HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_Kennydale Elementary Tree Removal_v2_20241216_FINALDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
D_Kennydale Elementary Tree Removal_v2
PLANNING DIVISION
ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT
EVALUATION FORM & DECISION
DATE OF DECISION: December 16, 2024
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA24-000368, RVMP
PROJECT NAME: Kennydale Elementary Tree Removal
PROJECT MANAGER: Ashley Wragge, Assistant Planner
APPLICANT/ CONTACT: Laci Young
A Plus Tree, LLC
6412 S 900 E Suite 200, Murray, UT 84121
OWNER: Renton School District #403
300 SW 7th St, Renton, WA 98057
PROJECT LOCATION: 1700 NE 28th St, Renton, WA 98056 (APN 3342103310)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a Routine Vegetation Management Permit (RVMP) to
remove six (6) Lombardy poplar trees (populus nigra ‘Italica’) located at 1700 NE 28th St (APN 3342103310). The
subject property is within the Residential-8 (R-8) zone and the Kennydale Community Planning Area. The subject
parcel is approximately 163,785 square feet (3.76 acres) and the Kennydale Elementary School campus is
approximately 219,453 square feet (5.04 acres).
An Arborist Report, prepared by A Plus Tree, LLC, dated August 27, 2024 (Attachment A) was submitted with the
application. In the report, the arborist proposes the removal of six (6) Lombardy poplar landmark trees located
between the Kennydale Elementary School parking lot and the Interstate 405 (I-405) Highway off-ramp due to their
hazardous condition (Attachment D). All the poplar trees (populus nigra ‘Italica’) are 24.2 to 57.9 inches (24.2”
57.9”) in diameter at breast height (dbh) and approximately one hundred feet (100’) tall according to the ISA Basic
Tree Risk Assessment Form (Attachment B). The arborist describes the trees as partially dead or decaying due to
the construction of a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) sound wall in the critical root zone.
The arborist recommends removal of the short-lived trees (50 75 years) due to the potential damage the dry and
brittle branches pose to a highly trafficked parking lot that is 10 feet (10’) away.
CRITICAL AREA: Well 5A Wellhead Protection Area Zone 2
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 of 30 tree credits per net acre. The subject parcel,
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit Kennydale Elementary Tree Removal LUA24-000368, RVMP
Permit Date: December 16, 2024 Page 2 of 5
D_Kennydale Elementary Tree Removal_v2
which is approximately 163,785 square feet (3.76 acres), is located at 1700 NE 28th St (APN
3342103310). Based on the property size, 113 tree credits are required to meet the
minimum tree density requirement (30 tree credits/acre x 3.76 acres = 112.8 credits).
The Tree Retention and Credit Worksheet (Attachment C) indicates that 36 trees are
intended to be retained totaling in 178 tree credits. The retention of the 36 trees and 178
tree credits would maintain the minimum tree density for the subject property following
the removal of the six (6) hazardous trees.
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: As seen on the City of Renton (COR) maps, this property is located within
the Well 5A Wellhead Protection Area Zone 2, a part of the aquifer protection area (APA)
designated to safeguard groundwater resources. The Renton Municipal Code (RMC) in
section 4-11-010 defines an APA as the portion of an aquifer within the zone of capture and
recharge area for a well or wellfield owned or operated by the city. While developments
and land clearing activities within APA zones are subject to certain restrictions to protect
groundwater from contamination, the proposed tree removal does not involve
developments or land clearing activities; therefore, the proposed action is consistent with
restrictions for critical areas.
YES 3. Removal of a landmark tree shall meet the review criteria for removal off landmark tree,
pursuant to RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations.
Staff Comments: According to RMC 4-4-130F.2.c.i, a landmark tree may be removed if it is
determined to be high risk. In RMC 4-11-200, a high-risk tree is classified as such if it has a
probable or imminent likelihood of failure; and a medium or high likelihood of impact; and
the consequences of failure for the tree are significant or severe. The Lombardy poplar trees
proposed for removal are declining trees due to extensive and significant root damage from
the construction of a WSDOT sound wall and are recommended for removal by the arborist.
