HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_Clover Creek HOA Tree Removal_v2_20250605DEPARTMENT 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 5, 2025
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA25-000150, RVMP, CAE
PROJECT NAME: Clover Creek HOA Tree Removal
PROJECT MANAGER: Ashley Wragge, Assistant Planner
APPLICANT/ CONTACT: John Cvikota, The Davey Tree Expert Company
8622 S 222nd St, Kent, WA 98032
OWNER: Kandice McClafiin, Clover Creek HOA President
1110 N 27th Pl, Renton, WA 98056
PROJECT LOCATION: Undeveloped parcels northeast of N 27th Pl (APN 164450TR-B, 164451UINT)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, John Cvikota, on behalf of The Davey Tree Expert Company, is
requesting a Routine Vegetation Management Permit (RVMP) and an exemption
from critical areas regulations (CAE) to remove two (2) trees located in native
growth protection areas (NGPA) managed by the Clover Creek Homeowners
Association (APNs 164450TR-B, 164451UINT). The site is situated within the
Residential-8 (R-8) and Residential-4 (R-4) zones and within the Kennydale
Community Planning Area. Per the City of Renton (COR) Maps, the project site is
encumbered with the following critical areas: a Type F stream (Kennydale Creek);
high erosion hazard; moderate landslide hazard; sensitive and protected slopes
(>15% <=90%); and Well 5A Wellhead Protection Area Zone 2.
In the Arborist Report, prepared by The Davey Tree Expert Company, dated April
15, 2025 (Attachment A), one (1) pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) measuring
fifteen inches (15”) in diameter at breast height (dbh) and approximately twenty-
five feet (25’) tall is proposed for removal. In a second Arborist Report prepared
by The Davey Tree Expert Company, dated April 25, 2025 (Attachment B), one (1)
big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) measuring thirty-six inches (36”) in diameter
at breast height (dbh) and approximately sixty feet (60’) tall is proposed for
removal. Henceforth, the pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) will be referenced
Docusign Envelope ID: 8E496594-4F38-48D5-8CA2-32D9482DE1D5
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Clover Creek HOA Tree Removal
Routine Vegetation Management Permit
LUA25-000150, RVMP, CAE
Permit Date: June 5, 2025 Page 2 of 6
as “Tree 1” and the big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) will be referenced as
“Tree 2” in this decision. According to the reports, Tree 1 has a cavity indicating
decay at the bottom of the trunk and the top of the root collar. The tree also leans
significantly toward a nearby home that it has potential to strike. Tree 2 is a multi-
stem tree that is in poor health due to vine activity on the trunks. About half of the
trunks are dead and hallow with bark falling off indicating that failure is imminent.
CRITITCAL AREA: Type F stream (Kennydale Creek), high erosion hazard, moderate landslide
hazard, regulated slope (>15% <=90%), and Well 5A Wellhead Protection Area
Zone 2
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 deflned in chapter 4-11 RMC, which have been approved by
the City and certifled dangerous by a licensed landscape architect, or certifled
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. A tree retention and
credit worksheet was not provided as part of this application as the site is a well-
vegetated native growth protection area (NGPA). It is visually apparent that the site
exceeds the minimum tree credits. As a result, the site would continue to exceed the
minimum tree credit requirements and would maintain the minimum tree performance
standards following the removal of the two (2) failing 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: City of Renton (COR) Maps has identified the following critical areas
on the parcels: a Type F stream; high erosion hazard; moderate landslide hazard;
sensitive and protected slopes (>15% <=90%); and Well 5A Wellhead Protection Area
Zone 2. Tree 1 is located within the buffer of the stream (Kennydale Creek) and the Well
5A Wellhead Protection Area Zone 2. Tree 2 is located within the buffer of the stream
(Kennydale Creek), a protected slope (>40% <=90%), and the Well 5A Wellhead
Protection Area Zone 2. Removal of dangerous trees is an exempt activity per Renton
Docusign Envelope ID: 8E496594-4F38-48D5-8CA2-32D9482DE1D5
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Clover Creek HOA Tree Removal
Routine Vegetation Management Permit
LUA25-000150, RVMP, CAE
Permit Date: June 5, 2025 Page 3 of 6
Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-050C.3.c.iii. Refer to the Critical Area Exemption Findings
below for additional exemption information.
YES 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: 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 arborist notes that Tree 1 is susceptible to failure primarily due to a cavity in the base
of the trunk and the root collar. The tree shows other signs of decline such as a discolored
trunk and a sparse crown with low vigor. Tree 1 leans toward a home and is within striking
distance of it. The potential consequences would be severe due to the probable failure
and high likelihood of damage to the home and people. Due to these circumstances, Tree
1 is classified as a high-risk tree.
