The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About30 - Arborist Report.pdf TREE RETENTION /LAND CLEARING PLAN RENTON HIGH SCHOOL REPLACEMENT AND SITE EXPANSION PROJECT Renton, Washington PREPARED FOR: Brianne Tomlin, Architect Facilities PD – Capitol Planning & Construction Renton School District No. 403 7812 South 124th Street Seattle, WA 98178 Cell: (206) 573-3600 PREPARED BY: Atlas Technical Consultants LLC 17619 NE 67th Ct #100 Redmond, WA 98052 September 4, 2025 Tree Retention / Land Clearing Plan Renton High School Replacement and Site Expansion Project Page | 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 2 2. PROJECT LOCATION ......................................................................................................................................... 2 3. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................. 2 3.1 Environmentally Critical Areas ................................................................................................................ 3 4. METHODS ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 4.1 Tree Inventory Methods......................................................................................................................... 3 4.2 Significant Trees ..................................................................................................................................... 4 4.3 Landmark Trees ..................................................................................................................................... 4 5. TREE INVENTORY RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 4 6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................... 6 7. IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................................................... 6 8. CODE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................... 7 9. MITIGATION SEQUENCING .............................................................................................................................. 8 9.1 Avoidance .............................................................................................................................................. 8 9.2 Minimization.......................................................................................................................................... 8 9.3 Compensation........................................................................................................................................ 8 9.3.1 Minimum Tree Retention Requirements by Diameter .................................................................. 8 9.3.2 Minimum Tree Retention Requirements by Sum of Significant ..................................................... 9 9.3.3 Tree Credit Requirements ........................................................................................................... 9 10. TREE PROTECTION BMPS ............................................................................................................................... 9 10.1 Construction BMPs............................................................................................................................. 11 10.2 Tree Removal ..................................................................................................................................... 12 10.3 Post Construction BMPs ..................................................................................................................... 12 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – King County parcel numbers and associated address of project ................................................................ 2 Table 2 – Summary of Significant Trees within Project Area .................................................................................... 4 Table 3 – Cumulative CRZ impact analysis of significant trees .................................................................................. 6 Table 4 – Total diameter inches of removed and retained significant trees. ............................................................. 7 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A– Tree Inventory Log ............................................................................................................................. A Appendix B – Tree Location Map & Protection Plan ................................................................................................ B Appendix C – CRZ Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................................... C Tree Retention / Land Clearing Plan Renton High School Replacement and Site Expansion Project Page | 2 1. INTRODUCTION Atlas Technical Consultants (Atlas) is pleased to submit this Tree Retention/ Land Clearing Plan for the Renton High School Replacement and Site Expansion Project (Project). The Project proposes to reconstruct and expand the Renton High School Campus while retaining the original 1931 historic portion of the building Façade and IKEA Performing Arts Center. The new school campus will be constructed on the current Renton High School site and recently acquired adjacent parcels. The new three-story building will include core classrooms and other learning environments for career and technical education, college-level classes, the arts, sciences, and community spaces amongst other additions. The new campus will also include a lighted athletic baseball and softball field and a practice football and soccer field in the northwest corner of the project site. This Tree Retention Plan is divided into three general sections. The first summarizes the basic findings of the tree inventory. The second analyzes the proposal and discusses impacts to the subject trees, and the third contains recommended tree protection Best Management Practices (BMPs) that originate, in part, from City of Renton requirements. This document is intended to meet the requirements of the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Title 4-4-130 to be used as a guide during construction to reduce impacts to retain trees within the subject parcels. 