In the completed ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Forms (Attachment C), the arborist states
that all the trees have a probable likelihood of failure and significant or severe
consequences of failure. The trees are likely to fail since this species have poor adaptation
to root damage and the decline is noticeable and the arborist asserts that the decline is
likely due to the installation of a sound wall adjacent to an exit ramp for I-405. This shows
the continued decline is expected and failure is probable. The location of the poplar trees is
also the primary factor as to the significant or severe potential consequences of failure.
These trees line the property in an area that is commonly frequented by staff, visitors, and
children at the school. The arborist gives a variety of impact likelihood for the six (6)
different poplar trees with Trees 4 through 6 not meeting this portion of the criteria. Trees
1 through 3 explicitly meet the medium or high likelihood of impact.
The lower rating on Trees 4 through 6 are due to them being slightly further away from the
areas most frequented by staff, visitors, and children and therefore the arborist rated the
likelihood of impact to be lower. Despite this, staff concurs that all the trees should be
removed due to their failing and worsening state. As the trees decline, the likelihood of
unexpected failures is anticipated to rise. Thus, continuing to maintain declining trees that
have no remedy offered by the arborist other than removal is untenable given these trees
are located on a school yard. This leads staff to concur with the arborist that the six (6)
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit Kennydale Elementary Tree Removal LUA24-000368, RVMP
Permit Date: December 16, 2024 Page 3 of 5
D_Kennydale Elementary Tree Removal_v2
trees proposed for removal should be removed due to criteria i in RMC 4-4-130F.2.c being
satisfied for Trees 1 through 3 and the majority of the criteria for Trees 4 through 6 and
meeting the intent of the remaining criteria outlined.
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 subject trees are not a street frontage tree nor are
they parking lot trees. Neither street frontage nor parking landscape is proposed to be
removed.
YES 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: These six (6) poplar trees appear to be identified for tree retention in the
land development permit, Kennydale Elementary School Reconstruction (LUA05-004, SA-H,
CU-H). While the land use permit appears to identify these trees for retention as part of the
construction of the new Kennydale Elementary School, these trees should be removed due
to meeting the criteria for high-risk trees and their worsening nature noted by the arborist.
It is unclear why these perimeter trees were retained in the land use permit; it is likely
because the trees provide a sound, visual, and physical barrier between the school and a
high-speed highway exit. The sound and physical barrier are accomplished with the
installation of the sound wall, but it is an undesirable sight for visual screening. Tree
replacement will be expanded upon in the following criterion, as their removal creates
undesirable visual screening and their retention was a requirement the Kennydale
Elementary School Reconstruction.
YES, IF
CONDITION
OF
APPROVAL
IS MET
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: This property is located in the Residential-8 (R-8) zone with a Commercial
Neighborhood (CN) zone abutting to the north and Interstate-405 (I-405) to the west. The
trees that are proposed for removal line the edge of the property that abuts the I-405
highway exit and the removal of these six (6) trees would reduce the visual screening and
buffer they provide. While the sound wall that was installed by WSDOT functions to reduce
the traffic noise levels in the area, the visual and physical barrier offered by trees is a more
desirable aesthetic screening between the land intensities. These trees were likely retained
in the land use development permit LUA05-004 due to their perimeter screening benefits.
To keep a visual screening and buffering between I-405 and the subject property, and to
continue the likely intention behind retaining these trees for the land use development
permit, staff recommends as a condition of approval, that the applicant shall provide a
landscaping plan to fill the visual screening gap that would be created with the removal of
the six (6) Lombardy poplar trees. The replacement trees shall be a minimum two-inch (2”)
caliper in size. The plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for
review and approval; in conjunction, within six (6) months of the date of decision, the
applicant shall finish implementing the approved landscaping plan and notify the Current
Planning Project Manager to complete a final landscape inspection.
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.
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit Kennydale Elementary Tree Removal LUA24-000368, RVMP
Permit Date: December 16, 2024 Page 4 of 5
D_Kennydale Elementary Tree Removal_v2
Staff Comments: The removal of the hazardous trees, as recommended by the arborist,
would not create a hazardous condition. Instead, it would mitigate potential damage to
the school property or its users.
