Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
D_Gainsborough Commons Tree Removal_CAE_RVMP_241018
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT D_Gainsborough Commons Tree Removal_CAE_RVMP_241018 PLANNING DIVISION ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS EVALUATION FORM & DECISION DATE OF DECISION: October 21, 2024 PROJECT NUMBER: LUA24-000227, RVMP CAE PROJECT NAME: Gainsborough Commons Tree Removal PROJECT MANAGER: Mariah Kerrihard, Assistant Planner APPLICANT/CONTACT: Danielle Walsh, SavATree 8419 219th St SE, Woodinville, WA 98072 OWNER: Gainsborough Commons 11516 SE 173rd St, Renton, WA 98055 PROJECT LOCATION: 11516 SE 173rd St, Renton, WA 98055 and 11521 SE 175th St, Renton, WA 98055 (APN 2680650000) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting retroactive approval of a Routine Vegetation Management Permit (RVMP) and a Critical Areas Exemption (CAE) for three (3) high-risk Black Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) trees that have been removed on the subject property. The trees are located at 11521 SE 175th St (APN 2680650000). According to the arborist report, the three (3) proposed trees for removal are twenty four inches (24") in diameter at breast height (dbh) with heights of 100 feet (100’), 120 feet (120’), and 140 feet (140’). The subject property is approximately 412,949 square feet (9.48 acres) in area. The site is situated within the Residential-14 (R-14) zone and within the Benson Community Planning Area. A Routine Vegetation Management Permit is required for the removal of a tree within a critical area for emergency situations. Emergency situations include removal of trees in emergency situations involving immediate danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards or interruption of services provided by a utility. An arborist report, prepared by SavATree, dated July 15, 2024 (Attachment A) was submitted with the application. The arborist report recommends removing three (3) Black Cottonwood trees due to their potential hazard to dwellings and occupants. The Black Cottonwood trees proposed for removal would be considered significant trees. A landmark tree is defined as a tree with a caliper of twenty-four inches (24”) or greater, Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development RVMP and Certificate of Exemption From Critical Areas Regulations Gainsborough Commons Tree Removal LUA24-000227, RVMP CAE Permit Date: October 21, 2024 Page 2 of 5 D_Gainsborough Commons Tree Removal_CAE_RVMP_241018 except for Big Leaf Maples, Black Cottonwoods, and Red Alder trees, which qualify as landmark trees with a caliper of thirty inches (30”) or greater. The trees proposed for removal would be considered significant trees. There were ISA basic tree risk assessment forms, prepared by Danielle Walsh, dated July 11, 2024 (Attachment C) submitted with the application. The report cites the trees are losing branches that have gone through dwelling unit roofs and there are fungal decays present in the trunks with signs of bark loss. In addition, the arborist report also mentions cavities present in the roots of the trees. The applicant proposes tree removal and replacement to mitigate potential damage to infrastructure. The Certified Arborist, Danielle Walsh, recommends removing the three (3) moderate to high-risk significant trees. Based on a comprehensive arborist assessment, Tree #1 poses a significant safety hazard due to a combination of critical structural defects. The tree’s canopy exhibits signs of branch weakness, potentially indicating a high risk of failure. Additionally, the stem or trunk of the tree displays structural instability, further increasing the likelihood of failure. Furthermore, the presence of cavities in the roots and root collar suggests compromised structural integrity and an elevated risk of root failure. Given the severity of these defects, it is recommended by the arborist that Tree #1 be removed to mitigate the potential for serious injury or property damage, as outlined in the ISA tree risk rating matrix (Attachment C). Therefore, the arborist does not believe there is any alternative method for root trenching or root excavation as acceptable alternatives. Tree #1 is located within a critical area. The recommendation was made by the arborist to leave the tree as a 10-foot (10’) habitat snag with debris left in the native area within the critical areas. The arborist assessed the tree and evaluated with guidelines