HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_Hyde Park Tree Removal_Final_20250603DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Routine Vegetation Management Permit and Critical Areas Exemption
PLANNING DIVISON
ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PREMIT
AND CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM
CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS
EVALUATION FORM & DECISION
DATE OF DECISION: June 3, 2025
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA25-000018, RVMP, CAE
PROJECT NAME: Hyde Park Tree Removal
PROJECT MANAGER: Ashley Wragge, Assistant Planner
OWNER: Hyde Park Condominiums Homeowners Association
2300 Jefferson Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056
APPLICANT/ CONTACT: John Cvikota, Davey Resource Group Inc.
8622 S 222nd St, Unit C, Kent, WA 98032
PROJECT LOCATION: 2300 Jefferson Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 (APN 3547700000)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The owner, Hyde Park Condominiums Homeowners Association, is requesting a
Routine Vegetation Management Permit (RVMP) to remove 21 high-risk trees
located within Hyde Park Condominiums. The subject property lies within the
Residential-10 (R-10) zone and the Highlands Community Planning Area. Per City
of Renton (COR) Maps, the project site is encumbered with the following critical
areas: high erosion hazards, moderate landslide hazards, sensitive and
protected slopes, and the buffer of a Type F stream (Honey Creek). The proposed
work area includes both road-adjacent trees and trees located on sloped or
elevated portions of the property.
An Arborist Report, prepared by Davey Resource Group Inc. (DRG), dated August
2024, was submitted in support of the application (Attachment A). The inspection
evaluated 40 trees and identified 21 trees for removal due to hazardous
conditions including whole tree failure risk, structural decay, large deadwood,
and overall poor or declining health.
The proposed Priority 1 tree removals include four (4) red alders (Alnus rubra),
four (4) Norway maples (Acer platanoides), five (5) Austrian pines (Pinus nigra),
one (1) Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), one (1) black cottonwood (Populus
trichocarpa), two (2) Western hemlocks (Tsuga heterophylla), and four (4)
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Hyde Park Tree Removal
Routine Vegetation Management Permit
LUA25-000018, RVMP, CAE
Permit Date: June 3, 2025 Page 2 of 6
European white birches (Betula pendula). Many of the trees are located along
slopes or within areas where failure would directly impact road access or
adjacent homes. The Arborist Report assigned ID numbers to all assessed trees,
which correspond to mapped locations and maintenance priorities (Attachment
A).
CRITITCAL AREA: High erosion hazard areas, moderate landslide hazard areas, sensitive and
protected slopes (>15% <=90%), and a Type F stream buffer (Honey Creek).
EXEMPTION JUSTIFICATION: Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations: RMC 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 credit requirements pursuant to RMC 4-4-130,
Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations.
Staff Comments: In accordance with RMC 4-4-130H, compliance with tree credit
requirements necessitates a minimum of 30 tree credits per net acre. The subject
property, located at 2300 Jefferson Ave NE (APN 3547700000), is approximately 608,325
square feet (13.97 acres). Based on the property size, 419 tree credits are required to
meet the minimum tree density requirement (30 tree credits per acre × 13.97 acres = 419
credits).
A tree retention and credit worksheet was not provided as part of this application since
the parcel is well vegetated. It is visually apparent in the site visit photos (Attachment B)
that the site exceeds the minimum tree credits. The site would continue to exceed the
minimum tree credit requirements and maintain the minimum tree density following the
removal of the 21 trees identified for “Priority 1 Removal” in the Arborist Report
(Attachment A). Priority 1 trees are those that have defects which cannot be cost-
effectively or practically treated, have a high amount of deadwood, or pose an immediate
hazard to people or property. The Davey Resource Group (DRG) recommends that Priority
1 trees be removed immediately.
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 the following critical areas
on this parcel: high erosion hazard areas, moderate landslide hazard areas, sensitive and
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Hyde Park Tree Removal
Routine Vegetation Management Permit
LUA25-000018, RVMP, CAE
Permit Date: June 3, 2025 Page 3 of 6
protected slopes (>15% <=90%), and a Type F stream buffer (Honey Creek). The 21
Priority 1 trees proposed for removal are within one (1) or more of these critical areas.
Removal of the dangerous tree is an exempt activity per Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-
3-050C.3.c.iii. Refer to the Critical Area Exemption Findings below for additional
exemption information.
N/A 3. Removal of a landmark tree shall meet the review criteria for removal of a landmark tree,
pursuant to RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations.
Staff Comments: Not applicable. Per RMC 4-11-200, Definitions T, a landmark tree is
classified as such if it measures with a caliper of twenty-four inches (24") or greater,
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. Per the City’s classification,
the trees proposed for removal are not landmark trees because their caliper size is below
the required threshold for landmark classification.