YES 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 Kennydale Elementary Tree Removal, LUA24-000368, RVMP is Approved with Conditions*
*CONDITION OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall provide a landscaping plan to fill the visual screening gap that would be created with
the removal of the six (6) Lombardy poplar trees. The replacement trees shall be a minimum two-inch
(2”) caliper in size. The plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and
approval; in conjunction, within six (6) months of the date of decision, the applicant shall finish
implementing the approved landscaping plan and notify the Current Planning Project Manager to
complete a final landscape inspection.
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 December 30, 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
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
12/16/2024 | 2:04 PM PST
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit Kennydale Elementary Tree Removal LUA24-000368, RVMP
Permit Date: December 16, 2024 Page 5 of 5
D_Kennydale Elementary Tree Removal_v2
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 A Plus Tree, LLC, dated August 27, 2024
Attachment B: ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Forms, dated July 3, 2024
Attachment C: Tree Retention and Tree Credit Worksheet
Attachment D: Kennydale Elementary Tree Removal Site Plan
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
6412 S. 900 E.
STE 200
Murray, UT 94121
Arborist Report
Paul Tibbets
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN 7249BM
Renton School District
Kennydale Elementary School
1700 NE 28th Street
Renton, WA 98056
ArborPLUS Proposal 335670
Background Information
On August 27, 2024, A Plus Tree was contacted by Renton School District to inspect and evaluate
several Lombardy Poplar trees that divide the space between Kennydale Elementary School
parking lot and the 405 Freeway’s off ramp.
Assignment
A Plus Tree was asked to inspect and evaluate 6 Lombardy Poplar trees with DBHs between 24 –
42 inches. Trees were planted between the school’s parking lot and the 405 freeway off-ramp
sound wall.
Testing and Analysis
This arborist report is based on a Basic Visual Level 1 inspection of the tree and the nearby
surrounding. There was no soil, tree, leaf or root sampling taken for testing.
Observations
The trees are a Lombardy Poplar (Populus nigra ‘italica’) species. Each tree has at least 75% foliage
dieback and loss. The school’ parking lot is less than 10 feet away from the trees’ trunks. This is a
highly trafficked area Monday – Friday, early in the morning and after school hours.
Discussion
Attachment A
RECEIVED
11/21/2024 AWragge
PLANNING DIVISION
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
Lombardy Poplars are often planted because they are a fast-growing tree with an upright canopy.
The trees are great for creating wind screens and privacy screens. They require very little
maintenance.
The downside of Lombardy Poplars is that they are short lived trees (50-75 years). The decline for
these trees may have been the of the construction of the retaining wall has resulted in massive root
damage in the critical root zone. This species has a tendency of root rot and poor adaptation to root
damage, tree parts are within striking distance of a frequently occupied parking lot during school
hours. The dieback branches become very brittle and will fail, especially during high winds and
strong storm conditions.
Recommendation
The recommendation is that the trees be removed.
Disclaimer
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training and experience to examine
trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the
risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the
arborist or seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree.
Trees are living organisms that may fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often
hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe,
or fail for that matter, under all circumstances, or for a given period of time. Likewise, remedial
treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Treatments, pruning and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the
arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, sight lines, disputes between
neighbors, landlord-tenant matters, etc. Arborists cannot take such issues into account unless
complete and accurate information is given to the arborist. The person hiring the arborist accepts full
responsibility for authorizing the recommended treatment or remedial measures.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near a tree is to accept some degree
of risk. The only way to eliminate all risks is to eliminate all trees.
This consultant does not verify the safety or health of any tree at any time. Construction activities are
hazardous to trees and cause many short and long-term injuries, which can cause trees to die or
topple.
Even when every tree is inspected, inspection involves sampling; therefore, some areas of decay or
weakness may be missed. Weather, winds and the magnitude and direction of storms are not
predictable, and some failures may still occur despite the best application of high professional
standards.
I hereby declare that the above observations, discussion and recommendation are true to the best of
my knowledge, belief and professional opinion. In addition, A Plus Tree is held harmless of any of
these opinions from future tree failures.