established by the International Society of Arboriculture’s Tree Hazard Evaluation Form. The health assessments were performed without excavation or internal examination such as coring or drilling. CRITICAL AREAS: Coalmine hazards, Type Ns Stream (Big Soos Creek), wetlands, sensitive and protected slopes EXEMPTION JUSTIFICATION: Renton Municipal Code, Section 4-3-050C.3.c.iii Dangerous Trees: Removal of non-native invasive ground cover or weeds listed by King County Noxious Weed Board or other government agency or dangerous trees, as defined in Chapter 4-11 RMC which have been approved by the city and certified dangerous by a licensed landscape architect, or certified arborist, selection of whom to be approved by the city based on the type of information required. Limited to cutting of dangerous trees; such hazardous trees shall be retained as large woody debris in critical areas and/or associated buffers, where feasible. RMC 4-3-050.C.3.c.iii EXEMPT, PROHIBITED AND NONCONFORMING ACTIVITIES: Activities taking place in critical areas and their associated buffers and listed in the "Exempt Activities – Permitted Within Critical Areas and Associated Buffers" table are exempt from the applicable provisions of Section 4-3-050, provided this letter of exemption has been issued. ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA 4-9-195D.4: 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 Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-4-130.H, Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development RVMP and Certificate of Exemption From Critical Areas Regulations Gainsborough Commons Tree Removal LUA24-000227, RVMP CAE Permit Date: October 21, 2024 Page 3 of 5 D_Gainsborough Commons Tree Removal_CAE_RVMP_241018 compliance with tree credit requirements necessitates a minimum rate of 30 tree credits per net acre. The tree risk assessment area, which covers 412,949 square feet (9.48 acres), was located on the subject property (APN 2680650000). According to the arborist report, the ISA Certified Arborist was able to evaluate and assess three (3) trees at the subject property. Tree #1 was 24 inches (24”) in diameter at breast height (dbh) with a height of 100 feet (100’). Tree #2 was a DBH of 24 inches (24”) and a height of 120 feet (120’). Tree #3 was a DBH of 24 inches (24”) and a height of 140 feet (140’). Considering the site’s total area of approximately 9.48 acres and applying the rate of 30 tree credits per acre (30 credits x 9.48 acres = 284 credits), there is a requirement of two hundred and eighty-four (284) tree credits on the subject property. According to the arborist report, the site would comply with the tree credit requirement of the code (Attachment B). Additionally, in line with the arborist’s recommendations, the 948 tree credits proposed for retention within the parcel exceed the minimum tree credit requirements. This compliance is subject to the removal of the three (3) moderate to high-risk trees, and the retention of the 239 remaining preserved trees on the property. YES 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: City of Renton (COR) maps has identified sensitive slopes, a Type Ns stream (Big Soos Creek), a wetland, and an unclassified coal mine hazard onsite. A critical areas exemption certificate is a component of this decision. According to the arborist report (Attachment A), prepared by Danielle Walsh, ISA Certified Arborist, the Black Cottonwood trees have had several broken branches and some of these branches have gone through a resident’s roof. To mitigate the risk of the tree failing towards the existing development to the east, tree maintenance work is necessary. Refer to the Critical Area Exemption Findings below for additional exemption information. Maintenance of the trees aligns with the restrictions for critical areas, as outlined in RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations and RMC 4-3-050, Critical Area Regulations. 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 trees were 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 trees were 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 trees were adjacent to lots with vacant land, detached dwellings and attached dwellings which is a use of equal intensity. Removal of Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development RVMP and Certificate of Exemption From Critical Areas Regulations Gainsborough Commons Tree Removal LUA24-000227, RVMP CAE Permit Date: October 21, 2024 Page 4 of 5 D_Gainsborough Commons Tree Removal_CAE_RVMP_241018 the trees 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: The provided documentation did not indicate that the removal of the trees 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. CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION FINDINGS: The proposed development is consistent with the following findings pursuant to RMC section 4-3-050C.2.d: i. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other provision of the Renton Municipal Code or State or Federal law or regulation; Staff Comments: Removal of the tree is not prohibited by this or any other provision of the Renton Municipal Code or State or Federal law or regulations. Approval of this exemption would act as written permission to allow the removal of the three (3) Black Cottonwood trees on parcel no. 2680650000. ii. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles; Staff Comments: According to the arborist report, it was recommended that the moderate to high-risk tree(s) were removed to prevent future damage to the houses and residents. iii. Impacts are minimized and, where applicable, disturbed areas are immediately restored; Staff Comments: The process is aimed at minimizing impacts on neighboring structures and residents, with a specific focus on tree removal. In accordance with recommendations from the arborist report and city requirements, it is proposed as a condition of approval that the applicant preserve a habitat snag for tree #1 located within a critical area. No additional vegetation removal is proposed. iv. Where water body or buffer disturbance has occurred in accordance with an exemption during construction or other activities, revegetation with native vegetation shall be required; Staff Comments: No additional vegetation besides the three (3) significant trees that were removed. Approximately 10 feet (10’) of the Black Cottonwood tree would be retained as a habitat snag. See Critical Area Exemption Criteria iii for additional information. v. If a hazardous material, activity, and/or facility that is exempt pursuant to this Section has a significant or substantial potential to degrade groundwater quality, then the Administrator may require compliance with the Wellhead Protection Area requirements of this Section otherwise relevant to that hazardous material, activity, and/or facility. Such determinations will be based upon site and/or chemical-specific data. Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development RVMP and Certificate of Exemption From Critical Areas Regulations Gainsborough Commons Tree Removal LUA24-000227, RVMP CAE Permit Date: October 21, 2024 Page 5 of 5 D_Gainsborough Commons Tree Removal_CAE_RVMP_241018 Staff Comments: Not applicable. A hazardous material, activity and/or facility is not a part of the project. DECISION: The Gainsborough Commons Tree Removal, LUA24-000227, RVMP CAE are Approved with Conditions* and subject to the following condition: *CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1. As recommended in the arborist report, the applicant shall reduce the height of Tree #1 within the subject property to ten feet (10’) and the tree shall be left as an environmental habitat snag as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager. SIGNATURE & DATE OF DECISION: ________________________________________ ____________________________________ Matthew Herrera, Planning Director Date 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 November 4, 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: The Routine Vegetation Management Permit shall be valid for one year from the date of issuance. An extension may be granted by the Planning Division for a period of one year upon application by the property owner or manager. Application for such an extension must be made at least thirty (30) days in advance of the expiration of the original permit and shall include a statement of justification for the extension. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Arborist Report, prepared by Danielle Walsh, dated July 15, 2024 Attachment B: Tree Retention and Tree Credit Worksheet Attachment C: ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Forms, dated July 11, 2024 Attachment D: Email Correspondence with Danielle Walsh Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A 10/21/2024 | 4:47 PM PDT SavATree Arborist Report JOB SITE: 11516 Se 173rd St, Renton REGARDING: Gainsborough Commons FROM: Danielle Walsh, SavATree Certified Abrorist ISA# PN-9920A/ ISA Tree Risk Assessor DATE: July 15th 2024 To Whom It May Concern: SCOPE At the request of Gainsborough Commons, I visited the subject address in June 2024 to evaluate the trees after recent storm damage was done to the homes. I identified trees that will become a potential hazard to the residents and structures on the property. I was asked to create a proposal for the removal of the trees. OBSERVATIONS The trees are located with a varied proximity to the homes. They are in decline and pose risk to surrounding targets. DISCUSSION The trees pose a risk to nearby structures and residents in the community. We discussed what could be done to mitigate the risk. RECOMMENDATION To mitigate the potential for injury or damage, I recommend removal of the trees that cannot be saved. Danielle Walsh Commercial Arborist ISA# PN-9920A/ ISA Tree Risk Assessor 8419 219th St SE, Woodinville, WA 98072 Office: 425.906.5800 Cell: 425.218.8543 Email: daniellewalsh@savatree.com ATTACHMENT A RECEIVED07/16/2024 MKerrihard PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A 4,514 376 City of Renton Print map Template This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. None 7/11/2024 Legend 2560128 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Feet Notes 256 WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Information Technology - GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov Tree Sites ALL Tree Sites PLANTED Tree Sites RETIRED Tree Sites VACANT City and County Boundary Addresses Parcels Citations RECEIVED 07/15/2024 MKerrihard PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A gainsborough Map data ©2024 Imagery ©2024 Airbus, Maxar Technologies Report a map error Legend (4) Black Cottonwood (3) Pine Species (1) Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A rentonwa.gov/permitservices | planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov | 425-430-7294 10/24/2023 Page 1 of 3 CITY OF RENTON PERMIT SERVICES TREE RETENTION AND CREDIT WORKSHEET TREE RETENTION REQUIREMENTS A minimum retention of thirty percent (30%) of all significant trees (as defined in RMC 4-11-200) is required on site. Please complete the form below to verify compliance with minimum tree retention requirements. Identify total number of trees 6-inch caliper or greater (or alder or cottonwood trees 8-inch caliper or greater) on site: Trees Trees Trees Trees Trees Trees Required Trees Proposed Deductions – Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: o Trees that are high-risk, as defined in RMC 4-11-200: o Trees within existing and proposed public right-of-way: o Trees within wetlands, streams, very high landslide hazards, protected slopes, and associated buffers: Total remaining trees after deductions: Required tree retention (30%): Identify number of trees proposed for retention: Identify number of trees requested for replacement in lieu of retention skip page 3 if no tree replacement is requested):Trees TREE CREDIT REQUIREMENTS Tree credit requirements apply at a minimum rate of thirty (30) credits per net acre. Complete the form below to determine minimum tree credit requirements. Gross area of property in square feet: Square Feet Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from tree credit calculation: o Existing and proposed public right-of-way: Square Feet o Wetlands, streams, very high landslide hazards, protected slopes, and associated buffers: Square Feet Total excluded area:Square Feet Net land area (after deductions) in square feet:Square Feet Net land area (after deductions) in acres:Acres Required tree credits:Tree Credits Required ATTACHMENT B RECEIVED 07/15/2024 MKerrihard PLANNING DIVISION 239 73 239 0 3 243 284.4 9.5 412,949 412,949 https://www .codepublis hing.com/W A/Renton/# !/Renton04/ Renton041 1/Renton04 11200.html #4-11-200 https://www. codepublishi ng.com/WA/ Renton/#!