YES 4. Street frontage and parking lot trees and landscaping shall be preserved, unless
otherwise approved by the Administrator.
Staff Comments: The trees proposed for removal are not designated as street frontage
or parking lot trees; however, two (2) trees labeled Tree 350 and Tree 351 on the Arborist
Report (Attachment A), are located near internal parking lots. After visual assessment,
their removal would not significantly alter portions of the site’s existing vegetation.
Preservation of the trees is not feasible due to their proximity to housing as Tree 350 is
dead and Tree 351 is in serious decline. Tree 350 is photographed in “Figure 5” of the Site
Visit Photos (Attachment B).
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. Based on retained records, the tree removal would not
be removing landscaping or protected trees required as part of a land development
permit.
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 proposed for removal are primarily located within the interior
of the site and are not essential for visual screening or buffering between land uses of
differing intensity. The trees to be retained on the property ensure that a substantial tree
canopy and vegetative buffer remain. Given this level of retention, the removal of the 21
hazardous trees would not significantly alter screening or buffering functions.
YES, IF
CONDITIONS
ARE MET
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 removal of the 21 hazardous trees, as recommended in the
Arborist Report (Attachment A), would not create or contribute to a hazardous condition,
but rather mitigate existing safety concerns. The trees proposed for removal exhibit
conditions such as whole tree failure, large deadwood, basal wounds, serious decline,
structural instability, and hazardous lean, all of which increase the risk of collapse near
homes, roadways, and pedestrian areas. Their removal is intended to reduce risk and
promote public safety.
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Hyde Park Tree Removal
Routine Vegetation Management Permit
LUA25-000018, RVMP, CAE
Permit Date: June 3, 2025 Page 4 of 6
CRITICAL AREA EXEMPTION FINDINGS:
The proposed development is consistent with the following flndings pursuant to RMC 4-3-050C.2.d:
YES 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 dangerous trees is not prohibited by any federal regulations
and it is an exempt activity in the City of Renton’s Critical Areas Regulations. Approval of
this exemption would act as written permission to allow the removal of the identified trees.
YES ii. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specifled by industry
standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientiflc principles.
Staff Comments: The best management practice, as recommended by the Arborist
Report, is to remove the 21 high-risk trees.
YES iii. Impacts are minimized and, where applicable, disturbed areas are immediately restored.
Staff Comments: The tree removal process is aimed at minimizing potential damage to
people and structures. Outside of immediate areas of the tree removals, no land would be
disturbed. The disturbed areas in the immediate vicinity of the tree removals are subject
to restoration conditions noted in staff comment number 7 and condition of approval 2.
YES 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.
Additionally, the Arborist Report includes the removal of invasive ivy as part of a broader
vegetation management effort. Removing the ivy would help preserve the health of
nearby retained trees and reduce future potential for pest infestation and structural
damage, thereby improving the long-term condition of the remaining tree canopy.
No snagging or wildlife habitat conversion was recommended by the arborist in the
provided report. Several of the trees proposed for removal are on protected slopes (>40%
& <=90%). To prevent any potential soil destabilization, the stumps of Trees 358, 359, 360,
362, 368, 369, 370, and 371 shall be left intact. Therefore, staff recommends as a
condition of approval, that the applicant leave the stumps of Trees 358, 359, 360, 362,
368, 369, 370, and 371 intact to help prevent soil destabilization. In addition, staff
recommends maintaining organic material onsite to support ecological function and
minimize erosion on steeper slopes.
As a condition of approval, the applicant shall restore any disturbed areas resulting from
tree removal with a minimum of three inches (3") of bark mulch (or equivalent) to stabilize
soil and suppress invasive regrowth. Based on these actions and recommendations, staff
finds that this proposed tree removal activity would not contribute to blowdown risk,
disease, pest infestation, or hazardous conditions and is consistent with RMC 4-4-130
provisions.
N/A 8. The land clearing and tree removal shall be consistent with the requirements of the
Shoreline Master Program, pursuant to RMC 4-3-090F.1, 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.
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Hyde Park Tree Removal
Routine Vegetation Management Permit
LUA25-000018, RVMP, CAE
Permit Date: June 3, 2025 Page 5 of 6
Staff Comments: Not applicable. The proposed tree removals will not disturb any water
body or buffer.
N/A v. If a hazardous material, activity, and/or facility that is exempt pursuant to this Section has
a signiflcant 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-speciflc data.
Staff Comments: Not applicable. The proposal does not include a significant or
substantial potential to degrade groundwater quality.
DECISION: The Hyde Park Tree Removal Routine Vegetation Management Permit and Critical Areas Exemption,
LUA25-000018, RVMP, CAE is Approved* and subject to the following conditions: .
*CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The stumps of Trees 358, 359, 360, 362, 368, 369, 370, and 371 shall be left intact to help prevent soil
destabilization.
