The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRS_ARBORIST_REPORT_20250829_V1.pdfCASCARA TREE CONSULTING ARBORIST REPORT 1 | P a g e TO: Saleh Foundation REFERENCE: Tree Inventory & Arborist Report (Saleh Foundation Center) SITE ADDRESS: 4108 Jones Ave NE, Renton, WA (Parcel #s: 334570-0085 & -0080) DATE: 7/26/2025 PREPARED BY: Katie Hogan, ISA Certified Arborist PN-8078A ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Scope of Work This report documents the tree inventory and assessment conducted on July 8, 2025, at the site referenced above. The assessment was requested in preparation for the submission of building permits and to meet the requirements of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4.4.130. A total of 14 trees meeting the size threshold for significant1 trees were identified on-site. Of these, four qualify as Landmark2 trees. Three trees were determined to meet the definition of hazardous trees under RMC 4.4.130(B)(8) and are therefore excluded from the significant tree count. The remaining 11 significant trees are located entirely within a Category III wetland or its associated buffer. Per RMC 4.4.130(H), developments must retain a minimum of 30% of significant trees and achieve at least 30 tree credits per net acre of buildable area. For this 0.342-acre site, a minimum of 10.2 tree credits is required. The project proposes to retain all 11 significant trees, achieving a 100% tree retention rate and retaining 85.0 tree credits. Because these trees are located within the wetland and buffer areas, their retention is excluded from the tree credit and retention requirement calculations per RMC guidelines. As a result, the project must replant a minimum of 10 tree credits to satisfy this requirement. Three hazardous black cottonwood trees (Populus trichocarpa) located within the 75-foot wetland buffer (Trees #272, #273, and #274) are proposed for removal due to poor structural condition and proximity to the proposed building. 1 Significant tree: A tree with a caliper of at least 6", except alder or cottonwood trees, which qualify as significant trees with a caliper of 8" or greater. Trees certified as high-risk shall not be considered significant. 2 Landmark tree: A tree with a caliper of 24" or greater, except for big leaf maples, black cottonwoods, and red alder trees, which qualify as landmark trees with a caliper of 30" or greater. Arborist Report: Saleh Foundation Center - Renton ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 | P a g e Table 1. Summary Tree Information Category Quantity Existing Trees Total Trees (6” or 8” DBH or greater) 14 Significant Trees 11 - Within Buildable Area 0 - Within Wetland/Buffer 11 Hazardous/Non-Significant Trees 3 Total Tree Credits (Significant) 85.0 - Buildable Area 0.0 - Wetland/Buffer 85.0 Proposed Actions Significant Trees to Retain 11 - Buildable Area 0 - Wetland/Buffer 11 Significant Trees to Remove 0 Hazardous Trees to Remove 3 Proposed Retention Rate - Overall 100% - Buildable Area 0% - Wetland/Buffer 100% Tree Credits & Density Buildable Area (acres) 0.342 Required Tree Credits (30/acre) 10.2 Proposed Tree Credits 85.0 - Buildable Area 0.0 - Wetland/Buffer 85.0 Replacement Tree Requirement 10 Observations & Discussion Site Conditions The project site includes two contiguous parcels totaling approximately 54,341 square feet (1.2 acres), zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) in the City of Renton. The site is currently undeveloped except for a gravel parking lot. According to the topographic survey, two Category III wetlands are located in the eastern portion of the site. A 75-foot buffer has been designated, resulting in a net buildable area of 14,876 square feet. The project proposes to construct a community center at the northwest corner of the site. Existing Trees & Proposed Actions Fourteen trees were inventoried on-site. Three black cottonwoods (Trees #272, #273, and #274) were found to be structurally hazardous due to heavy ivy coverage, broken tops, and weak scaffold branching. These trees are within the wetland buffer and are proposed for removal. As they meet the definition of hazardous trees under RMC 4.4.130, they are not classified as significant and are excluded from tree retention requirements. Arborist Report: Saleh Foundation Center - Renton ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 | P a g e The remaining 11 trees meet the City’s definition of significant trees, with four qualifying as Landmark trees. All are located within wetland or buffer areas. The project proposes to retain all 11 significant trees, resulting in 100% retention. Off-Site Trees Seven off-site trees were also assessed due to proximity to the site. No construction-related impacts are anticipated for these trees. Tree Retention & Credit Requirements RMC 4.4.130(H) requires a minimum retention of 30% of significant trees and 30 tree credits per acre of buildable area. The project proposes to retain all 11 significant trees, meeting and exceeding both requirements. Because all existing and retained trees are located within the wetland and associated buffer area and are excluded from calculations, 10 tree credits are required to be planted within the buildable area of the lot to meet this requirement. Table 2. Proposed Tree Retention Tree Retention Value Total Existing Significant Trees 11 Minimum Required Retention (30%) 3 Trees Proposed to Retain 11 - Buildable Area 0 - Wetland/Buffer 11 Proposed Retention Rate 100% - Buildable Area 0% - Wetland/Buffer 100% Table 3. Proposed Tree Credits Tree Credits Value Total Existing Tree Credits 85.0 - Buildable Area 0.0 - Wetland/Buffer 85.0 Minimum Tree Credits Required 10.2 Proposed Tree Credits Retained 85.0 - Buildable Area 0.0 - Wetland/Buffer 85.0 Replacement Trees Required 10 Arborist Report: Saleh Foundation Center - Renton ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 4 | P a g e Attachments 1) Photographs 2) Glossary 3) References 4) Inspection Methods 5) Appendix A – Assumptions & Limiting Conditions 6) Appendix B – