-C323-479F-A737-4B566C682373
Docusign Envelope ID: 2FADDD62-C323-479F-A737-4B566C682373
Docusign Envelope ID: 2FADDD62-C323-479F-A737-4B566C682373
Docusign Envelope ID: 2FADDD62-C323-479F-A737-4B566C682373
Docusign Envelope ID: 2FADDD62-C323-479F-A737-4B566C682373
Docusign Envelope ID: 2FADDD62-C323-479F-A737-4B566C682373
Docusign Envelope ID: 2FADDD62-C323-479F-A737-4B566C682373