2. All disturbed areas resulting from tree removal shall be restored with a minimum of three inches (3") of bark
mulch (or equivalent) to prevent erosion and suppress invasive vegetation.
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 to
the original decision is found or if he flnds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration
request, if the approval body flnds 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 flle a formal appeal within the 14-day
appeal time frame.
APPEALS: This administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing
Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on June 17, 2025. 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 fioor 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 flrst fioor 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: Two (2) years from the date of decision (date signed).
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
6/3/2025 | 3:08 PM PDT
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Hyde Park Tree Removal
Routine Vegetation Management Permit
LUA25-000018, RVMP, CAE
Permit Date: June 3, 2025 Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Arborist Report, prepared by Davey Resource Group Inc., dated August 2024
Attachment B: Site Visit Photos, taken May 22, 2025
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
Arborist Report
Tree Assessments
Prepared
For:
Hyde Park HOA
℅Tuesday Kelly
Community Association Manager
MacPhersons Property Mgmt..
19105 36th Ave W,Suite 105
Lynnwood,WA 98036
425.747.5900
Prepared
By:
Davey Resource Group Inc.
18809 10th Ave NE
Shoreline,WA,98155
Contact:Todd Beals
todd.beals@davey.com
Local Office:253.656.1650
Corporate Office:800.828.8312
Notice of Disclaimer
Assessment data provided by Davey Resource Group is based on visual recording at the time of inspection.Visual records do not
include testing or analysis and do not include aerial or subterranean inspection unless indicated.Davey Resource Group is not
responsible for discovery or identification of hidden or otherwise non-observable risks.Records may not remain accurate after
inspection due to variable deterioration of surveyed material.Risk ratings are based on observable defects and mitigation
recommendations do not reduce potential liability to the Owner.Davey Resource Group provides no warranty with respect to the
fitness of the trees for any use or purpose whatsoever.
Attachment A
RECEIVED
01/22/2025 NPerry
PLANNING DIVISION
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Background 3
Methods 4
Risk Assessment Methodology 5
Limits of the Assignment 6
Tree Observations 7
Analysis &Recommendations 8
Concluding Remarks 9
Appendix A:Maps 10
Appendix B.Tree Inventory Table 14
Prepared by:Davey Resource Group August 2024
Prepared for:Hyde Park Tree Assessments Page 2 of 16
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
Introduction
Background
Davey Resource Group Inc.(DRG)was contracted by Hyde Park Homeowners Association to asses and
provide maintenance recommendations for the trees near the roads and homes.DRG completed the tree
inspection on July 30,2024,by an ISA Certified Arborist &Qualified Tree Risk Assessor (NE-6913A).The
following report details the inspection findings and the arborist’s risk and liability mitigation
recommendations.
A rapid inspection of the trees in sensitive areas was completed to identify immediate and near-term
maintenance needs over the next two-years.The trees with targets were visually assessed,and data was
collected on trees with visible defects that require prompt attention to mitigate risks of injury to adjacent
properties within the next two years.The limited visual assessment (Level 1)is a one-perspective
assessment to identify obvious defects or conditions,such as lethal pests or symptoms associated with
trees in poor health.This risk assessment methodology developed by the International Society of
Arboriculture is not a comprehensive inventory,but it does highlight maintenance needs and helps with
work planning and budgeting.
Image 1.Map illustrating the location of the inspected trees.
Prepared by:Davey Resource Group August 2024
Prepared for:Hyde Park Tree Assessments Page 3 of 16
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
Methods
Data Collection:Data was collected on July 30,2024,by an ISA Certified Arborist (Todd Beals -
NE-6913A)and a Qualified Tree Risk Assessor.
Tree Number:The tree ID number was assigned,and an aluminum tag was affixed to the tree.Where
slope conditions restricted access,a tree ID number was assigned,but no tag was affixed to the tree.
Species:Trees were identified by genus and species,cultivar if evident,and by common name.
Diameter at Standard Height (DSH):Trunk diameter was recorded to the nearest inch at 4.5 feet
(standard height)above grade except where noted.When limbs or deformities occurred at standard
height,measurement was taken below 4.5 ft.
Height:Tree Height estimated to the nearest <5ft.
Condition:Condition ratings were based on but not limited to (1)the condition and environment of the
tree’s root crown;(2)the condition of the trunk,including decay,injury,callusing,or presence of fungus
sporophore;(3)the condition of the limbs,including the strength of crotches,amount of deadwood,hollow
areas,and whether there was excessive weight borne by them;(4)the condition and growth rate history
of the twigs,including pest damage and diseases;(5)the leaf appearance,including abnormal size and
density as well as pest and disease damage.
Using an average of the above factors together with the arborist’s best judgment,the general condition of
each tree was recorded in one of the following categories adapted from the rating system established by
the International Society of Arboriculture and 10th Edition of the Council of Tree &Landscape Appraisers
(CTLA)Guide for Plant Appraisal :1
●Excellent (81%-100%):High vigor and near-perfect health with little or no twig dieback,
discoloration,or defoliation.Nearly ideal and free of structural defects.Nearly ideal form for the
species and is generally symmetrical.
●Good (61%-80%):Vigor is normal for the species and has no significant damage due to disease
or pests.Twig dieback,discoloration,or defoliation is minor.Well-developed structure with minor
defects that can be corrected easily.Minor asymmetries/deviations from species norm.Function
and aesthetics are not compromised.
●Fair (41%-60%):Reduced vigor.Damage due to insects or diseases may be significant and
associated with defoliation but is not likely to be fatal.Twig dieback,defoliation,discoloration,
and/or dead branches may comprise up to 50%of the canopy.A single structural defect of a
significant nature or multiple moderate defects.Structural defects are not practical to correct or
would require multiple treatments over several years.Major asymmetries/deviations from species
norm.Function and aesthetics are compromised.
●Poor (21%-40%):Unhealthy and declining in appearance.Poor vigor,low foliage density,and
poor foliage color are present.Potentially fatal pest infestation.Extensive twig or branch dieback.
A single serious structural defect or multiple significant defects.Observed structural problems
cannot be corrected.Failure may occur at any time.Largely asymmetrical or abnormal form.
Form detracts from aesthetics or intended use to a significant degree.
●Very Poor (6%-20%):Poor vigor and appears to be dying.Little live foliage.Single or multiple
severe structural defects.Visually unappealing and provides little or no function in the landscape.
●Dead/Dying (0%-5%)
1 Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.(2019).Guide for Plant Appraisal,10th Edition,Second Printing.Atlanta,GA:
International Society of Arboriculture.
Prepared by:Davey Resource Group August 2024
Prepared for:Hyde Park Tree Assessments Page 4 of 16
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
Maintenance Task:The highest priority maintenance need was identified for sustained return on
investment.Additional tasks may be identified by the arborist completing the work.
●Priority 1 Removal:These trees have defects that cannot be cost-effectively or practically
treated,have a high amount of deadwood,or pose an immediate hazard to property or person.
Davey recommends that these trees be removed immediately.
●Priority 2 Removal:These trees are less of a liability than Priority 1 Removals,being smaller
and/or less hazardous,although they are also recommended for removal.Davey recommends
that they be removed as soon as feasible.
●Priority 1 Pruning:Trees in this category need pruning to remove hazardous deadwood limbs
greater than 3 inches in diameter and/or have broken,hanging,or diseased limbs.
●Priority 2 Pruning:These trees need pruning to remove hazardous deadwood limbs greater than
two but less than 3 inches in diameter.
●No Priority:No priority maintenance is required.
Maintenance Detail
●Crown Clean:Maintenance is needed to remove dead,dying,broken,or diseased wood.
●End Weight/Thin:Reduce the overall weight of the tree canopy,most often removing water
sprouts.
●Remove:Remove the tree.
●Clearance:The tree requires pruning to remove or reduce branches that may interfere with or
cause obstructions with vehicles or pedestrians.Typical standards for clearance are 8’over
sidewalks and 14’over roads.Building clearance will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
●Fertilize:The tree would benefit from fertilization.
●Install/Inspect Cables:The tree needs cabling to reduce the risk of branch failure,or the tree
has cables that require routine inspection.
●Remove Stakes:Identifies where a new planting has stakes that should be removed.
●Structural Prune:Identifies a tree that would benefit from pruning to improve structure and
health.
●None:No (specific)maintenance required (Adding the word specific is very important;most trees
we inventory don't need specific maintenance other than a routine trim schedule.
Observations:The primary observation impacts the health and condition assessment of the tree.
●Cavity/Decay:The tree has a cavity and suspected structural decay.
●Large/Small Deadwood:Dead or dying branches visible in the canopy.
●Mechanical Damage:The tree has mechanical damage.
●Poor Location:The tree is growing in an unsuitable location for its size.
●Poor Root System:The root system of the tree appears to be compromised.
●Poor Structure:The overall tree structure is poorly developed.
●Remove Hardware:The tree has hardware such as cabling or bracing.
●Serious Decline:The tree is in serious decline.
●Signs of Stress:The tree is exhibiting signs of stress.