2. PROJECT LOCATION The existing school parcel is located at 400 South 2nd Street in the City of Renton on King County Parcel Number 0007200060. The Project includes recently acquired adjacent parcels including 32 residential and eight commercial parcels that the School District owns or is in the process of securing. The additional parcels and associated addresses are listed in Table 1. Table 1 – King County parcel numbers and associated address of project KING COUNTY PARCEL NO. PARCEL ADDRESS KING COUNTY PARCEL NO. PARCEL ADDRESS KING COUNTY PARCEL NO. PARCEL ADDRESS 0007200016 81 LOGAN AVE S 0007200079 418 S TOBIN ST 5696000160 121 LOGAN AVE S 0007200017 75 LOGAN AVE S 0007200108 502 S TOBIN ST 5696000165 117 LOGAN AVE S 0007200033 314 S TILLICUM ST 0007200110 500 S TOBIN ST 5696000169 LOGAN AVE 0007200034 300 S TOBIN ST 0007200114 504 S TOBIN ST 5696000170 109 LOGAN AVE S 0007200035 312 S TOBIN ST 0007200127 509 S TOBIN ST 5696000180 LOGAN AVE 0007200036 316 S TOBIN ST 0007200128 513 S TOBIN ST 5696000185 103 LOGAN AVE S 0007200037 402 S TOBIN ST 0007200167 54 SHATTUCK AVE S 5696000190 97 LOGAN AVE S 0007200038 408 S TOBIN ST 0007200171 60 SHATTUCK AVE S 7229300490 301 AIRPORT WY 0007200039 414 S TOBIN ST 0007200179 406 S TOBIN ST 7229300515 309 AIRPORT WY 0007200040 508 S TOBIN ST 0007200214 311 S TILLICUM ST 7229300545 455 AIRPORT WY 0007200041 518 S TOBIN ST 5696000140 526 2ND AVE S 7229300580 511 AIRPORT WY 0007200043 59 LOGAN AVE S 5696000145 526 2ND AVE S 7229300595 43 LOGAN AVE S 0007200072 420 S TOBIN ST 5696000150 129 LOGAN AVE S 7229300630 55 LOGAN AVE S 0007200078 416 S TOBIN ST 5696000155 127 LOGAN AVE S 7229300635 51 LOGAN A 3. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS The existing parcel and recently acquired adjacent parcels are located within a half mile of the downtown Renton city center and is surrounded by medium density residential and commercial businesses. The Renton Municipal Tree Retention / Land Clearing Plan Renton High School Replacement and Site Expansion Project Page | 3 Airport is located northwest of the subject property. A major interstate, I-405, is located to the east but does not form a project boundary. The topography surrounding the existing parcel and recently acquired adjacent parcels is generally flat with trees, horticultural shrubs, lawn, and impervious surfaces typical of residential, commercial, and school uses such as parking lots and driveways. The landscape surrounding Renton High School is well maintained with good specimens of Scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea) along South 2nd Street and Green ash (Fraxinus pennslvanica) along the east border of the existing parcel. Other tree species include Katsura tree (Cercidiphyllum japonicum), Japanese maple (Acer palmatum), and Pin oak (Quercus palustris) interspersed with areas of lawn and hardscape. 3.1 Environmentally Critical Areas The existing and adjacent parcels are mapped as a regulated seismic hazard area and wellhead protection area in accordance with the City of Renton (COR) Map. The wellhead protection area is divided from north to south with two wellhead protection areas classified as Zone 1 – Downtown and Zone 2 – Downtown. No wetlands or streams are present on the subject parcels. 4. METHODS 4.1 Tree Inventory Methods One ISA-Certified Arborist and Staff Arborist conducted a site visit on August 29, 2024, to inventory and assess tree’s rooted in the project area and immediate vicinity. An additional survey was conducted on July 1, 2025 and August 12, 2025 to assess trees rooted within the adjacent parcels secured by the City. Subject trees were measured for size using guidelines outlined in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition (CLTA, 2000) (Guide). Trunk diameters were measured 4.5 feet above the ground surface (diameter at breast height [DBH]) using a graduated metal logger’s diameter tape. Low branching, leaning, multi-stemmed trees, or trees on a slope were measured using the Modifications to Tree Size Measurements section of the Guide. Multi-stemmed trees were given a one-stem equivalent diameter in the attached inventory log using the total cross-sectional trunk area for all stems contributing to the canopy. Height was visually estimated to the nearest five feet. A condition rating was assigned to each tree using a scale from one to six, one being excellent and six being completely dead. The health factor combines an assessment of tree vigor and the soundness of the above-ground structure. Tree risk was not the primary target of this assessment, but a basic, ISA Level 1 screening of all trees in the inventory was performed. Potentially hazardous trees were noted during the inventory. The total developable area was determined by referencing the total size of the project area, including the recently acquired parcels, as stated on the Arborist Exhibit Plan Sheet. This is used for the purpose of calculating minimum tree credits per acre. Tree credits for retain trees were calculated by referencing the tree credit table under RMC 4- 4-130(H.)1.b.v. Note a subset of trees, specifically tree numbers 30, 43, and 44 are rooted off the subject parcels. The trees are counted toward the number of trees retained. However, the tree retention credits are not counted toward the total since the subject trees are not rooted on the parcel. Therefore, the tree retention credits are zeroed out in Appendix A for the subject trees. An impact assessment of the subject trees was performed to determine the effects of construction on adjacent retain trees. This is based on the critical root zone (CRZ) of the subject tree in conflict with the work and is also known as the limit of disturbance. The CRZ is defined as equaling one foot for every one inch of diameter. The total area of overlap between the CRZ of a tree and the clearing and grubbing limits or other project features is divided Tree Retention / Land Clearing Plan Renton High School Replacement and Site Expansion Project Page | 4 by the total area of the CRZ. The result is expressed as a percentage of cumulative CRZ impact. CRZ impact levels are divided into three tiers: low (less than 25 percent), moderate (25 to 29 percent), and high (30 percent or greater). When a CRZ impact is 25 percent or greater, retention is based on species and current health condition of the subject tree. Industry standards recommend tree removal when 30 percent or more of the CRZ is damaged or removed. 4.2 Significant Trees The regulatory status of trees was determined by reviewing the RMC. Relevant data was used to determine significance for evaluation of the proposal. According to Title 4-11-200 – T Definitions a significant tree is any tree with a caliper of at least six inches, except alder or cottonwood trees, which qualify as a significant tree with a caliper of 8 inches or greater. Trees that are dead, in very poor condition, or were judged to pose a high risk of failure are not considered significant. 