Supporting Photos and/or
Documents
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
Lombardy Poplar
Populus nigra ‘italica’
DBH – 24 – 42 plus inches
Health Rating – 2 (very poor)
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
— 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
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________
Target Assessment
T
a
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description Target protection
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
?
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1x
H
t
.
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
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/Biotic_________________________________________________ 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 expected change in load factors _______________________________________________________________________________________ _
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy
rate
1–rare
2 – occasional
3 – frequent
4 – constant
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Page 1 of 2
Site Factors
Target zone
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
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
Condition(s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance
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
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Attachment B
RECEIVED
11/21/2024 AWragge
PLANNING DIVISION
Kennydale Elementary School 07/03/2024 10:15 AM
1700 NE 28th St. Renton, WA 98056 1 1 1
Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra ‘Italica’)33.5 inch 100 feet 30 feet
Daniel Potts WE-11534A, TRAQ diameter tape 3 years
parked cars in school parking lot none 4 3
Moving cars on NE 30th Street on ramp none 4 3
pedestrians in school parking lot and road none 4 4 2
none n
n sound wall construction within tree’s lifetime
Southwest, northwest n n n n Periods of high wind and rain throughout the year, occasional snow/ice in winter
n 25 75
probable root damage from sound wall installation
n dead branches decaying and failing during inclement weather
n n
n n
25
n 75 16 in.
Branch or stem failure from decay
16 inch diameter, 10-60 foot long piece40-90 feet
n
n
n n
0
Dead portions of trunk decaying and failing
16 inch diameter, 50-60 feet long40-90 feet
n
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
Target
(Target number
or description)
Tree part Condition(s)
of concern Risk
rating
(from
Matrix 2)
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
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
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
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Negligible 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
1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme
Overall residual risk None Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Mitigation options
Dead
branches,
sections of
stem
1 dead
branches,
sections of
stem
Tree parts are dead.
l l l l moderate
2 l l l l moderate
3 l l l l low
Tree is declining and is not expected to survive, due to extensive root damage
related to construction of sound wall.
removal none
n
n none needed
n n
n
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
— 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
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________
Target Assessment
T
a
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description Target protection
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
?
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1x
H
t
.
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
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/Biotic_________________________________________________ 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 expected change in load factors _______________________________________________________________________________________ _
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy
rate
1–rare
2 – occasional
3 – frequent
4 – constant
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Page 1 of 2
Site Factors
Target zone
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
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
Condition(s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance
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
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Kennydale Elementary School 07/03/2024 10:30 AM
1700 NE 28th St. Renton, WA 98056 2 1 1
Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra ‘Italica’)57.2 inch 100 feet 30 feet
Daniel Potts WE-11534A, TRAQ diameter tape 3 years
parked cars in school parking lot none 4 3
Moving cars on NE 30th Street on ramp none 4 3
pedestrians in school parking lot and road none 4 4 2
none n
n sound wall installation within tree’s lifetime
Southwes, northwest n n n n high winds and rain throughout the year, occasional snow/ice in the winter
n 25 75
probable root damage from sound wall installation
n dead branches decaying and failing during inclement weather
n n
n n
n 75 22 in.
Branch or stem failure from decay
n
n
n n
5 3 inch
0
Dead portions of trunk decaying and failing
16 inch diameter, 50-60 feet long40-90 feet
n
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
Target
(Target number
or description)
Tree part Condition(s)
of concern Risk
rating
(from
Matrix 2)
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
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
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
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Negligible 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
1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme
Overall residual risk None Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Mitigation options
Dead
branches,
sections of
stem
1 dead
branches,
sections of
stem
Tree parts are dead.
l l l l moderate
2 l l l l moderate
3 l l l l low
Tree is declining and is not expected to survive, due to extensive root damage
related to construction of sound wall.
removal none
n
n none needed
n n
n
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
— 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
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________
Target Assessment
T
a
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description Target protection
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
?
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1x
H
t
.