Risk Assessment Methodology
This evaluation follows the tree risk assessment methods developed by the International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA).It inspects the visible tree parts,including surface roots,trunk,scaffold limbs,and
canopy.The hazard and risk assessment results in a risk rating for the tree to help quantify the level of
risk accepted by the tree’s owner.The Tree Risk Assessment Manual Professional Best Management2
Practices describes three levels of tree examination:
2 Dunster,Julian A.,E Thoms Smiley,Nelda Metheny,and Sharon Lilly.2013.Tree Risk Assessment Manual.Champaign,Illinois:
International Society of Arboriculture
Prepared by:Davey Resource Group August 2024
Prepared for:Hyde Park Tree Assessments Page 5 of 16
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
Level One:A cursory review typically performed along one plane,as in a drive-through or
walk-by assessment of tree health and condition.
Level Two:A non-invasive 360-degree assessment of the above-ground parts of the tree.
Level Three:A more thorough investigation of tree health and condition that may include
trunk/root excavation.
The trees were prescribed maintenance recommendations based on general tree health and visual
observations.A high-risk rating alone does not necessarily result in a removal recommendation.
Conversely,trees with a lower rating may be prescribed for removal based on other factors such as
location and species compatibility and/or the severity of specific defects.The residual risk was also noted
whenever recommended tree maintenance would mitigate risk.
A visual inspection and mallet soundings from the groundline to 8 feet on the trunk were the primary
methods used to develop this report's findings,conclusions,and recommendations.Data collection
included measuring the tree's diameter at 4.5 feet above grade,height estimation,canopy radius
estimation,a visual assessment of tree condition,structure,and health,and a photographic record.Mallet
sounding was used to determine the soundness of accessible roots,trunks,and branches.Qualitative
value assessments grade the attributes of the tree,including structure and canopy health,to obtain an
overall condition rating.No physical inspection of the upper canopy,root crown excavation,resistograph,
or other technologies were used to evaluate the trees.
Limits of the Assignment
Many factors can limit specific and accurate
data when performing evaluations of trees,their
conditions,and values.The determinations and
recommendations presented here are based on
current data and conditions that existed at the
time of the evaluation and cannot be a predictor
of the ultimate outcomes for the trees.A visual
inspection was used to develop this report's
findings,conclusions,and recommendations.
Values were assigned to grade the attributes of
the trees,including structure and canopy
health,and to obtain an overall condition rating.
No physical inspection of the upper canopy,
sounding,root crown excavation and
resistograph,or other technologies were used
to evaluate the trees.
Example Illustration:Tree defects and
conditions affecting the likelihood of failure
were assessed around the Root Collar,the
Trunk,and the Crown.
Prepared by:Davey Resource Group August 2024
Prepared for:Hyde Park Tree Assessments Page 6 of 16
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
Tree Observations
Forty trees were assessed on the property.Most of the trees with issues of concern were red alder (Alnus
rubra,8 trees)and Norway maple (Acer platanoides,8 trees).There were also six (6)Austrian pines
(Pinus nigra),five (5)Douglas-firs (Pseudotsuga menziesii),four (4)black cottonwoods (Populus
trichocarpa),four (4)European white birches (Betula pendula),three (3)Western hemlocks (Tsuga
heterophylla)one (1)cherry (Prunus spp.),and one (1)Armstrong maple (Acer rubrum ‘Armstrong’).
The general condition of each tree was recorded in one of the following categories adapted from the
rating system established by the International Society of Arboriculture and the 10th Edition of the Council
of Tree &Landscape Appraisers (CTLA)Guide for Plant Appraisal.The majority of the inspected trees
(15 trees)were found to be dead or dying.The remaining trees were in fair condition (11 trees),poor
condition (2 trees),or very poor condition (12 trees).
Table 1.Tree species and condition
Botanical Name Fair
(41%-60%)
Poor
(21%-40%)
Very Poor
(6%-20%)
Dead/Dying
(0%)Total
Alnus rubra 8 8
Acer platanoides 3 1 3 1 8
Pinus nigra 1 3 2 6
Pseudotsuga menziesii 4 1 5
Populus trichocarpa 2 1 1 4
Betula pendula 4 4
Tsuga heterophylla 1 2 3
Prunus spp.1 1
Acer rubrum 'Armstrong'1 1
Total 11 2 12 15 40
Prepared by:Davey Resource Group August 2024
Prepared for:Hyde Park Tree Assessments Page 7 of 16
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
Analysis &Recommendations
The inspecting arborist Identified the most likely point of failure and rated the likelihood that the observed
defect(s)will result in part failure within the next two years.The inspection identified 40 trees as high risk of
failure,either branch or whole,within that timeframe.Overall,a Level One Assessment is recommended every
2-3 years or following extreme weather events to identify and mitigate any new conditions of concern.