4.3 Landmark Trees A landmark tree is defined as a tree with a caliper of at least twenty-four inches or greater. This excludes red alder and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) which are considered landmark trees with a caliper of thirty inches or greater per RMC 4-11-200(Y)(2.). 5. TREE INVENTORY RESULTS A total of 221 trees were identified, tagged, and assessed within and adjacent to the project limits (Appendix A, Appendix B). Of these, 212 trees are large enough to be considered “significant” while 29 trees meet the definition of a “landmark” tree (Table 2). The most common species, at 21 individuals, is Green ash followed closely by Western red cedar (Thuja plicata). Katsura tree (Cercidiphyllum japonicum) and Norway maple (Acer platanoides) are also prevalent at 15 individuals each. No western red cedar trees or other native coniferous species exhibited evidence of cultural modification. A total of 48 unique tree species are rooted within and adjacent to the project area (Table 1). Table 2 – Summary of Significant Trees within Project Area # WTHN PRJCT AREA SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME # SGNF CNT # LNDMR K SUM SIG CMBND DBH (IN) AVRG SIG CMBND DBH (IN) 3 Acer japonicum Full moon maple 2 - 17.6 8.8 11 Acer palmatum Japanese maple 8 - 56.7 67.1 15 Acer platanoides Norway maple 15 2 237.1 15.8 3 Acer rubrum Red oak 3 1 66.8 22.3 2 Arbutus unedo Strawberry tree 2 - 13.4 6.7 6 Betula pendula European birch 6 - 95.7 15.9 5 Calocedrus decurrens Incense cedar 5 4 136.6 27.3 2 Camelia japonica Camellia 2 - 21.3 10.7 6 Carpinus betulus European hornbeam 6 4 148.3 24.7 2 Cedrus deodara Deodar cedar 2 - 36.2 18.1 15 Cercidiphyllum japonicum Katsura tree 15 - 181.2 12.1 1 Chamaecyparis obtuse ‘Gracilis’ Slender Hinoki Falsecypress 1 7.5 7.5 3 Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood 3 - 27.6 9.2 1 Cornus kousa Kousa dogwood 1 7.6 7.6 2 Crataegus monogyna Common Hawthorne 2 - 17.7 8.9 Tree Retention / Land Clearing Plan Renton High School Replacement and Site Expansion Project Page | 5 Table 2 - Continued # WTHN PRJCT AREA SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME # SGNF CNT # LNDMR K SUM SIG CMBND DBH (IN) AVERAGE SIG CMBND DBH (IN) 1 Cupressus x leylandii Leyland cypress 1 - 18.8 18.8 1 Ficus caria Common fig 1 - 16.5 16.5 21 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash 21 - 308.8 14.7 5 Ilex aquifolium English holly 4 - 56.3 14.1 1 Larex decidua European larch 1 - 23.1 23.1 1 Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum 1 - 10.9 10.9 2 Magnolia grandiflora Southern magnolia 2 - 46.1 23.1 12 Malus spp. Cultivated crabapple 11 1 139.3 12.7 2 Paulownia tomentosa Empress tree 2 1 49.6 24.8 1 Picea abies Norway spruce 1 - 18.8 18.8 3 Picea pungens Colorado blue spruce 3 - 45.1 15.0 7 Pinus contorta Shore pine 7 - 67.2 9.6 1 Pinus monticola Western white pine 1 1 32.6 32.6 1 Platanus x acerifolia London plane 1 1 57.7 57.7 1 Prunus cerasifera Cherry plum tree 1 - 21.0 21.0 5 Prunus cerasifera 'thundercloud' Thundercloud plum tree 5 - 54.7 10.9 11 Prunus serrulata Japanese flowering cherry 11 2 197.9 18.0 9 Prunus spp. Flowering cherry 9 1 108.6 12.1 2 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 2 - 33.4 16.7 5 Pyrus calleryana Callery pear 5 - 54.6 10.9 4 Quercus coccinea Scarlet oak 4 1 88.5 22.1 10 Quercus palustris Pin oak 9 2 201.7 22.4 5 Quercus robur English oak 5 - 81.9 16.4 1 Rhus glabra Smooth sumac 1 7.6 7.6 4 Robinia pseudoacacia Black locust 4 1 47.9 12.0 1 Salix sp. Willow species 1 - 23.4 23.4 1 Sorbus aucuparia European mountain ash 1 - 9.8 9.8 1 Syringa vulgaris Common lilac - - - - 1 Taxus Baccata 'Fastigiata' Irish Yew - - - - 19 Thuja plicata Western red cedar 19 7 376.3 18.8 221 212 29 3308.7 15.6 The average diameter across all assessed trees is 15.6 inches. The largest diameter trees on average are Alaska Cedar and European white birch. Western white pine and London plane are also large diameter trees however only one individual of each species is present on site. The majority of the inventoried trees were judged to be in good condition. Tree Retention / Land Clearing Plan Renton High School Replacement and Site Expansion Project Page | 6 6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposal is to reconstruct the existing Renton High School building by shifting athletic fields and a new school building to newly secured parcels to accommodate restrictions associated with the Renton Municipal Airport. The new building will be three stories and will accommodate an array of classrooms and learning environments that will accommodate students, staff, and families. New lighted athletic fields will also be constructed. The ball fields west of the existing school building will receive minor improvements to the existing grass fields and the parking lots to the south will receive lower-height light poles. The project is planned to be completed in 2030. 7. IMPACT ASSESSMENT As detailed in Appendix C and Table 2, the Renton High School Replacement and Site Expansion Project will result in tree removal. Since the scope of the project is to expand the school campus and completely rework the landscape, the majority of the subject trees are in direct conflict with the proposed structure, new athletic fields, parking areas, or new access roads. Out of the 212 significant trees inventoried, 11 trees were initially discussed with the project team to understand if retention was feasible. After considering Arborist comments, a final CRZ analysis was completed with the final Arborist Exhibit plan sheet that addressed six trees. Of the six trees discussed, five trees met the “low” cumulative CRZ impact threshold (between 1 and 25 percent) while one tree meets the “high” CRZ impact category (30 percent or more) but is still recommended to be retained (Table 3). No assessed trees meet the “moderate” cumulative CRZ impact threshold (between 25 and 29 percent). Table 3 – Cumulative CRZ impact analysis of significant trees TREE TAG # SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME DBH (IN) HLTH CONDN CMLTV CRZ IMPCT (%) (DC=DRCT CONFLICT) IMPACT CTGRY (L=low) ACTION (r=REMOVE) 73 Quercus palustris Pin oak 44.0 Good 32 