Tree 2 is currently in very poor condition due to vine activity on the trunks of the tree and
the arborist also notes that approximately 50 percent (50%) of the canopy consists of
dead branches, which continue to fall during weather events. This multi-stem tree, with
several dead trunks, has bark inclusions at the codominant splits at the base of the tree;
bark inclusions increase the likelihood of failure as they are weak spots in a tree. Tree 2
has an imminent likelihood of failure and a medium likelihood of impacting a nearby
home and individuals, which lead to potentially severe consequences. Due to this level
of risk, Tree 2 is classified as a high-risk tree.
Both trees meet criteria i in RMC 4-4-130F.2.c and therefore staff concurs that these high-
risk trees be removed.
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 street frontage trees nor
parking lot trees. Neither street frontage nor parking landscape is proposed to be
removed.
YES, IF
CONDITIONS
ARE MET
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: The tree removal would not be removing landscaping trees required
as part of a land development permit. Since the trees are in a native growth protection
area (NGPA), they are protected trees. The trees need to be removed because they are
high-risk trees as defined in RMC 4-11-200 and their failure has a high likelihood of
striking homes and people. Since removing the trees is necessary, the impacts from
removing the trees in the native growth protection area (NGPA) shall be minimized. Per
the arborist’s recommendation, both trees shall be cut up and retained within the native
growth protection area (NGPA) as large woody debris to retain benefit to the site.
Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant shall cut up and
leave debris from Tree 1 and Tree 2 scattered in the native growth protection area
(NGPA) as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager.
To further promote no net loss of habitat vegetation, replanting of large native trees shall
be required as an alternative to retaining the existing hazardous trees. Per RMC 4-4-130
H, Tree 1 is worth six (6) tree credits and Tree 2 is worth 12 tree credits; in total, eighteen
Docusign Envelope ID: 8E496594-4F38-48D5-8CA2-32D9482DE1D5
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Clover Creek HOA Tree Removal
Routine Vegetation Management Permit
LUA25-000150, RVMP, CAE
Permit Date: June 5, 2025 Page 4 of 6
(18) tree credits worth of replanting are required. New large species trees are worth two
(2) credits each, which means that nine (9) large trees are required. As a condition of
approval, the applicant shall plant the following nine (9) trees, or an approved equal,
within the native growth protection area (NGPA) within six (6) months of permit issuance:
three (3) western white pine (Pinus monticola); three (3) western red cedar (Thuja
plicata); and three (3) Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Once installed, the applicant
shall notify the Current Planning Project Manager to complete an inspection.
YES 6. The land clearing and tree removal shall maintain visual screening and buffering between
land uses of differing intensity, consistent with applicable landscaping and setback
provisions.
Staff Comments: The tree removal would not impact visual screening nor be removing
applicable landscaping. The project site abuts parcels zoned Residential-6 (R-6) and it
spans between Residential-8 (R-8) and Residential-4 (R-4) zoning near the perimeter of
the parcels. The trees are located in heavily wooded areas and their removal would not
significantly impact the screening provided between the various residential densities.
YES 7. The land clearing and tree removal shall not create or contribute to a hazardous
condition, such as increased potential for blowdown, pest infestation, disease, or other
problems that may result from selectively removing trees and other vegetation from a lot.
Staff Comments: The provided documentation did not indicate that the removal of the
trees would create or contribute to a hazardous condition.
N/A 8. The land clearing and tree removal shall be consistent with the 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.
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 two (2)
identified trees.
YES, IF
CONDITIONS
ARE MET
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 recommended by the arborist is to
remove the two (2) high-risk trees. Per the arborist’s recommendation, and as conditioned
in staff comment 5, both trees shall be cut up and the debris left scattered in the native
growth protection area (NGPA). This would sufficiently mitigate the risk to nearby housing
while offering continued benefit within the native growth protection areas (NGPA).
YES iii. Impacts are minimized and, where applicable, disturbed areas are immediately restored.
Docusign Envelope ID: 8E496594-4F38-48D5-8CA2-32D9482DE1D5
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Clover Creek HOA Tree Removal
Routine Vegetation Management Permit
LUA25-000150, RVMP, CAE
Permit Date: June 5, 2025 Page 5 of 6
Staff Comments: The tree removal process is aimed at minimizing potential damage to
people and structures. To minimize impacts, no additional vegetation outside of the high-
risk trees would be removed.
YES, IF
CONDITIONS
ARE MET
iv. Where water body or buffer disturbance has occurred in accordance with an exemption
during construction or other activities, revegetation with native vegetation shall be
required.