Bronze Birch Borer (BBB,Agrilus anxius)may be affecting the European white birch trees on the property.BBB
is a wood-consuming insect.The life cycle of BBB starts with eggs laid on the rough patches of bark at branch
unions from May to July.The eggs hatch about one week after fertilization and immediately mine into the tree's
cambium,leaving a D-shaped boring hole.The larva consumes the cambium tissue through 5 stages of larval
development.This can take one or two years before the adults emerge and start the cycle over.Dieback and
tree mortality are imminent over the next five (5)to seven (7)years.
Priority maintenance tasks were proposed to mitigate the risks associated with the trees of concern.Trees
designated as Priority 1 Removal (21 trees)are recommended for mitigation before any other tree
maintenance is completed.These trees are most concerning as they were assessed as very likely to fail and
significantly impact targets (a high-risk rating).The majority of these trees were dead or dying (11 trees).The
remaining ten (10)trees were in very poor condition.
Trees designated as Priority 1 Prune (12 trees)should be considered for mitigation following the Priority 1
Removals.These trees were in fair (10 trees)and poor (2 trees)condition.Mitigation pruning includes cleaning
the crown to remove large-diameter deadwood,clearance for emergency and resident vehicles,and girdling
invasive ivy that can cause branches to fail.
Priority 2 Removal (6 trees)should follow Priority 1 Pruning.These trees were found to be dead or dying (4
trees)or in very poor condition (2)trees.These trees are less of a liability than Priority 1 Removals,being
smaller and/or less hazardous.They are also recommended for removal as the most appropriate tree care
action.
Tree #338 had a basal wound,which is concerning but is not affecting tree health now.It is recommended
that the tree be monitored regularly to look for a decline in health or a loss in structural stability.This tree
could likely fail onto the road with significant consequences.Tree removal is also an option that should be
considered depending on the amount of risk the association wishes to assume.
Table 2.Priority tree maintenance
Priority
Maintenance Tree ID Removal Crown
Clean Clearance Remove
Ivy Monitor Total
Priority 1
Removal
8,339,350,351,352,353,354,355,356,357,
358,359,360,362,363,368,369,370,371,372,
373
21 21
Priority 2
Removal 345,346,347,348,349,375 6 6
Priority 1 Prune 7,340,341,342,343,344,361,364,365,366,
367,374 6 5 1 12
Monitor 338 1 1
Total 40 27 6 5 1 1 40
Prepared by:Davey Resource Group August 2024
Prepared for:Hyde Park Tree Assessments Page 8 of 16
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
Concluding Remarks
A total of 40 trees were assessed at the sites during this inspection.Large branch failure and whole
tree failure due to declining health were the primary conditions of concern.Some trees had branches
within the roadways that are recommended for pruning.As such,tree removal,crown cleaning,and
structure pruning are recommended to mitigate the risk identified at the sites.A Level 1 Tree Risk
Assessment is appropriate every 2-3 years or following extreme weather events to identify and mitigate
any new conditions of concern.
A Routine Vegetation Management Permit is required to remove more than three (3)high-risk trees within
one year and remove high-risk landmark trees.No Landmark trees are proposed for removal at the
site.Twenty (20)Significantly sized trees are proposed for removal,but since these trees are
certified as high risk,they shall not be considered significant according to Renton Municipal Code
(RMC 4-11-200 (Y4)).A Routine Vegetation Management Permit may still be required to remove the
trees and replant if the nearby slope is considered a critical area.
DRG offers Level 1,2,and 3 tree risk assessments and complete tree inventories.The Level 1
assessment in this report offers the HOA a summary of tree maintenance actions within two years.Many
trees were visually assessed at the site.Still,this report did not document them because they appeared
healthy or did not present an elevated risk of injury (i.e.,low risk within a two-year timeframe).A
complete tree inventory could benefit the HOA as results can provide a long-term (5-7 year)management
strategy for planning and maintenance.After a Level 1 assessment,the Level 2 assessment would be
the next action if further analysis is desired for any particular tree.The Level 2 assessment provides a
more detailed analysis of the specimen.Occasionally,a tree may be considered high risk at Level 2 but
exhibit symptoms or defects that require lab analysis or specialized tools to inform the most appropriate
mitigation strategy.These would be situations where Level 3 assessments may be appropriate.
DRG’s assessments are conducted by ISA Certified Arborists and Qualified Tree Risk Assessors.These
professionals evaluate tree health,structural stability,and potential hazards.Following the assessment,
DRG provides recommendations for risk mitigation.These recommendations may include tree pruning,
removal,or other management strategies to reduce risk.Routine inspections by a qualified tree risk
assessor contribute to safer environments and informed management decisions for trees in various
settings.If you have specific questions about the findings or recommendations from the assessment,
please contact DRG.
Prepared by:Davey Resource Group August 2024
Prepared for:Hyde Park Tree Assessments Page 9 of 16
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
Appendix A:Maps
Map A1.Overview of the site.