HIGH PROTECT 942 Malus sp. Cultivated Crabapple 9.2 Fair 0 L PROTECT 944 Pinus contorta Shore pine 16.8 Good 6 L PROTECT 955 Betula Pendula European white birch 14.7 Poor 0 L r 957 Cornus florida Flowering dogwood 10.3 Fair 0 L PROTECT 958 Picea abies Norway spruce 18.8 Good 25 L PROTECT Of the five trees in the low CRZ impact category, four trees will receive minimal root disturbance (i.e., 25 percent CRZ impact or less), are in good or fair condition, and are suitable for retention. One tree, tree number 955, is not expected to receive critical root zone impacts however it is a European birch in poor condition and is recommended to be removed. The subject tree has a dead top likely due to the presence of the bronze birch borer beetle and is not suitable for retention. Overall, one tree will receive consequential root impacts with a liberal CRZ impact of 32 percent. The analysis is liberal since existing concrete will be broken up within the CRZ which will not lead to significant root impacts if the work is conducted using means and methods to minimize impacts during the work. The arborist is recommended to be present for this work. This liberal level of impact is within the threshold of what a tree in reasonably good condition can withstand and is recommended to be retained. The total diameter inches of the retained trees is 559.5 diameter inches (Table 4). Please see Appendix A for a succinct breakdown of trees to be removed. Tree Retention / Land Clearing Plan Renton High School Replacement and Site Expansion Project Page | 7 Table 4 – Total diameter inches of removed and retained significant trees. # SIGNIFICANT TREES # REMOVED SIG TREES # SIG RETAINED TREES TOTAL SIG DIAMETER INCHES TOTAL SIG REMOVED DIAMETER INCHES (IN) TOTAL SIG RETAINED DIAMETER INCHES (IN) 212 193 28 3308.7 2707.5 559.5 Removed trees are not expected to adversely impact adjacent retain trees. The majority of trees to be removed constitute entire stands and therefore the risk to adjacent trees is low. Trees to be removed will be taken down from directions and using methods that will minimize harm to adjacent retain trees. In areas where existing buildings to be demolished are adjacent to retain trees, care will be taken to demolish buildings at a direction away from the subject tree. Note that tree protection fencing is recommended to be installed prior to this action. 8. CODE ANALYSIS This project is subject to the provisions of RMC 4-4-130 – Tree retention and land clearing regulations. This project falls under section 4-4-130(H). According to the RMC, the applicant is required to develop a tree retention plan to preserve and enhance the City’s physical and aesthetic character by minimizing indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees, shrubs, and ground cover; 2) Implement and further the goals and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan for the environment, open space, wildlife habitat, vegetation, resources, surface drainage, watersheds, and economics; 3) Promote land development practices that result in minimal adverse disturbance to existing vegetation and soils within the City while also recognizing that certain factors may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover; 4) Minimize surface water and groundwater runoff and diversion, and aid in the stabilization of soil while minimizing erosion and sedimentation, and the need for additional storm drainage facilities caused by the destabilization of soils; 5) Retain clusters of trees for the abatement of noise and for wind protection, and reduce air pollution by producing pure oxygen from carbon dioxide; 6) Protect trees during construction activities from damage to tree roots, trunks, and branches; and 7) Recognize that trees increase real estate values. The applicant is required to retain and protect trees based on priority level. Per RMC 4-4-130.(H.)(c.)., landmark trees are the first priority for retention followed by significant trees that form a continuous canopy. Priority one retention value trees in the project area are located along South 2nd Street and are composed of species of Hornbeam (Carpinus sp.) and Oak (Quercus sp.). A subset of these trees are landmark based on DBH and also form an interlocking canopy. The subject trees found in this area are slated for retention. The Norway Maples along Airport Way also fall in this category and the majority are slated for retention. This excludes one tree which will be removed to allow ADA improvements to the sidewalk and crosswalk. Tree number 73 is a landmark Pin oak which will also be retained. Other landmark trees are scattered throughout the subject property however due to the breadth and scope of the project will require removal to facilitate construction of new proposed buildings, athletic fields, and parking areas. Tree retention standards are determined by developable area. The developable area as defined by RMC 4-11- 040(D.)(T.) includes all areas not encumbered by critical areas, critical area and shoreline buffers, and public rights- of-way that are otherwise developable. Retained trees within the developable area apply towards required landscaping requirements. The total site area per the Arborist Exhibit is 33.6 acres. For development projects such as this, replacement trees are necessary if a certain number of tree credits cannot be achieved during the initial retention process. See the “compensation” section below for an analysis of replacement trees per the code section cited here. Tree Retention / Land Clearing Plan Renton High School Replacement and Site Expansion Project Page | 8 9. MITIGATION SEQUENCING Mitigation sequencing is a guidance concept typically required for projects near protected critical areas such as wetlands, streams, and associated buffers. An applicant is compelled, through an iterative design process, to first avoid impacts where possible, then reduce the magnitude of proposed damage, and finally to compensate for any unavoidable permanent or temporary loss of the natural resource. This principal can also be applied to protect and preserve tree canopy. The following section discusses how the applicant and design team followed principles of mitigation sequencing. 