Staff Comments: Both of the trees are within the Type F stream buffer of Kennydale Creek.
Buffer disturbance shall be mitigated by native revegetation per conditions outlined in
comment 5.
YES 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 Clover Creek HOA Tree Removal Routine Vegetation Management Permit and Critical Areas
Exemption, LUA25-000150, RVMP, CAE is Approved* and subject to the following conditions: .
*CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall cut up and leave debris from Tree 1 and Tree 2 scattered in the native growth protection
area (NGPA) as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager.
2. The applicant shall plant three (3) western white pine (Pinus monticola), three (3) western red cedar (Thuja
plicata) and three (3) Douglas flr (Pseudotsuga menziesii) trees in the native growth protection area within
six (6) months of permit issuance. Once installed, the applicant shall notify the Current Planning Project
Manager to complete an 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 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 20, 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
Docusign Envelope ID: 8E496594-4F38-48D5-8CA2-32D9482DE1D5
6/5/2025 | 2:11 PM PDT
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Clover Creek HOA Tree Removal
Routine Vegetation Management Permit
LUA25-000150, RVMP, CAE
Permit Date: June 5, 2025 Page 6 of 6
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).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Arborist Report on a Paciflc Madrone Tree, prepared by John Cvikota, dated April 15, 2025
Attachment B: Arborist Report on a Big Leaf Maple Tree, prepared by John Cvikota, dated April 25, 2025
Attachment C: ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form for a Paciflc Madrone Tree
Attachment D: ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form for a Big Leaf Maple
Docusign Envelope ID: 8E496594-4F38-48D5-8CA2-32D9482DE1D5
1
Arborist Report
April 15, 2025
Prepared For: Clover Creek HOA
1110 N 27th PL
Renton, WA 98056
Prepared By: John Cvikota
The Davey Tree Expert Company
8622 S 222nd St
Kent, WA 9032
ISA Certifled Arborist PN-9483A
Tree Risk Assessment Qualifled Arborist
Attachment A
RECEIVED
05/13/2025 AWragge
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 8E496594-4F38-48D5-8CA2-32D9482DE1D5
2
Introduction
The Davey Tree Expert Company was contracted by the Clover Creek HOA to perform a
Level 2 Tree Risk Assessment on a Paciflc Madrone (Arbutus menziesii) that has recently
had some major branch failure and a lean over the home at 1140 N 27th PL SE. The tree
is located on Parcel 166450TR-B which seems to be unnamed with no additional
information via the King County GIS and Renton GIS mapping systems.
The tree was assessed by their location, size, current condition, and overall health. The
data was then used to guide the potential strategies for care. The purpose of this report
is to provide details of the current condition, health, and recommendations for
maintenance. The flndings in this report can be used to make decisions on whether the
tree may need to be removed or can be retained with restorative pruning and plant
health care.
Methods
Data was collected by an ISA Certifled & TRAQ Arborist (John Cvikota: PN-9483A) on
03/25/2025. A Level 2 Assessment was performed which involved the following: A 360-
degree walk around, visual evaluation of the tree where the crown, trunk, root fiare,
above ground roots, and site conditions are evaluated with regard to speciflc targets.
This is performed with simple tools such as a sounding mallet, soil probe, clinometer,
etc. No physical inspection of the upper canopy, root crown excavation, resistograph or
other technologies were used in the evaluation of the trees. The following attributes
were collected for each site:
Species: Trees were identifled by genus and species, cultivar if evident, and by common
name.
Docusign Envelope ID: 8E496594-4F38-48D5-8CA2-32D9482DE1D5
3
Diameter at Standard Height (DSH): Trunk diameter was recorded to the nearest inch at
4.5 feet above grade except where noted for each stem. When limbs or deformities
occur at standard height, measurement was taken below 4.5 ft.
Height: Tree Height is estimated to the nearest <5ft.
Avg. Canopy Radius: Average dripline distance was measured.
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 strength of crotches, amount of dead wood, 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
the 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:
● 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. A
nearly ideal form for the species and is generally symmetrical.
● Good (61%-80%): Vigor is normal for the species and has no signiflcant 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 signiflcant
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
Docusign Envelope ID: 8E496594-4F38-48D5-8CA2-32D9482DE1D5
4
structural defect of a signiflcant 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 and 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 signiflcant 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 signiflcant 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.
● Critical (1-5%) The tree is dying and/or presents an unacceptable risk which
necessitates immediate removal.