Prepared by:Davey Resource Group August 2024
Prepared for:Hyde Park Tree Assessments Page 10 of 16
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
Map A2.Sitemap showing tree identification numbers.
Prepared by:Davey Resource Group August 2024
Prepared for:Hyde Park Tree Assessments Page 11 of 16
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
Map A3.Sitemap showing tree identification numbers.
Prepared by:Davey Resource Group August 2024
Prepared for:Hyde Park Tree Assessments Page 12 of 16
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
Map A4.Sitemap showing tree identification numbers.
Prepared by:Davey Resource Group August 2024
Prepared for:Hyde Park Tree Assessments Page 13 of 16
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
Appendix B.Tree Inventory Table
Tree
ID
DSH
(in)
Botanical
Name
Common
Name Condition
Avg.
Dripline
Radius
(ft)
Height
(ft)
RMC
Status
Condition of
Concern Comments Priority
Maintenance
Maintenance
Detail
7 13 Pseudotsuga
menziesii
Douglas-
fir
Fair
(41%-60%)12 65 Significant Limited Road
Access
7healthytrees
with Clearance
issues 6ft above
road
Priority 1
Prune Clearance
8 13 Alnus rubra Red
Alder
Dead/Dying
(0%)0 65 n/a Whole tree
failure
4deadtrees mid
way upslope;
No tags
Priority 1
Removal Removal
338 14 Acer
platanoides
Norway
Maple
Fair
(41%-60%)18 35 Significant Basal Wound Large basal
wound Monitor Monitor
339 12 Acer
platanoides
Norway
Maple
Very Poor
(6%-20%)18 35 n/a Trunk Wound
Large wound
more than 50%
of the trunk
circumference,
5.5 ft long
Priority 1
Removal Removal
340 30 Pseudotsuga
menziesii
Douglas-
fir
Fair
(41%-60%)12 100 Landmark
Ivy damaging
tree;branch
failure
LCR 10%,Ivy up
through tree,
inspect trunk
once ivy is
removed
Priority 1
Prune RemoveIvy
341 22 Prunus spp.Cherry Fair
(41%-60%)15 35 Significant Limited Road
Access
Deadwood,
clearanceissues
6ft above road
Priority 1
Prune Clearance
342 12 Pinus nigra Austrian
Pine
Fair
(41%-60%)12 65 Significant Limited Road
Access
Codominant
Union,Bark
Inclusion,
clearanceissues
6ft above the
road
Priority 1
Prune Clearance
343 15 Pseudotsuga
menziesii
Douglas-
fir
Fair
(41%-60%)12 65 Significant Limited Road
Access
Clearance issues
6ft above road
Priority 1
Prune Clearance
344 13 Pseudotsuga
menziesii
Douglas-
fir
Fair
(41%-60%)12 65 Significant Limited Road
Access
Clearance issues
6ft above road
Priority 1
Prune Clearance
345 6 Populus
trichocarpa
Black
Cottonw
ood
Very Poor
(6%-20%)8 40 n/a
Failure would
blockfire
truck access
road
Four tops
originating at old
tear outwith
decay present,
woodpecker
damage,lean
Priority 2
Removal Removal
346 5 Alnus rubra Red
Alder
Dead/Dying
(0%)0 25 n/a
Failure would
blockfire
truck access
road
High up on ridge Priority 2
Removal Removal
Prepared by:Davey Resource Group August 2024
Prepared for:Hyde Park Tree Assessments Page 14 of 16
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
Tree
ID
DSH
(in)
Botanical
Name
Common
Name Condition
Avg.