9.1 Avoidance Total avoidance of tree removal was not possible due to the scope and breadth of the project. However, the street trees along South 2nd Avenue were a priority for retention due to their landmark status and canopy coverage. This was communicated to the project team early in the design phase and improvements to South 2nd Street were largely avoided for retention purposes. A similar scenario occurred for the subject trees rooted along Airport Way with only one tree requiring removal for ADA compliance as part of the project. A CRZ analysis was performed for the subject trees rooted within proximity to the work. This assisted the project in determining the thresholds for retention in a scientific manner. Impacts to tree number 942 was avoided as a result of the CRZ analysis. 9.2 Minimization The Project will occur in both paved and unpaved areas. Equipment will be staged on pavement during excavation, when possible, to avoid impacting adjacent significant trees. In accordance with RMC 4-4-130(H).10., tree protection fencing, root discovery, and pruning methods will be employed during construction and any pruning needed for clearance will follow industry standard practices. Out of the six trees, which a CRZ impact analysis was applied, one tree will have substantial CRZ impact, but will not necessitate removal. The remining five trees will have a “low” CRZ impact and will be retained. One tree with a low CRZ impact will be removed due to exposure from the bronze birch borer beetle which makes the subject tree unsuitable for retention due to its poor condition. Proper BMP installation, as discussed below, will help to ensure the 7 trees adjacent to the work have limited health effects over the course of construction. 9.3 Compensation The Project will require the removal of 193 significant trees. RMC 4-4-130(H.)(1.)a., requires at least 30 percent of all significant trees be retained on site. The total diameter inches of significant trees within the site developable area to be retained are also included as a reference. The following information shows the calculations to determine these thresholds. 9.3.1 Minimum Tree Retention Requirements by Diameter Total diameter inches of significant trees inventoried: 3308.7 (Table 4). Rounded to 3309 total diameter inches. Sum of significant removed tree diameter inches: 2707.5 (Table 4). Rounded to 2708 diameter inches removed. Tree Retention / Land Clearing Plan Renton High School Replacement and Site Expansion Project Page | 9 2708 x (0.30) = 812.4 Rounded to 812 diameter inches. A minimum of 812 diameter inches of significant trees must be retained. 3309 - 2708= 601 595.5 inches of significant trees will be retained. This does not meet the minimum tree retention requirements by diameter. (2708 / 3309) * 100 = 82% of total inventoried tree diameter inches will be removed. 18% of inventoried tree diameter inches will be retained. 9.3.2 Minimum Tree Retention Requirements by Sum of Significant Total number of significant trees on site: 212 (Table 4) Total significant trees to be removed: 193 (Table 4) 212 * .30 = 63.6 trees to be retained (at a minimum) The project is retaining 28 trees and does not meet the minimum tree retention requirement. 9.3.3 Tree Credit Requirements Total site developable area: 33.6 33.6 * 30 = 1008.0 tree credits required Total tree credits for retained trees: 197 The project is retaining 28 trees which equal 197 tree credits. The project does not meet the minimum tree credit requirements. 811 tree credits are required. The above information indicates that the tree removal action for the Renton High School Replacement and Site Expansion Project does not meet the minimum tree retention requirements. This is due to the reworking of the landscape to facilitate the new school building, athletic fields, and access points. In order to meet the minimum requirements, the project proposes using the Fee in Lieu portion of the code under RMC 4-4-130(J.)4.e. to pay into the City’s Urban Forestry Program fund. This code section requires approval by the Administrator. This may be approved in an amount of money approximating the current market value of the replacement trees and the labor to install them. The City shall determine the value of replacement trees. 10. TREE PROTECTION BMPS This section outlines a list of best management practices and procedures that should be set up and followed ahead of and during construction. These include physical items mentioned in RMC 4-4-130(2.) such as fencing and signage, Tree Retention / Land Clearing Plan Renton High School Replacement and Site Expansion Project Page | 10 but also includes preconstruction meetings with the contractor to ensure the intent of this plan is met, that impacted roots and branches are treated according to industry standards, and that procedures are in place for unanticipated changes. A. Pre-Construction Meeting a. Schedule and conduct a pre-construction meeting with the owner and the contractor prior to beginning work to review any questions the contractor may have regarding trees and vegetation requiring protection. Following the meeting, a walkthrough with the contractor to discuss the contractor’s plan for setting up and maintaining tree protection BMPs prior to work should be completed. b. Prior to this meeting, mark all trees to remain and or to be removed as described in this specification for review and approval by the applicant. B. Establish Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) a. Establish high-visibility construction fencing (HVCF) or chain link fencing if appropriate prior to land disturbing activity along the clearing limits and/or tree protection zone as detailed in Appendix B or as determined by the arborist. Fencing must be a minimum of four feet tall per RMC 4-4- 130(2.)