● Dead (0%)
Limits of the Assignment
There are many factors that can limit speciflc 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 the flndings, conclusions, and
recommendations found in this report. 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, root crown excavation, and
resistograph or other technologies were used in the evaluation of the trees.
Docusign Envelope ID: 8E496594-4F38-48D5-8CA2-32D9482DE1D5
5
Tree Risk Assessment
Tree #1: Paciflc Madrone Arbutus menziesii
DSH Height Avg. Canopy Radius Condition
15” 25’ 20’ Fair
Root / Root Plate: Cavity with evidence of decay (fruiting bodies) in the very bottom of
trunk and top of root collar. Tree has signiflcant lean over adjacent property and has
had numerous large branch failures in recent weather events. Trunk shows discoloration
and crown is sparse with low vigor.
Risk Categorization: The likelihood of failure is Probable with a High risk of property
damage to the home. This event is Likely, and the consequences of impact are Severe.
Overall Tree Risk Rating: High
Docusign Envelope ID: 8E496594-4F38-48D5-8CA2-32D9482DE1D5
6
Analysis and Recommendations
• Remove tree and leave debris cut up and scattered in NGPA area
Docusign Envelope ID: 8E496594-4F38-48D5-8CA2-32D9482DE1D5
1
Arborist Report
April 25, 2025
Prepared For: Clover Creek HOA
1110 N 27th PL
Renton, WA 98056
Prepared By: John Cvikota
The Davey Tree Expert Company
8622 S 222nd St
Kent, WA 9032
ISA Certifled Arborist PN-9483A
Tree Risk Assessment Qualifled Arborist
Attachment B
RECEIVED
05/13/2025 AWragge
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 8E496594-4F38-48D5-8CA2-32D9482DE1D5
2
Introduction
The Davey Tree Expert Company was contracted by the Clover Creek HOA to perform a
Level 2 Tree Risk Assessment on a Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum) that is reported
to be dying and/or dead and is overhanging the driveway and home at 1310 N 27th CT.
Tree is on Parcel 166450TR-B which seems to be unnamed with no additional
information via the King County GIS and Renton GIS mapping systems.
The tree was assessed by their location, size, current condition, and overall health. The
data was then used to guide the potential strategies for care. The purpose of this report
is to provide details of the current condition, health, and recommendations for
maintenance. The flndings in this report can be used to make decisions on whether the
tree may need to be removed or can be retained with restorative pruning and plant
health care.
Methods
Data was collected by an ISA Certifled & TRAQ Arborist (John Cvikota: PN-9483A) on
04/17/2025. A Level 2 Assessment was performed which involved the following: A 360-
degree walk around, visual evaluation of the tree where the crown, trunk, root fiare,
above ground roots, and site conditions are evaluated with regard to speciflc targets.
This is performed with simple tools such as a sounding mallet, soil probe, clinometer,
etc. No physical inspection of the upper canopy, root crown excavation, resistograph or
other technologies were used in the evaluation of the trees. The following attributes
were collected for each site:
Species: Trees were identifled by genus and species, cultivar if evident, and by common
name.
Docusign Envelope ID: 8E496594-4F38-48D5-8CA2-32D9482DE1D5
3
Diameter at Standard Height (DSH): Trunk diameter was recorded to the nearest inch at
4.5 feet above grade except where noted for each stem. When limbs or deformities
occur at standard height, measurement was taken below 4.5 ft.
Height: Tree Height is estimated to the nearest <5ft.
Avg. Canopy Radius: Average dripline distance was measured.
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 strength of crotches, amount of dead wood, 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
the 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:
● 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. A
nearly ideal form for the species and is generally symmetrical.
● Good (61%-80%): Vigor is normal for the species and has no signiflcant 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 signiflcant
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
Docusign Envelope ID: 8E496594-4F38-48D5-8CA2-32D9482DE1D5
4
structural defect of a signiflcant 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 and 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 signiflcant 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 signiflcant 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.
● Critical (1-5%) The tree is dying and/or presents an unacceptable risk which
necessitates immediate removal.
● Dead (0%)
Limits of the Assignment
There are many factors that can limit speciflc 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 the flndings, conclusions, and
recommendations found in this report. 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, root crown excavation, and
resistograph or other technologies were used in the evaluation of the trees.
Docusign Envelope ID: 8E496594-4F38-48D5-8CA2-32D9482DE1D5
5
Tree Risk Assessment
Tree #1: Big Leaf Maple Acer macrophyllum
DSH Height Avg. Canopy Radius Condition
36” 60’ 45’ Very Poor
Branches: Approximately 50% of the canopy is full of dead branches that are actively
failing in any weather event.