/R enton04/Re nton04.html https://www .codepublis hing.com/W A/Renton/#! /Renton04/ Renton041 1/Renton04 11200.html #4-11-200 Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A rentonwa.gov/permitservices | planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov | 425-430-7294 10/24/2023 Page 2 of 3 TREE RETENTION AND CREDIT WORKSHEET PROPOSED TREE CREDITS Please complete the table below to calculate the total tree credits proposed for your project. Identify the quantity of trees for each tree category, after deducting trees within excluded areas, as shown in the previous section. TREE SIZE TREE CREDITS TREE QUANTITY TOTAL TREE CREDITS RETAINED TREES Preserved tree 6 – 9” caliper 4 Preserved tree 10 – 12” caliper 5 Preserved tree 12 – 15” caliper 6 Preserved tree 16 – 18” caliper 7 Preserved tree 19 – 21” caliper 8 Preserved tree 22 – 24” caliper 9 Preserved tree 25 – 28” caliper 10 Preserved tree 29 – 32” caliper 11 Preserved tree 33 – 36” caliper 12 Preserved tree 37” caliper and greater 13 NEW TREES New small species tree (30' or less at maturity) 0.25 New medium species tree (30' to 50' at maturity) 1 New large species tree (50' or more at maturity) 2 TREE CREDITS PROPOSED: 948 12 654 12030 109 79288 156 https://www.rento nwa.gov/cms/one. aspx? pageId=17625638 Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A rentonwa.gov/permitservices | planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov | 425-430-7294 10/24/2024 Page 3 of 3 TREE RETENTION AND CREDIT WORKSHEET TREE REPLACEMENT JUSTIFICATION Replacement may be authorized as an alternative to 30% retention provided the removal is the minimum necessary to accomplish the desired purpose and provided the proposal meets one of the following options: a.There are special circumstances related to the size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings of the subject property; or b.The strict application of the code would prevent reasonable use of property; or c.The strict application of the code would prevent compliance with minimum density requirements of the zone; or d.The project is a short plat with four (4) or fewer lots. Please attach a written justification demonstrating compliance with the requirements and criteria as descripted above. TREE REPLACEMENT QUANTITY Tree replacement quantity is determined based on the credit value of the trees proposed for removal. Larger, higher priority trees shall be used for calculation of tree replacement. Identify the quantity of each tree requested to be removed in lieu of 30% retention, based on tree size. List the identification number of each tree, as indicated in the arborist report. TREE SIZE TREE CREDITS TREE QUANTITY TREE INDENTIFICATION # TOTAL TREE CREDITS Tree 37” caliper + 13 Tree 33 – 36” caliper 12 Tree 29 – 32” caliper 11 Tree 25 – 28” caliper 10 Tree 22 – 24” caliper 9 Tree 19 – 21” caliper 8 Tree 16 – 18” caliper 7 Tree 12 – 15” caliper 6 Tree 10 – 12” caliper 5 Tree 6 – 9” caliper 4 REPLACEMENT CREDITS REQUIRED: TREE REPLACEMENT PLANTING Identify the quantity of proposed new replacement trees (minimum size of 2-inch caliper). The total replacement credits proposed should be equal to or greater than the replacement credits required, as shown in the previous section. TREE SIZE TREE CREDITS TREE QUANTITY TOTAL TREE CREDITS New small species tree (30' or less at maturity) 0.25 New medium species tree (30' to 50' at maturity) 1 New large species tree (50' or more at maturity) 2 REPLACEMENT CREDITS PROPOSED: https://www.rento nwa.gov/cms/one. aspx? pageId=17625638 Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A — 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 rate1–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 ATTACHMENT C RECEIVED 08/23/2024MKerrihard PLANNING DIVISION Gainsborough Commons 07-11-2024 5:00pm 11521 175th St, Renton WA 98055 1 1 2 Black Cottonwood 24 100'900 Danielle Walsh ISA# PN-9920A/ ISA Tree Risk n 4 4 n n House n n n n 3 People 3 Car 3 Branches went through roof 4 NE n n n n n n n n n 4 VINES n Loss of branches y 20 80 n 3 nn n n yes n n n n n 10 n15 roof, fungal decay present with bark loss Loosing branches, going through residents Cavities present n n n Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A 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 none moderateCanopy/ branch 2 3 1 1 none80' 3 yes Branch Failure Stem Trunk Failure none none yes high moderate high high high 1 none highroot 2 none 3 yes high high 0tree removal n n Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A — 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 rate1–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 07/15/2024 MKerrihard PLANNING DIVISION Gainsborough Commons 07-11-2024 6:10 pm 11521 175th St, Renton WA 98055 2 1 2 Cottonwood 24 120'750 Danielle Walsh ISA# PN-9920A/ ISA Tree Risk n 4 4 n n House n n n n 3 People 3 Car 3 Branches went through roof 4 NE n n n n n n n n n 4 VINES n Loss of branches y 15 85 n 4 8"nn n n yes Dead branches, missing bark n n n n n 20 n0 roof, fungal decay present with bark loss Loosing branches, going