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
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/Biotic_________________________________________________ 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 expected change in load factors _______________________________________________________________________________________ _
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy
rate
1–rare
2 – occasional
3 – frequent
4 – constant
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Page 1 of 2
Site Factors
Target zone
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
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
Condition(s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance
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
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Kennydale Elementary School 07/03/2024 10:45 AM
1700 NE 28th St. Renton, WA 98056 3 1 1
Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra ‘Italica’)24.2 inch 100 feet 30 feet
Daniel Potts WE-11534A, TRAQ diameter tape 3 years
parked cars in school parking lot none 4 3
Moving cars on NE 30th Street on ramp none 4 3
pedestrians in school parking lot and road none 4 4 2
none n
n sound wall installation within tree’s lifetime
Southwes, northwest n n n n high winds and rain throughout the year, occasional snow/ice in the winter
n 10 90
probable root damage from sound wall installation
n dead branches decaying and failing during inclement weather
n n
n n
10
n 90 17-18 in.
Branch or stem failure from decay related to tissue death
17-18 inch diameter, 10-60 feet long40-90 feet
n
n
n n
0
Dead portions of trunk decaying and failing
17-18 inch diameter, 10-60 feet long40-90 feet
n
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
Target
(Target number
or description)
Tree part Condition(s)
of concern Risk
rating
(from
Matrix 2)
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
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
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
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Negligible 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
1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme
Overall residual risk None Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Mitigation options
Dead
branches,
sections of
stem
1 dead
branches,
sections of
stem
Tree parts are dead.
l l l l moderate
2 l l l l moderate
3 l l l l low
Tree is declining and is not expected to survive, due to extensive root damage
related to construction of sound wall.
removal none
n
n none needed
n n
n
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
— 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
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________
Target Assessment
T
a
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description Target protection
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
?
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1x
H
t
.
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
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/Biotic_________________________________________________ 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 expected change in load factors _______________________________________________________________________________________ _
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy
rate
1–rare
2 – occasional
3 – frequent
4 – constant
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Page 1 of 2
Site Factors
Target zone
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
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
Condition(s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance
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
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Kennydale Elementary School 07/03/2024 11:00 AM
1700 NE 28th St. Renton, WA 98056 4 1 1
Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra ‘Italica’)45.3 inch 100 feet 30 feet
Daniel Potts WE-11534A, TRAQ diameter tape 3 years
parked cars in school parking lot none 4 3
Moving cars on NE 30th Street on ramp none 4 3
pedestrians in school parking lot and road none 4 4 2
none n
n sound wall installation within tree’s lifetime
Southwest, northwest n n n n high winds and rain throughout the year, occasional snow/ice in the winter
n 85 15
probable root damage from sound wall installation
n dead branches decaying and failing during inclement weather
n n
n n
80
n 15 5 inch
Branch or stem failure from decay related to tissue death
3-5 inch diameter, 10-15 feet long40-90 feet
n
n
n n
0
Dead portions of trunk decaying and failing
3-5 inch diameter, 10-60 feet long40-90 feet
n
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
Target
(Target number
or description)
Tree part Condition(s)
of concern Risk
rating
(from
Matrix 2)
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
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
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
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Negligible 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
1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme
Overall residual risk None Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Mitigation options
Dead
branches,
sections of
stem
1 dead
branches,
sections of
stem
Tree parts are dead.
l l l l low
2 l l l l low
3 l l l l low
Tree has suffered extensive and significant root damage from recent construction of
sound wall, species is very prone to root decay. This tree is likely to
continue to decline and become a hazard in the future.
removal none
n
n none needed
n n
n
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
— 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
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________
Target Assessment
T
a
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description Target protection
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
?
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1x
H
t
.