Dripline
Radius
(ft)
Height
(ft)
RMC
Status
Condition of
Concern Comments Priority
Maintenance
Maintenance
Detail
347 5 Alnus rubra Red
Alder
Dead/Dying
(0%)0 25 n/a
Failure would
blockfire
truck access
road
High up on ridge Priority 2
Removal Removal
348 5 Alnus rubra Red
Alder
Dead/Dying
(0%)0 25 n/a
Failure would
blockfire
truck access
road
High up on ridge Priority 2
Removal Removal
349 10 Alnus rubra Red
Alder
Dead/Dying
(0%)0 40 n/a
Failure would
blockfire
truck access
road
High up on ridge Priority 2
Removal Removal
350 12 Tsuga
heterophylla
Western
Hemlock
Dead/Dying
(0%)0 40 n/a Dead Priority 1
Removal Removal
351 14 Acer
platanoides
Norway
Maple
Very Poor
(6%-20%)8 45 n/a Serious
decline
Serious decline,
largedeadwood,
lowvigor
Priority 1
Removal Removal
352 7 Betula
pendula
Europea
n White
Birch
Very Poor
(6%-20%)8 40 n/a Serious
decline
Serious decline,
largedeadwood,
low vigor,
Priority 1
Removal Removal
353 13 Betula
pendula
Europea
n White
Birch
Very Poor
(6%-20%)8 40 n/a Serious
decline
Serious decline,
largedeadwood,
low vigor,
Priority 1
Removal Removal
354 13 Betula
pendula
Europea
n White
Birch
Very Poor
(6%-20%)8 40 n/a Serious
decline
Serious decline,
largedeadwood,
low vigor,
Priority 1
Removal Removal
355 11 Betula
pendula
Europea
n White
Birch
Very Poor
(6%-20%)8 45 n/a Serious
decline
Serious decline,
largedeadwood,
lowvigor,BBB
Priority 1
Removal Removal
356 9 Pseudotsuga
menziesii
Douglas-
fir
Dead/Dying
(0%)0 25 n/a Dead Snag Priority 1
Removal Removal
357 14 Alnus rubra Red
Alder
Dead/Dying
(0%)0 45 n/a Whole tree
failure
Priority 1
Removal Removal
358 4 Alnus rubra Red
Alder
Dead/Dying
(0%)0 35 n/a Whole tree
failure
Priority 1
Removal Removal
359 9 Alnus rubra Red
Alder
Dead/Dying
(0%)0 35 n/a Whole tree
failure
Priority 1
Removal Removal
360 5 Pinus nigra Austrian
Pine
Very Poor
(6%-20%)0 35 n/a Whole tree
failure
Bent over
sidewalk
Priority 1
Removal Removal
361 17 Populus
trichocarpa
Black
Cottonw
ood
Fair
(41%-60%)15 85 Significant Branch
failure
Large deadwood
over sidewalk
Priority 1
Prune CrownClean
362 5 Pinus nigra Austrian
Pine
Very Poor
(6%-20%)0 35 n/a Whole tree
failure
Bent over
sidewalk
Priority 1
Removal Removal
Prepared by:Davey Resource Group August 2024
Prepared for:Hyde Park Tree Assessments Page 15 of 16
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
Tree
ID
DSH
(in)
Botanical
Name
Common
Name Condition
Avg.
Dripline
Radius
(ft)
Height
(ft)
RMC
Status
Condition of
Concern Comments Priority
Maintenance
Maintenance
Detail
363 13 Acer
platanoides
Norway
Maple
Very Poor
(6%-20%)18 35 n/a Serious
decline
Large
deadwood,
serious decline
Priority 1
Removal Removal
364 14 Acer
platanoides
Norway
Maple
Poor
(21%-40%)18 35 Significant Large
Deadwood Large deadwood Priority 1
Prune CrownClean
365 20 Populus
trichocarpa
Black
Cottonw
ood
Fair
(41%-60%)18 90 Significant Large
Deadwood Large deadwood Priority 1
Prune CrownClean
366 14 Acer
platanoides
Norway
Maple
Fair
(41%-60%)18 35 Significant Large
Deadwood Large deadwood Priority 1
Prune CrownClean
367 14 Acer
platanoides
Norway
Maple
Fair
(41%-60%)18 35 Significant Large
Deadwood Large deadwood Priority 1
Prune CrownClean
368 11 Acer
platanoides
Norway
Maple
Dead/Dying
(0%)9 35 n/a Large
Deadwood Large deadwood Priority 1
Removal Removal
369 10 Pinus nigra Austrian
Pine
Dead/Dying
(0%)0 35 n/a Dead High onslope Priority 1
Removal Removal
370 9 Pinus nigra Austrian
Pine
Dead/Dying
(0%)0 50 n/a Dead High onslope Priority 1
Removal Removal
371 9 Pinus nigra Austrian
Pine
Very Poor
(6%-20%)0 70 n/a Dead
High onslope,
bent over and
hung up in lower
tree
Priority 1
Removal Removal
372 7 Tsuga
heterophylla
Western
Hemlock
Dead/Dying
(0%)0 25 n/a Dead Priority 1
Removal Removal
373 18 Populus
trichocarpa
Black
Cottonw
ood
Dead/Dying
(0%)0 90 n/a Dead High onslope Priority 1
Removal Removal
374 13 Acer rubrum
'Armstrong'
Armstro
ng
Maple
Poor
(21%-40%)12 40 Significant Deadwood Large deadwood Priority 1
Prune CrownClean
375 10 Tsuga
heterophylla
Western
Hemlock
Very Poor
(6%-20%)10 40 n/a Dying Signsof stress Priority 2
Removal Removal
Prepared by:Davey Resource Group August 2024
Prepared for:Hyde Park Tree Assessments Page 16 of 16
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
Figure 1
Figure 2 Attachment B
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
Figure 3
Figure 4
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB
Figure 5
Figure 6
Docusign Envelope ID: 28F28EEC-2B6E-48AA-BADE-6476527622AB