Trunk(s): Covered in vines. After removing vines, about half the trunks are dead and
hollow with the bark starting to fall off. Multiple codominant splits at the base of the
tree with included bark.
Risk Categorization: The likelihood of failure is Imminent with a Medium risk of property
damage to the home. This event is Likely, and the consequences of impact are Severe.
Overall Tree Risk Rating: High
Docusign Envelope ID: 8E496594-4F38-48D5-8CA2-32D9482DE1D5
6
Analysis and Recommendations
• Remove tree and leave debris cut up and scattered in NGPA area
Docusign Envelope ID: 8E496594-4F38-48D5-8CA2-32D9482DE1D5
ISA. Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client C k)vt;:\1-( 'v-C~1£ H<J -A Date ~-2 ~, 2.~ Time ,: O(.) ?,.,-,
Address/Tree location i?f\O.UL. \'®t4 S::01 ~ -\3 Tree no. ____ Sheet_j_ of~
Tree species Xb.x' .C,c.. ~ o.-ro\V-dbh ·yo '1 Height l#~-' • Crown spread dia. -30'
Assessor(s) ~\)~,..., Cv,~on Time frame 2 'Ii, Tools used B .. w,c. L-, I 2-"-, r
Target Assessment
Tarset zone
Occupancy ,..
i C .,
~
11 rate s~ c,.. Jf ,~ ji 1-rart ii ta 2 -occulornil ~ :, T111et description Jf ~, ,~ 3-frequent -c-e C ; I! 4-consunt Ee F IIIC CL
1 UOt"\t X ~ t-J N
2
3
4
Site Factors
History of failures ~ ?n.MtO::t Topography Flat□ Slope rt! / O % Aspect _s _
Site changes NoneJ21 Grade change□ Site clearing□ Changed soil hydrology□ Root cuts□ Describe ____________ _
Soil conditions Limited volume□ SaturatedJZf Shallow□ Compacted□ PavementoverrootsO __ % Describe _________ _
Prevailing wind direction~ Common weather Strongwindsfl lceif Snowif HeavyrainlZI Describe __________ _
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low~ Normal □ High D Foliage None (seasonal) D None (dead) D Normal __ % Chlorotic __ % Necrotic_£_%
Pests N "0 • Abiotic N , Q,
Species failure profile Branches D Trunk D Roots□ Describe_..1li.1.1w~9=--_.1,1W,f.JQa.i;0 OuAoob-_....:1~w:b:L..:...:!o~"-~8~-,_ ___________ _
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected □ Partial □ Full~ Wind funneling □ _________ Relative crown size Small.!Zr Medium □ Large □
Crown density Sparse}2! Normal D Dense □ Interior branches FewS Normal D Dense D Vines/Mistletoe/Moss if _v......._, :::....t-1 ... E..ocS,_ ___ _
Recent or planned change in load factors -~L..LJl,L.1....----------------------------
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
-Crown and Branches -
Unbalanced crown¢ LCR JaQ._% 1,
Dead twigs/branchesZ ~% overall Max. dla. ~
Broken/Hangers Number (d Max. dia. ~
Over-extended branches Z
Pruning history
Crown cleaned □ Thinned □
Reduced D Topped □
Raised □
Lion-tailed □
Cracks □ ------------Lightning damage □
Cod om in ant lli -----------Included bark 0
cavity/Nest hole_% circ.
Similar branches present.ef
Sapwood damage/decay □
We a k attachments Fti -------
Previous branch failures fl{ -----
Dead/Missing bark~ cankers/Galls/Buris D
Conks □ Heartwood decay D _______ _
Flush cuts □ Other________ Response growth -----------------
Main concern(s) _8....,_r::.:O>-.uO.-C-h~--ri...:;"'--=..:...i ~;;..;;..;.'..='-;;__--1r ..... o ........ bi..::1S.. ..... •..;..A..:.,%--ct="'::;.;...{.;...""...:;~_•..,,.6~"--.... l'---'-'-""';.>,'~l-"f.)'--'-ry,f.-________ _
Load on defect N/A D • Minor □ Moderate lzf Significant □ -----------------
Likelihood of failure Improbable D Possible □ Probable ~ Imminent D -----------------
-Trunk-
Dead/Missing bark ~ Abnormal bark texture/color D
Codomlnant stems Ji! Included bark~ Cracks D
Sapwood damage/decay □ cankers/Galls/Burls□ Sap ooze □
Lightning damage D Heartwood decay D Conks/Mushrooms D
cavity/Nest hole __ % clrc. Depth___ Poor taper□
Lean~• Corrected? '\...,€$;:;;.._ _______ _
Response growth ---+i __ E:S ____________ _
Main concern(s) _____________ _
Load on defect N/A ~ Minor □ Moderate D Significant □
Likelihood of failure
Improbable~ Possible 0 Probable □ Imminent 0
-Roots and Root Collar -
Collar burled/Not visible □ Depth___ Stem girdling □
Dead □ Decay D Conks/Mushrooms □
Ooze □ cavity ~ .15'.:._% circ.