(e.). b. Fencing shall be established at the edge of the critical root zone of protected and retained trees, or at the location indicated on the construction drawings if work is within the CRZ. The zone to be protected is called the TPZ. c. Install highly visible signs on the fence of each discrete TPZ. Signs will state, “Protection of these Trees is in your care. Alteration or disturbance is prohibited by law” and provide the City phone number for code enforcement to report violations. d. No construction access or equipment storage shall be allowed in the tree protection area or placed near trees. e. No excavation or compaction of soil will be allowed within the TPZ once established. Any proposed change or temporary relocation to perform the work must be approved and supervised by the Arborist. f. The tree protection fencing shall stay in place for the duration of the project. C. Identify Roots of Protected Trees that may be impacted: a. Prior to construction, identify and mark with spray paint all visible, large roots from trees to be protected in the construction area (roots from trees to be removed are excluded and may be destroyed). Tree Retention / Land Clearing Plan Renton High School Replacement and Site Expansion Project Page | 11 b. Large diameter roots (roots larger than 2 inches in diameter) from retain trees should be cut by hand at the furthest point from the tree as possible while still allowing for excavation to occur for the project element. c. Air spading may be used for root discovery and may be employed under the supervision of the arborist to understand root architecture when installing utilities or other activities that may require root pruning. This allows for clean root pruning adjacent to, for example underground structure installation, or may allow utilities to be installed underneath the root structure, limiting impact to the subject tree. d. Do not cut large tree roots with hydraulic equipment such as an excavator bucket as this may damage roots inside of the TPZ. 10.1 Construction BMPs A. Order of Operations for Construction 1. Install tree protection fencing. 2. Remove trees per the Tree protection Plan sheet in Appendix C. Do not grub. Stumps will be ground unless flagged to be removed by the arborist by an excavator due to the subject tree being rooted away from other trees. 3. Prune retain trees for construction access if needed using industry standard practices. 4. Tie back flexible branches prior to work if needed or as shown in Appendix B. 5. Install trunk protection BMPs for retained trees if work will be very close to any trunks, as needed. 6. Perform the work. 7. Install mitigation plantings, if required. B. Root Pruning for Retained Trees Adjacent to Work (does not apply to the removed trees) 8. Roots 2 inch and larger in diameter (from retained trees) and that conflict with the project shall only be cut back to the minimum necessary. Work shall be performed and scheduled to close excavations as quickly as possible over exposed roots. 9. Roots (from retained trees) larger than 2 inches in diameter shall be hand cut using a sharp saw. Large roots shall not be cut with hydraulically driven equipment (excavator buckets, etc.) as they typically “rip” or “tear” roots beyond protection limits and damage the root zone beyond the necessary amount. 10. Retained trees that receive excessive root impacts from excavation shall be evaluated by a Certified Arborist. Tree Retention / Land Clearing Plan Renton High School Replacement and Site Expansion Project Page | 12 10.2 Tree Removal A. Remove all trees indicated by the project plans and specifications, as requiring removal, in a manner that will not damage adjacent trees, structures, or compact the soil in protection zones. This includes grinding stumps unless removal by equipment is approved by the Arborist. B. Remove trees that are adjacent to protected trees and structures, in sections, to limit the opportunity of damage to adjacent crowns, trunks, ground plane elements or structures. C. Protect adjacent paving, soil, trees, ground cover plantings and understory plants to remain from damage during all tree removal operations. Protection includes the root system, trunk, limbs, and crown from breaking or scarring, and the soil from compaction. 10.3 Post Construction BMPs A. Removal of Fencing and other Plant Protection 1. At the end of the construction period and when consistent with the requirement of other permits (e.g., site stability is achieved per the requirements of the NPDES permits for construction stormwater), remove all construction fencing, temporary wood chips, temporary mulch, geotextile, trunk protection or any other tree and plant protection material. A APPENDIX A– TREE INVENTORY LOG Tree Inventory / Arborist Report Renton High School Replacement and Site Expansion Project Inventory issued: 9/03/2025 Field Investigation: 08/29/2024, 07/01/2025, 08/12,/2025 TAG NO. SPECIES NAME # STEMS DBH 1 (IN) DBH 2 (IN) DBH 3 (IN) DBH 4 (IN) DBH 5 (IN) DBH 6 (IN) CMBND DBH* (IN)HEIGHT (FEET)CANOPY RADIUS (FEET)CNDTN CRITICAL ROOT ZONE RADIUS (FEET) SGNFCNT PER RMC LNDMRK PER RMC ACTION (r=RMVE) TREE CREDIT RETAIN TREE CREDIT REMOVE NOTES 1 1 Quercus palustris, (Pin Oak) 1 18.5 18.5 55 20 EXCELLENT 19 X PROTECT 7 Minor twig dieback typical of species 2 2 Acer platanoides, (Norway Maple) 1 15.8 15.8 55 15 EXCELLENT 16 X r 6 Surface roots; codom branching - no issue 3 3 Magnolia grandiflora, (Southern Magnolia) 2 15.8 12.1 19.9 50 15 EXCELLENT 20 X PROTECT 8 Crossing/rubbing branches; minor twig dieback 4 4 Acer platanoides, (Norway Maple) 1 11.9 11.9 60 15 EXCELLENT 12 X r 5 Codom branching no issues; good structure 5 5 Carpinus betulus, (European Hornbeam) 1 26.2 26.2 70 30 GOOD 26 X X PROTECT 10 Multi-stem at six feet; codom 6 6 Carpinus betulus, (European Hornbeam) 1 25.8 25.8 70 30 GOOD 26 X X PROTECT 10 Multi-stem at five feet; codom 7 7 Acer platanoides, (Norway Maple) 1 11.3 11.3 45 15 GOOD 11 X r 5 some branch dieback 8 8 Acer platanoides, (Norway Maple) 1 10.2 10.2 50 10 GOOD 10 X r 5 Minor twig dieback; good response growth to pruning 9 9 Acer platanoides, (Norway Maple) 1 10.7 10.7 50 15 GOOD 11 X r 5 Some codom branching no issue; good structure 10 10 Acer platanoides, (Norway Maple) 1 10.4 10.4 45 10 GOOD 10 X r 5 Some chlorotic foliage; good branch structure 11 11 Acer platanoides, (Norway Maple) 1 9.3 9.3 50 8 GOOD 9 X r 4 Good branching structure 12 12 Liquidambar styraciflua, (Sweetgum) 1 10.9 10.9 65 8 FAIR 11 X PROTECT 5 Moderate branch and twig dieback 13 13 Acer platanoides, (Norway Maple) 1 11.6 11.6 40 20 FAIR 12 X PROTECT 5 Drought stressed; minor twig dieback; typical of species 14 14 Arbutus unedo, (Strawberry Tree) 1 7.1 7.1 20 6 GOOD 7 X r 4 Some dieback in top of canopy 15 15 Acer platanoides, (Norway Maple) 1 9.7 9.7 50 7 GOOD 10 X r 4 Codom branching; surface roots, good response to pruning 16 16 Calocedrus decurrens, (Incense Cedar) 1 21.5 21.5 65 15 GOOD 22 X r 8 Minor lean to S; good structure and form 17 17 Quercus palustris, (Pin Oak) 1 15.4 15.4 75 25 POOR 15 X r 6 Thinning foliage; fruiting bodies; med branch dieback; mulch ring 18 18 Quercus palustris, (Pin Oak) 1 16.7 16.7 80 25 FAIR 17 X r 7 Thinning foliage; dead branches typical of species 19 19 Quercus