The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAttachment_A_Arborist_1224N28thPL_250623_V1ARBORIST REPORT Prepared By: June 16, 2025 Iner Jorgensen 1224 North 28 Place, Renton, WA 98056 Terry Flatley, Certified Arborist Tree Risk Assessment Qualification ARBORIST REPORT Iner Jorgensen 1224 N. 28 Place Renton, Washington 98056 Introduction Mr. Iner Jorgensen owns parcel 3342100870 at 1224 North 28 Place, Renton, Washington 98056 in King County, Washington. The property is 5,100 square feet and is found in the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East. At the southeast corner of the front yard is a western redcedar tree (Tree 1). This tree is growing 27 feet from the house in a three feet wide strip. Adjacent to the west side of the tree is a concrete driveway; a block wall is on the east side of the trunk. The large structural roots are damaging the concrete and asphalt surfaces of the driveway and pushing against and deflecting the block wall. There are electric, telephone and cable wires running through its crown that feeds power to the area. Mr. Jorgensen is concerned for Tree 1 damaging his driveway and block wall and the expense to replace the driveway. Removing structural roots during driveway replacement will destabilize the tree and increase the risk of striking the house, street, vehicles, pedestrians and causing damage to overhead utilities. A second cedar exists inside the backyard fence along the northeast property boundary. A Basic Tree Risk Assessment form (BTRA) was completed for the front yard cedar tree and is included in this report. A basic level tree assessment was conducted from the standpoint of its risk during driveway replacement and presumes Tree 1 structural and smaller roots would be removed to replace the driveway, resulting in whole tree removal. Tree Inventory Table Tree No.Species DBH (in.)Height (ft.)Crown Diameter (ft.) Condition (%)* Risk Rating 1 Western redcedar 30 70 45 70 Extreme 2 Western redcedar 20 64 24 80 N/A (low) ARBORIST REPORT Area Map Site Location Map 1224 N 28 Pl Jorgensen Page of 2 6 Area Map Location for 1224 N. 28 Place Locations of Tree 1 and 2 at 1224 N. 28 Place ARBORIST REPORT Discussion - Tree Number 1 The property owner requests a permit to remove Tree No. 1 shown in the Tree Inventory Table and the Site Location Map. Also, please see the BTRA form at the end of this document. The tree appears to be in good condition and is out-growing its narrow space. This is evidenced by large structural roots growing beneath the driveway and heaving the driveway. The trunk is pressing against the block wall and is beginning to deflect and crack the wall. There is no evidence of structural roots along the wall interface and probably no roots exist below the wall to support the east side of the tree. To facilitate driveway repairs the main structural roots and many smaller feeder roots would be removed. Removing structural and other roots will have adverse impacts including destabilizing the tree and a decline in tree growth and condition. The BTRA form assumes tree roots are severed and the consequences resulting without tree removal. Conclusion In my professional opinion, the likelihood of the Tree Number 1 failing, to facilitate driveway repairs, and striking any of the targets (people, house, street, vehicles and overhead wires) causing damage to property or injury to people poses an extreme risk. The information in this report uses a basic level assessment at ground level and considers tree conditions under normal weather conditions typical for the Puget Sound Region. Periodic inspections should be considered as site conditions may change over time. Property owners should consider the facts presented in this report and decide what actions to pursue. Because no one person can predict when trees will fail, there is no warranty or guarantee that trees in this report will not fail. The information in this report was gathered using International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards for a basic level tree risk assessment. For further information please contact Terry Flatley, 425-891-2625, tjflyfishing@me.com 1224 N 28 Pl Jorgensen Page of 3 6 ARBORIST REPORT Tree Photographs 1224 N 28 Pl Jorgensen Page of 4 6 Tree 1. Note proximity to house, street, overhead utility wires ARBORIST REPORT 1224 N 28 Pl Jorgensen Page of 5 6 Large heaved cracks in driveway 3 inch rise in large crack Crack runs width of driveway Structural roots causing cracks and heaving ARBORIST REPORT 1224 N 28 Pl Jorgensen Page of 6 6 Tree 1 proximity to wall and restricted growing space. Note wall deﬂection at tree trunk — 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 1 x 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 rate1–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 Iner Jorgensen 6/15/25 10:15 a.m. 1224 N. 28 Place, Renton, WA 98056: PID 3342100870 5,100 S.F. SW 32 T24N R5E 1 1 2 Western redcedar 30”70’45’ Terry Flatley Dtape, probe, camera, mallet, binocular 1 year Driveway None ✔✔✔4 N N House None ✔✔✔4 N N Street None ✔✔✔4 N N Overhead electric, telephone, cable wires, block wall None ✔✔✔4 N N None ■2 W ■ ■■■70 Drive is 2’ west of tree trunk SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■100 None evident Driveway and wall severely restricting growth ■Windthrow potential greatly increases risk when structural roots are severed. ■■■ ■■ Expect extreme windthrow potential or tree decline/death when structural roots are severed to repair concrete driveway. ■99 30 <2” ■ ■On ground ■ Large structural roots ■ Whole tree failure, trunk is damaging block wall 30”0 to 27’ ■ ■ ■ Large structural roots Roots damaging driveway 10 to 14”2’ ■ ■ 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 Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 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 Driveway Structural roots and root plate Concrete damage ●●●●High House Whole tree Root cutting will destabilize tree ●●●●Extreme Street Whole tree Root cutting will destabilize tree ●●●●High Utilities Whole tree Root cutting will destabilize tree. Trunk damaging wall ●●●●High Block wall ●●●●High Crown has utility wires running through it that powers the neighborhood. Tree trunk is against block wall and pushing wall to the east. Tree has extremely limited space to grow and expand. Lower branches obstruct vehicular view of pedestrians or other vehicles. Fire hydrant nearby may be impacted by roots in the future. Tree removal 0 ■ ■1 year ■ ■