Cracks)a Cut/Damaged roots□ Distance from trunk __ _
Root plate lifting □ Soil weakness D
Response growth ____________ _
Main concern(s) 0A'I '"t'{ • N 5$1tcs £"
Load on defect N/A D Minor □ Moderate □ Significant ,J
Likelihood of failure
Improbable D Possible D Probable,i Imminent D
Page I of 2 Attachment C
RECEIVED
05/13/2025 AWragge
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 8E496594-4F38-48D5-8CA2-32D9482DE1D5
Risk Categorization
Likelihood
r.. Consequences J r.. Failure & Impact
e QI 1l Failure Impact (from Matrix 1)
~ u E Risk
C C ::, .J .. c rating
I QI ; C c II ~ :I .ll " .c ! ~ N .3 1 E ~ of part ·;;; ... " ~ ~ ! .. .. ! !ij ~ :, j !E '6 Conditions QI Target e .3 :s ~ ~ :;. ~ J (from t: -e!I 1 e ~ ! .c E " C
8 "ii a. e " ~ c ~ .11111 ~ " i JI ~ Matrix 2)
Tree part of concern "' ~ protection .§ .§ ~ :E ::r: ::, ::I z .,,
CL u. II. II. ~ ,..., ,..., -,.,
I t1W r, -'1 -r: () (., V: lito.' \ tJ ,, V~ I V ' ' \. ., \. L '~ \. ___, ' ~ (..\..... r ~ C ,...., ,,-
1 y ,, -, C C ,, '-' .,,. ,(' V Li '-' I u \. 'L.J ~ ~ -,~rv r-,. ,-C r C C -C r: r I", ,... ,.,. ( I ~--\ ' \ '----' L v ' ' \. , L \. "
IC 'r --~\t:,.t+ ~, l\ ,.,. r fl, ,.,. 'C r C fl V: I 1£ \ ~ \. _,, \_____, ' _,, \. .-'
C,o..v,~ µ'~ u ' , ~ --{_~ -.-.
2 C ,.,. L L ( l___.. ( ( ( l___..
, ' ~..s '-, '------' '., \ \..
~rt.J..,r.~ ' , I"', C r -C L -C r, ,,-C: r ~q '-, '-., u L.., ' u \. '., '-~ \..____,
C C --,..., -r, ,-. C r C \...., v \..,i v v V v V V V v v ,... ,... r: r ,.,. n C --3 ,-. r ,.... ,,,...., C ,.... I
\. ___, \, \. _,, \. _,, ~ ~ \.. .-' \. _. \. ., ,.,. ,.,. ,... C --C r.. ,.... ~ -C, --r .,
L \, , \. , \..__., L L '-( ' , \. .-' ' ., \ -L -IC C r ,.... ----,.,. F c, I f L L \. .-' ~ \.._ _. \..J '-, \ , \. , \. , \..__, ,.... ~ --C ,.... ,... ,... ----4 -,.,., I ~
\.___, '-, \. , \ _. \._~ ~ ' \ \.. , '-, \..___., L \. ___, '\.
C 0 u L C C C: n ,-..., ~ Q ,.... (~ L L.., v \. .,
Motrix I. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood Likelihood of Impacting Target
of Failure Very low Low Medium High
Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely
Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely
Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely i -
Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
Motrix2. Risk rating matrix.
Likelihood of Consequences of Failure
Failure & Impact Negligible Minor Significant Severe
Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme
I I
~~El i I
Likely Low Moderate High High
Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate
North
Unlikely Low Low Low Low
Notes, explanations, descriptions ___________ _
Mitigation options _ ___.,\4.a:.Oi..c..:...t-re'.;..;;_ ________________________ Residual risk
_____________________________________ Residual risk ___ _
-------------------------------------Residual risk ___ _
_____________________________________ Residual risk ___ _
Overall tree risk rating Low D Moderate D High~ Extreme D Work priority 1-2 D 3 D 4 D
Overall residual risk Low D Moderate D High, Extreme D Recommended inspection interval 2 't 11.