through residents Cavities present n n n Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A 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 X X 2 none moderateCanopy/ branch 2 3 1 1 none80' 3 yes Branch Failure Stem Trunk Failure none none yes high moderate moderate moderate moderate 1 none moderateroot 2 none 3 yes moderate moderate 0tree removal Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A — 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 rate1–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 RECEIVED07/15/2024 MKerrihard PLANNING DIVISION Gainsborough Commons 07-11-2024 6:10 pm 11521 175th St, Renton WA 98055 3 1 2 Cottonwood 24 140'900 Danielle Walsh ISA# PN-9920A/ ISA Tree Risk n n 4 4 n n House n n n n 3 People 3 Car 3 Branches went through roof 4 NE n n n n n n n n 4 VINES n Loss of branches y 15 75 n 3 9"nn n n yes Dead branches, missing bark n n n n n 20 n0 roof, fungal decay present with bark loss Loosing branches, going through residents Cavities present n n n Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A 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 X X 2 none moderateCanopy/ branch 2 3 1 1 none80' 3 yes Branch Failure Stem Trunk Failure none none yes high moderate moderate moderate moderate 1 none moderateroot 2 none 3 yes moderate moderate 0tree removal Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A 1 Mariah Kerrihard From:Mariah Kerrihard Sent:Friday, August 23, 2024 6:36 PM To:Mariah Kerrihard Subject:FW: Tree Removal Permit Gainsborough Commons | 11516 SE 173rd St From: Danielle Walsh <daniellewalsh@savatree.com> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 1:02 PM To: Mariah Kerrihard <MKerrihard@Rentonwa.gov>; Benjamin Capehart <bcapehart@savatree.com> Subject: Re: Tree Removal Permit Gainsborough Commons | 11516 SE 173rd St Good afternoon, I am looping in my assistant Ben whom went out to the site and took additional photos as requested. My recommendation for a wildlife snag would be 10’ for one of the trees with debris left in the native area. Two of the trees aren’t located in a critical area. I can see if the resident has pictures of the damaged roof prior to repairs. I witnessed it during my evaluation. Danielle Walsh Sent from my iPhone On Jul 29, 2024, at 12:40 PM, Mariah Kerrihard <MKerrihard@rentonwa.gov> wrote: Danielle, I have a couple of other clarifying questions; I will include them in this email below. 1. For the trees proposed for removal – What type of Cottonwood tree are they? 2. Within the arborist report there is no mention of the critical areas on site – based on the mapped critical areas they may need to be left as habitat snags. Is there a recommended height based upon your review for a habitat snag? (See below for COR maps reference of the parcel – circled in red may be where the tree removal is proposed) CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. You don't often get email from mkerrihard@rentonwa.gov. Learn why this is important RECEIVED PLANNING DIVISION 07/29/24 Mkerrihard Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A 2 Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A 3 3. Regarding the options for mitigation that were mentioned within the report can you provide those notes for the report? Thank you, MARIAH KERRIHARD | ASSISTANT PLANNER City of Renton | CED | Planning Division | MK 1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 Virtual Permit Center | Schedule a Virtual 15-minute MeeƟng (425) 430-7294 | planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov From: Mariah Kerrihard Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 11:25 AM To: Danielle Walsh <daniellewalsh@savatree.com> Subject: RE: Tree Removal Permit Gainsborough Commons | 11516 SE 173rd St Hello Danielle, My name is Mariah Kerrihard, and I will be the assigned planner for this Routine Vegetation Management Permit and Critical Area Exemption. I will begin reviewing the submittal documents, and I will attach the invoice to this email. Upon first look, I read that a branch had gone through a roof, are there any images of that damage or evidence of that I can provide in the report? Thank you, MARIAH KERRIHARD | ASSISTANT PLANNER City of Renton | CED | Planning Division | MK 1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 Virtual Permit Center | Schedule a Virtual 15-minute MeeƟng (425) 430-7294 | planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov Docusign Envelope ID: EFC43AA4-C58A-42C0-B57D-5F847D00BC2A