palustris, (Pin Oak) 1 13.5 13.5 80 30 GOOD 14 X r 6 Slightly shaded; slightly leaning to E 20 20 Platanus x acerifolia, (London Plane) 1 57.7 57.7 90 30 GOOD 58 X X r 13 Drought stresse; excellent structure and form 21 21 Carpinus betulus, (European Hornbeam) 1 27.5 27.5 80 30 GOOD 28 X X PROTECT 10 Good response to pruning; multi-stemmed 22 22 Carpinus betulus, (European Hornbeam) 1 22.2 22.2 75 30 FAIR 22 X PROTECT 9 Cavity with decay to W; good structure 23 23 Carpinus betulus, (European Hornbeam) 1 24.2 24.2 75 30 GOOD 24 X X PROTECT 9 Good branching structure 24 24 Carpinus betulus, (European Hornbeam) 1 22.4 22.4 80 30 GOOD 22 X PROTECT 9 Good response to pruning; good branching structure 25 25 Quercus palustris, (Pin Oak) 1 23.3 23.3 75 20 GOOD 23 X PROTECT 9 Sidewalk upheaval; canopy raised; good response to pruning 26 26 Quercus palustris, (Pin Oak) 1 21.5 21.5 75 15 FAIR 22 X r 8 Drought stressed; heavily pruned to S; suckering 27 27 Quercus robur, (English Oak) 1 21.5 21.5 85 30 GOOD 22 X PROTECT 8 Pavement upheaval; good response growth to pruning 28 28 Quercus robur, (English Oak) 1 16.9 16.9 85 30 FAIR 17 X PROTECT 7 Drought stressed; foliar disease; slight twig dieback 29 29 Quercus robur, (English Oak) 1 19.1 19.1 70 20 FAIR 19 X PROTECT 8 Drought stressed; foliar disease; slight twig dieback 30 30 Quercus palustris, (Pin Oak) 1 29.0 29.0 75 30 EXCELLENT 29 X X PROTECT 0 Excellent form and structure; rooted off parcel; tree credits not counted 31 31 Fraxinus pennsylvanica, (Green Ash) 1 17.6 17.6 40 30 GOOD 18 X r 7 32 32 Fraxinus pennsylvanica, (Green Ash) 1 16.2 16.2 40 25 GOOD 16 X r 7 33 33 Ilex aquifolium, (English Holly) 1 17.0 17.0 40 12 POOR 17 X r 7 DBH estimated 34 34 Fraxinus pennsylvanica, (Green Ash) 1 14.7 14.7 35 25 GOOD 15 X r 6 35 35 Pyrus calleryana, (Callery Pear) 1 9.4 9.4 25 15 FAIR 9 X r 4 Leaf spot disease 36 36 Pyrus calleryana, (Callery Pear) 1 9.1 9.1 20 15 FAIR 9 X r 4 Leaf spot disease 37 37 Pyrus calleryana, (Callery Pear) 1 12.6 12.6 20 15 FAIR 13 X r 6 Leaf spot disease 38 38 Pyrus calleryana, (Callery Pear) 1 11.3 11.3 20 15 FAIR 11 X r 5 Leaf spot disease 39 39 Cercidiphyllum japonicum, (Katsura Tree) 1 6.8 6.8 12 12 GOOD 7 X r 4 40 40 Cercidiphyllum japonicum, (Katsura Tree) 1 14.0 14.0 20 20 FAIR 14 X r 6 Sparse canopy 41 41 Cercidiphyllum japonicum, (Katsura Tree) 1 12.5 12.5 20 20 FAIR 13 X r 6 Topped 42 42 Pyrus calleryana, (Callery Pear) 1 12.2 12.2 25 15 FAIR 12 X r 6 Topped; sparse canopy; blight; signs of stress 43 43 Robinia pseudoacacia, (Black Locust) 2 5.1 6.0 7.9 30 15 FAIR 8 X PROTECT 0 Trunk wound; rooted of parcel; tree credits do not count 44 44 Robinia pseudoacacia, (Black Locust) 1 7.2 7.2 30 15 GOOD 7 X PROTECT 0 Rooted of parcel; tree credits do not count DBH=Trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above grade CRZ=Critical Root Zone 17619 NE 67th Ct. Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052 | Phone: 425.429.7800 | Fax: 425.633.2284 | www.oneatlas.com Page 1 OF 6 Tree Inventory / Arborist Report Renton High School Replacement and Site Expansion Project Inventory issued: 9/03/2025 Field Investigation: 08/29/2024, 07/01/2025, 08/12,/2025 TAG NO. SPECIES NAME # STEMS DBH 1 (IN) DBH 2 (IN) DBH 3 (IN) DBH 4 (IN) DBH 5 (IN) DBH 6 (IN) CMBND DBH* (IN)HEIGHT (FEET)CANOPY RADIUS (FEET)CNDTN CRITICAL ROOT ZONE RADIUS (FEET) SGNFCNT PER RMC LNDMRK PER RMC ACTION (r=RMVE) TREE CREDIT RETAIN TREE CREDIT REMOVE NOTES 45 45 Quercus coccinea, (Scarlet Oak) 1 23.1 23.1 35 35 FAIR 23 X r 9 Sparse canopy 46 46 Quercus coccinea, (Scarlet Oak) 1 19.4 19.4 35 35 GOOD 19 X r 8 Foliar disease; dead interior branches 47 47 Quercus coccinea, (Scarlet Oak) 1 26.6 26.6 40 30 GOOD 27 X X r 10 Sparse canopy 48 48 Arbutus unedo, (Strawberry Tree) 1 6.3 6.3 15 20 FAIR 6 X r 4 Epicormics 49 49 Quercus robur, (English Oak) 4 6.4 5.2 3.0 4.5 9.9 20 12 GOOD 10 X r 4 Poor location; signs of stress 50 50 Quercus coccinea, (Scarlet Oak) 1 19.4 19.4 50 30 GOOD 19 X r 8 51 51 Calocedrus decurrens, (Incense Cedar) 1 28.9 28.9 55 25 GOOD 29 X X r 10 Growing into fence 52 52 Prunus cerasifera, (Cherry Plum Tree) 4 9.9 8.8 12.4 10.5 21.0 25 30 GOOD 21 X r 8 Included bark 53 53 Quercus robur, (English Oak) 1 14.5 14.5 35 20 FAIR 15 X r 6 54 54 Fraxinus pennsylvanica, (Green Ash) 1 17.2 17.2 40 30 GOOD 17 X r 7 55 55 Fraxinus pennsylvanica, (Green Ash) 1 11.7 11.7 30 30 GOOD 12 X r 5 56 56 Fraxinus pennsylvanica, (Green Ash) 1 10.2 10.2 25 25 POOR 10 X r 5 Sparse canopy 57 57 Fraxinus pennsylvanica, (Green Ash) 1 11.6 11.6 35 20 GOOD 12 X r 5 Uneven canopy 58 58 Fraxinus pennsylvanica, (Green Ash) 1 11.3 11.3 40 20 GOOD 11 X r 5 Uneven canopy 59 59 Fraxinus pennsylvanica, (Green Ash) 1 19.3 19.3 40 40 GOOD 19 X r 8 60 60 Fraxinus pennsylvanica, (Green Ash) 1 14.1 14.1 35 25 GOOD 14 X r 6 61 61 Fraxinus pennsylvanica, (Green Ash) 1 13.7 13.7 45 15 GOOD 14 X r 6 Surface roots; good structure 62 62 Fraxinus pennsylvanica, (Green Ash) 1 14.9 14.9 45 20 GOOD 15 X r 6 Surface roots; good structure 63 63 Fraxinus pennsylvanica, (Green Ash) 1 15.3 15.3 50 20 FAIR 15 X r 6 Thinning foliage; suckering; newly pruned 64 64 Fraxinus pennsylvanica, (Green Ash) 1 15.4 15.4 55 20 GOOD 15 X r 6 Good branching structure 65 65 Pinus contorta, (Shore Pine) 1 6.2 6.2 10 5 FAIR 6 X r 4 Split at top before branching; sap; galls 66 66 Pinus contorta, (Shore Pine) 1 8.3 8.3 12 8 FAIR 8 X r 4 Wounds/sap; galls; pruned no response growth 67 67 Fraxinus pennsylvanica, (Green Ash) 1 14.1 14.1 50 20 FAIR 14 X r 6 sparse branching; moderate twig and branch dieback 68 68 Fraxinus pennsylvanica, (Green Ash) 1 16.2 16.2 55 30 GOOD 16 X r 7 Partial girdling root 69 69 Fraxinus pennsylvanica, (Green Ash) 1 14.5 14.5 55 30 GOOD 15 X r 6 Good structure 70 70 Pinus contorta, (Shore Pine) 1 7.0 7.0 10 5 FAIR 7 X r 4 45 degree lean to E; sap build up 71 71 Pinus contorta, (Shore Pine) 2 9.7 11.1 20 8 FAIR 11 X r 5 Sap build up; galls 72 72 Pinus contorta, (Shore Pine) 1 7.0 9.4 15 8 FAIR 9 X r 4 Sap build up; galls 73 73 Quercus palustris, (Pin Oak) 1 44.0 44.0 90 40 GOOD 44 X X PROTECT 13 13 Branch dieback; typical of spp. 74 74 Quercus palustris, (Pin Oak) 1 5.0 5.0 15 4 GOOD 5 r 0 Newly planted 75 75 Quercus palustris, (Pin Oak) 1 19.8 19.8 60 30 GOOD 20 X r 8 76 76 Fraxinus pennsylvanica, (Green Ash) 1 13.9 13.9 50 20 GOOD 14 X r 6 Pavement upheaval; good response to pruning 77 77 Fraxinus pennsylvanica, (Green Ash) 1 15.5 15.5 50 20 