Data;t'Final D Preliminary Advanced assessment needed,rff,lo □Yes-Type/Reason __________________ _
Inspection limitations)t!None □Visibility □Access □Vines □Root collar buried Describe ________________ _
lhl, datuheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculturt (!SA) and is intended for use by Tree Rlsk Ancssmcnt Qualified (TRAQ) arborists -2013
Page 2 of 2
Docusign Envelope ID: 8E496594-4F38-48D5-8CA2-32D9482DE1D5
ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client C f::Qy:E i. c '?e"'(!:: ,c.. tto A Date 4-1-i-'l. S-Time Ip: 3a &M
Address/Tree location X'\~c..et-11p,.14 S-11~ -A Tree no. __ _.._ __ Sheet -1-of -2:_
Treespecies C•t, L.t'-+ N\l~½: (.\n. dbh 3<P'" Height ~o• Crownspreaddla. LI£'
Assessor(s) AQW Co,,¥-.e>tr\ Time frame 2. \/ff: Tools used 6"-1''-1-1 '2. I':,,
~ I ... '
I
Taraet Assessment
T1ra1tzone
'
IJ
~ ,~ Occupancy ~
JJ l'ltl 0 .,
Ii 1:= 1-rare .. l'
t!! I 2 -occasional Ii Ta,pt description Jf ~i J~ 3-frequent 'C 'ti ie 4-constant Ee a:: a.
1 ~OM6 I/ LI .. I ")
2 \.l~Hlt.Le~ I/ 2. tJ "I
3
4
Site Factors
History of failures 'If S Topography Flat□ Slopeef IO % Aspect _tJ_
Site cha~ None ljjf Grade change □ Site clearing□ Changed soil hydrology □ Root cuts□ Describe _____________ _
Soil conditions Limited volumeJ;if Saturated□ Shallow □ Compacted□ Pavement over rootsif y O % Describe _________ _
Prevailing wind direction Sl$W Common weather Strong windsizl Ice~ Snow~ Heavy rainJZ Describe ___________ _
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor LowJa' Normal □ High □ Foliage None (seasonal)□ None (dead)□ Normal __ %
Pests I;-)•~ C> b~~ Ablotfc ~\lit..!.:, N..~~~.,...,....----------------
Chlorotic __ % Necrotic t;'O %
Spedes failure profile Branchesi;a' Trunk□ Roots □ Describe \¼o~ f\rc....,.c).. ~½~f
Load Factors '
Wind exposure Protected □ Partial It Full □ Wind funneling □ _________ Relative crown size Small □ MediumiJ Large □
Crown density Sparse'1 Normal□ Dense □ Interior branches Few□ Normal~ Dense □-Vlnes/Mistletoe/Mossllf \/1NES:
Recent or planned change In load factors --JJ~""-----------------------------
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Ukellhood of Failure
-Crown and Branches -
Unbalanced crown J2f LCR J,t!J_%
Dead twigs/branches i!f ~o % overall Max. dia. IS-+"
Broken/Hangers Number ~ S: Max. dia. ~
Over-extended branches □
Pruning history
Crown cleaned □ Thinned □ Raised □
Reduced □ Topped □ Lion-tailed □
Flush cuts □ Other
Main concem(s) ~r .. w-.e,l ~"' I I "'-'x
Cracks JZJ ___________ _ Lightning damage □
Codominanti!f ------------Included bark □
Cavity/Nest hole_% circ.
Similar branches present.ef
Sapwood damage/decay □
Weak attachments li!!f ______ _
Previous branch failures ~ -----
Dead/Missing bark /6 Cankers/Galls/Burls □
Conks □ Heartwood decay □ ________ _
Response growth-----------------
Load on defect N/A □ Minor □ Moderatejlf Significant □ -----------------
Ukellhood of failure Improbable D Possible D Probable O Imminent ~-----------------
-Trunk-
Dead/Missing bark J2J Abnormal bark texture/color Rf
Codomlnant stems~ Included bark)lJ Cracksiief
Sapwood damage/decay □ Cankers/Galls/Burls □ Sap ooze □
Lightning damage □ Heartwood decay □ Conks/Mushrooms □
Cavity/Nest hole __ % circ. Depth___ Poor taper □
Lean __ • Corrected? ___________ _
Response growth~~-,------------
Main concern(s) ~~ ofr-f!\v,\r, -¼~ ~tVA Y
fl:£" \Oo~ dCG...~
Load on defect N/A □ Minor □ Moderate □ Significantaf
Ukellhood of failure
Improbable O Possible □ Probable D lmmlnent}lf
-Roots and Root Collar -
Collar buried/Not visible,' Depth___ Stem girdling □
Dead O Decay □ Conks/Mushrooms □
Ooze □ Cavity □ __ % circ.