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
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/Biotic_________________________________________________ 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 expected change in load factors _______________________________________________________________________________________ _
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy
rate
1–rare
2 – occasional
3 – frequent
4 – constant
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Page 1 of 2
Site Factors
Target zone
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
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
Condition(s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance
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
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Kennydale Elementary School 07/03/2024 11:15 AM
1700 NE 28th St. Renton, WA 98056 5 1 1
Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra ‘Italica’) 57.9 inch 100 feet 30 feet
Daniel Potts WE-11534A, TRAQ diameter tape 3 years
parked cars in school parking lot none 4 3
Moving cars on NE 30th Street on ramp none 4 3
pedestrians on school lawn none 4 4 2
none n
n sound wall installation within tree’s lifetime
Southwest, northwest n n n n high winds and rain throughout the year, occasional snow/ice in the winter
n 75 25
probable root damage from sound wall installation
n dead branches decaying and failing during inclement weather
n n
n n
80
n 25 8 inch
n
Branch or stem failure from decay related to tissue death
5-8 inch diameter, 5-20 feet long30-50 feet
n
n
n n
0
Dead portions of trunk decaying and failing
5-8 inch diameter, 5-20 feet long30-50 feet
n
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
Target
(Target number
or description)
Tree part Condition(s)
of concern Risk
rating
(from
Matrix 2)
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
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
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
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Negligible 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
1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme
Overall residual risk None Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Mitigation options
Dead
branches,
sections of
stem
1 dead
branches,
sections of
stem
Tree parts are dead.
l l l l low
2 l l l l low
3 l l l l low
Tree has suffered extensive and significant root damage from recent construction of
sound wall, species is very prone to root decay. This tree is likely to
continue to decline and become a significant hazard in the future.
removal none
n
n none needed
n n
n
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
— 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
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________
Target Assessment
T
a
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description Target protection
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
?
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1x
H
t
.
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
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/Biotic_________________________________________________ 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 expected change in load factors _______________________________________________________________________________________ _
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy
rate
1–rare
2 – occasional
3 – frequent
4 – constant
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Page 1 of 2
Site Factors
Target zone
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
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
Condition(s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance
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
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Kennydale Elementary School 07/03/2024 11:30 AM
1700 NE 28th St. Renton, WA 98056 6 1 1
Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra ‘Italica’)28.1 inch 100 feet 30 feet
Daniel Potts WE-11534A, TRAQ diameter tape 3 years
parked cars in school parking lot none 4 3
Moving cars on NE 30th Street on ramp none 4 3
pedestrians on lawn none 4 4 2
none n
n sound wall installation within tree’s lifetime
Southwest, northwest n n n n high winds and rain throughout the year, occasional snow/ice in the winter
n 90 10
probable root damage from sound wall installation
n dead branches decaying and failing during inclement weather
n n
n n
100
n 10 3 inch
n
Branch or stem failure from decay related to tissue death
3 inch diameter, 5-10 feet long30-50 feet
n
n
n n
0
Dead portions of trunk decaying and failing
3 inch diameter, 5-10 feet long30-50 feet
n
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
Target
(Target number
or description)
Tree part Condition(s)
of concern Risk
rating
(from
Matrix 2)
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
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
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
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Negligible 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
1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme
Overall residual risk None Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Mitigation options
Dead
branches,
sections of
stem
1 dead
branches,
sections of
stem
Tree parts are dead.
l l l l low
2 l l l l low
3 l l l l low
Tree has suffered extensive and significant root damage from recent construction of
sound wall, species is very prone to root decay. This tree is likely to
continue to decline the same way as the other trees in the line
and become a significant hazard in the future.
removal none
n
n none needed
n n
n
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
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 C
RECEIVED
11/21/2024 AWragge
PLANNING DIVISION
114
3.8
163785
163785
37
37
37
0
0
0
PlanningCustomerServic
e@rentonwa.gov
https://www.rento
nwa.gov/cms/one
.aspx?pageId=17
625638
mailto:rentonwa.
gov/permitcenter
https://ww
w.codepu
blishing.c
om/WA/R
enton/#!/
Renton04
/Renton0
411/Rent
on04112
00.html#4
-11-200
https://ww
w.codepu
blishing.co
m/WA/Re
nton/#!/Re
nton04/Re
nton04.ht
ml
https://
www.codepublishing
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
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: 178
13
11
1
1
81
427
10426
https://www.rento
nwa.gov/cms/one
.aspx?pageId=17
625638
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
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=17
625638
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC
Attachment D
RECEIVED
11/21/2024 AWragge
PLANNING DIVISION
Docusign Envelope ID: 8CBF4CE7-E034-4F49-B7E5-C2ECBC94D5DC