GOOD 16 X r 6 78 78 Cercidiphyllum japonicum, (Katsura Tree) 1 15.9 15.9 15 15 FAIR 16 X r 6 Pruned within interior; suckering; healing cuts 79 79 Prunus serrulata, (Japanese Flowering Cherry) 1 13.6 13.6 35 15 FAIR 14 X r 6 Crossing branches; pruned and suckering 80 80 Prunus serrulata, (Japanese Flowering Cherry) 1 24.7 24.7 45 15 FAIR 25 X X r 9 Large structural roots to N; pruned and suckering 81 81 Prunus serrulata, (Japanese Flowering Cherry) 1 18.3 18.3 35 10 FAIR 18 X r 7 Burl to S; structural roots to N 82 82 Prunus serrulata, (Japanese Flowering Cherry) 1 21.7 21.7 40 15 FAIR 22 X r 8 Suckering from structure roots; burls present; structural roots to N 83 83 Prunus serrulata, (Japanese Flowering Cherry) 1 27.3 27.3 45 15 FAIR 27 X X r 10 Burls present; suckering; suckering from S roots; structural roots to N 84 84 Cercidiphyllum japonicum, (Katsura Tree) 1 14.9 14.9 35 15 GOOD 15 X r 6 Good structure; a little drought stressed 85 85 Cercidiphyllum japonicum, (Katsura Tree) 1 10.6 10.6 30 12 GOOD 11 X r 5 Nice structure 86 86 Cercidiphyllum japonicum, (Katsura Tree) 1 14.7 14.7 40 12 GOOD 15 X r 6 87 87 Prunus serrulata, (Japanese Flowering Cherry) 1 15.3 15.3 45 15 FAIR 15 X r 6 Surface roots to NE; suckering; galls 88 88 Prunus serrulata, (Japanese Flowering Cherry) 1 14.6 14.6 40 20 FAIR 15 X r 6 Structural roots above ground; suckering DBH=Trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above grade CRZ=Critical Root Zone 17619 NE 67th Ct. Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052 | Phone: 425.429.7800 | Fax: 425.633.2284 | www.oneatlas.com Page 2 OF 6 Tree Inventory / Arborist Report Renton High School Replacement and Site Expansion Project Inventory issued: 9/03/2025 Field Investigation: 08/29/2024, 07/01/2025, 08/12,/2025 TAG NO. SPECIES NAME # STEMS DBH 1 (IN) DBH 2 (IN) DBH 3 (IN) DBH 4 (IN) DBH 5 (IN) DBH 6 (IN) CMBND DBH* (IN)HEIGHT (FEET)CANOPY RADIUS (FEET)CNDTN CRITICAL ROOT ZONE RADIUS (FEET) SGNFCNT PER RMC LNDMRK PER RMC ACTION (r=RMVE) TREE CREDIT RETAIN TREE CREDIT REMOVE NOTES 89 89 Prunus serrulata, (Japanese Flowering Cherry) 1 20.6 20.6 45 15 FAIR 21 X r 8 Burls; suckering 90 90 Cercidiphyllum japonicum, (Katsura Tree) 1 11.O 11.0 40 15 GOOD 0 X r 5 91 91 Acer palmatum, (Japanese maple) 1 6.4 6.4 20 8 GOOD 6 X r 4 92 92 Acer palmatum, (Japanese maple) 1 7.0 7.0 40 10 GOOD 7 X r 4 93 93 Cercidiphyllum japonicum, (Katsura Tree) 1 11.7 11.7 45 15 GOOD 12 X r 5 94 94 Acer palmatum, (Japanese maple) 1 6.5 6.5 30 10 GOOD 7 X r 4 95 95 Cercidiphyllum japonicum, (Katsura Tree) 1 15.7 15.7 65 20 GOOD 16 X r 6 Good structure 96 96 Acer palmatum, (Japanese maple) 1 6.9 6.9 30 20 GOOD 7 X r 4 Sunscald; small girdling root 97 97 Acer palmatum, (Japanese maple) 1 4.4 4.4 15 8 GOOD 4 r 0 98 98 Acer palmatum, (Japanese maple) 1 7.6 7.6 35 10 GOOD 8 X r 4 99 99 Acer palmatum, (Japanese maple) 1 4.1 4.1 12 6 GOOD 4 r 0 100 101 Acer palmatum, (Japanese maple) 1 6.7 6.7 30 7 GOOD 7 X r 4 101 102 Acer palmatum, (Japanese maple) 1 7.5 7.5 45 10 GOOD 8 X r 4 Girdling root 102 103 Acer palmatum, (Japanese maple) 1 3.5 3.5 12 4 GOOD 4 r 0 103 104 Fraxinus pennsylvanica, (Green Ash) 1 12.4 12.4 30 20 GOOD 12 X r 6 Uneven canopy 104 105 Fraxinus pennsylvanica, (Green Ash) 1 19.0 19.0 30 25 GOOD 19 X r 8 Uneven canopy 105 106 Calocedrus decurrens, (Incense Cedar) 1 32.1 32.1 30 20 FAIR 32 X X r 11 Leaning 106 107 Calocedrus decurrens, (Incense Cedar) 1 27.3 27.3 40 20 GOOD 27 X X r 10 107 108 Calocedrus decurrens, (Incense Cedar) 1 26.8 26.8 50 20 GOOD 27 X X r 10 108 109 Acer japonicum, (Full Moon Maple) 1 8.8 8.8 20 15 GOOD 9 X r 4 Measured below 4.5' 109 110 Acer japonicum, (Full Moon Maple) 1 8.8 8.8 15 20 GOOD 9 X r 4 Measured below 4.5' 110 111 Acer japonicum, (Full Moon Maple) 1 4.1 4.1 15 10 GOOD 4 r 0 Measured below 4.5' 111 112 Cercidiphyllum japonicum, (Katsura Tree) 1 10.5 10.5 30 20 FAIR 11 X r 5 Uneven canopy 112 113 Cercidiphyllum japonicum, (Katsura Tree) 1 11.9 11.9 30 15 GOOD 12 X r 5 Uneven canopy 113 114 Cercidiphyllum japonicum, (Katsura Tree) 1 11.7 11.7 25 25 GOOD 12 X r 5 Signs of stress 114 115 Cercidiphyllum japonicum, (Katsura Tree) 1 10.7 10.7 25 20 FAIR 11 X r 5 Dieback 115 116 Cercidiphyllum japonicum, (Katsura Tree) 1 8.6 8.6 15 16 FAIR 9 X r 4 Dieback 116 925 Acer platanoides, (Norway Maple) 1 30.9 30.9 55 30 FAIR 31 X X r 11 Codom at 10 feet above ground surface 117 926 Acer platanoides, (Norway Maple) 1 27.4 27.4 45 30 FAIR 27 X X PROTECT 10 Topped for overhead electrical; ivy present, sparse canopy 118 927 Acer platanoides, (Norway Maple) 1 22.4 22.4 45 30 POOR 22 X PROTECT 9 Structural branch dieback; topped, ivy present 119 928 Acer platanoides, (Norway Maple) 1 22.3 22.3 50 20 GOOD 22 X PROTECT 9 Minor twig dieback; good structure and form 120 929 Acer platanoides, (Norway Maple) 1 14.6 14.6 55 20 GOOD 15 X PROTECT 6 Scaffold branch dieback; decay likely present 121 930 Acer platanoides, (Norway Maple) 1 18.6 18.6 55 20 FAIR 19 X PROTECT 7 Insect issue; skeletonized leaves 122 931 Prunus cerasifera 'thundercloud', (Thundercloud Plum Tree) 1 8.9 8.9 35 10 GOOD 9 X r 4 Minor twig and branch dieback 123 932 Paulownia tomentosa, (Empress Tree) 1 21.4 21.4 65 20 GOOD 21 X r 8 Evidence of pruning; good response growth 124 933 Betula pendula, (European White Birch) 2 14.2 16.4 21.7 60 20 GOOD 22 X r 8 Codominant at ground surface 125 934 Cedrus deodara, (Deodar Cedar) 2 14.8 14.0 20.4 65 20 GOOD 20 X r 8 Codominant at ground surface 126 935 Crataegus monogyna, (Common Hawthorn) 2 6.0 5.4 8.1 30 10 GOOD 8 X r 4 Part of hedge; in conflict with overhead electrical 127 936 Syringa vulgaris, (Common Lilac) 1 5.0 5.0 30 10 GOOD 5 r 0 Part of hedge; densely shaded 128 937 Ilex aquifolium, (English Holly) 1 5.5 5.5 30 10 GOOD 5 r 0 Part of hedge; densely shaded 129 938 Taxus Baccata 'Fastigiata', (Irish Yew) 1 5.0 5.0 30 8 GOOD 5 r 0 Part of hedge; densely shaded 130 939 Thuja plicata, (Western Red Cedar) 1 18.7 18.7 55 15 GOOD 19 X r 7 Part of hedge 131 940 Malus spp., (Cultivated Crabapple) 1 5.0 5.0 30 8 GOOD 5 r 0 Part of hedge; densely shaded 132 941 Pinus contorta, (Shore Pine) 1 8.4 8.4 40 12 FAIR 8 X r 4 Rooted off resdiential sidewalk; improper pruning cuts DBH=Trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above grade CRZ=Critical Root Zone 17619 NE 67th Ct. Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052 | Phone: 425.429.7800 | Fax: 425.633.2284 | www.oneatlas.com Page 3 OF 6