nt 2r' Cracks □ Cut/Damaged rootsp Distance from trunk -c:::_....:;.-;;,_
Root plate lifting □ Soll weakness~
Response growth _____________ _
Malnconcern(s) &n,on, ,,rood ;l\cls.,\g, \ 1::y
Load on defect N/A □ Minor □ Moderate □ Significant)lf
Likelihood of failure
lmprobable;lf Posslble D Probable D Imminent D
Page I of 2 Attachment D
RECEIVED
05/13/2025 AWragge
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 8E496594-4F38-48D5-8CA2-32D9482DE1D5
Risk Categorization .. Likelihood
J .. Failure & Impact Consequences
E CII .8 Failure Impact (from Matrix 1) ::II "" E C C Risk ::, :I ! CII ftl C .. ~ • .. rating t; 1: " N i .!! j e s: • :a C
'iii !6 .. J! .a ! ~ ! ~ ~ of part Conditions ~ CII Target .a .3 .i J ~ :i .. ! 8 !!!I ~ l e ~ ~ l s: e J ~ l j c ~ (from
Tree part of concern ftl ii ~ protection s e s ~ !I c .S! ~ JI Jt a. I&. II. II. =i: %: ::, :::J z ~ Ill Matrix 21
rJ ,.. -e (7, r C -r ,.. ~~°" Lih1 \ \. . ( [/ \ . r,, \ ~ '-'-('t.(}t)
1 ~("Q.~\. e ,,, r ~ ,-... ,.... e ,...
?.. .. J ~ ~ L r ~~ \"" ( (..,
\.., ~ V \.... V \. , \. , ~ ~ IM.oO
r r Ir {---{-(-r e l . \. ' \. . \.,... \.. \ . \ . L ; \. , \. ,,-,-, -r .,..... 0 e r ,,.... ~ ~ r r I'""' (/
°l'"'" ~ \ ..J \ . , ... \ I/ \ \ v \. ~ \ ~,~
2 1'r~/\~s J ;c -,.... 0. -r -." ~ C ll "
~-\"'"rt.,
~ \. ,j \. ; t ... Cl'. \. ; \. ; (/ \ V ~0,0
C: r,, r r, r r -----\ \ \ ; \ ; \-; \ \ \ \. , \ \..
{l. ---,,..... ,.., r, ~ -l, e -\ ~ .,
,J \..., v v V V v v V \.... --ll'),.i
3 <p_~~ -,..., -(7, ,..... --<7: --. --~ rcl'i ,av,.. 1,.. J rt: \. ' \ , \. ; \. ; \. \. ) \ \. ; \. fl: '"., V l c>W -,---{ ;
--l, C --t., --~
\. ; \. ( \ \. \. ~ \. '-....; --,----C: r n -C ,....
\. \ ; \ ; \. { ; \ , \. \ \.. \. ., \. \.___,
4 -,---r, r (, -. ( -\. \ \ , \. \. ; \. \. . \ ; \. ' \. , \. ~
( ' -,-( .. \
,.... r C -
\. .. \. , \. .. \. . \. _; \ ; \ l l ~ l
Matrix I. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood Likelihood of Impacting Target
of Failure 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
Matrixl. Risk rating matrix.
Likelihood of Consequences of Failure
Failure & Impact Negligible Minor Significant Severe
Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme ---
Likely Low Moderate High High
Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate North
Unlikely Low Low Low Low
Notes, explanations, descriptions ____________ _
Mitigation options --------------------------------Residual risk ___ _
• I ; \/e.s. Cr•"'"-C..¼'M'. RcJN>w \or•~/ dw.~ lore>"'cW Resldualrisk bOW
• 'l. ! .;lo , \\c;,. \~ +\.!.. ~ \ s d~ d.. d,~ :::fp v, '1\..1-. 5 Residual risk H-tC:zt+
sh~\, I\~ N\'>h \ ½ ,,;,\..... co -~c,M +rl.4.,11\ \'-S Residual risk ___ _
Overall tree risk rating Low D Moderate D Hlg~ Extreme D Work priority 1$ 2 D 3 D 4 D
Overall residual risk Low D Moderate D High,! Extreme D Recommended inspection Interval --------
Datajl{Flnal D Preliminary Advanced assessment needed □No □Yes-Type/Reason ___________________ _
Inspection limitations-one □Visibility □Access □Vines □Root collar burled Describe ________________ _
Thls datashcct was produced by the International Society of Arborlculture (ISA) and ls Intended for use by Tree Risk Assmment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists -2013 Page 2 of 2
Docusign Envelope ID: 8E496594-4F38-48D5-8CA2-32D9482DE1D5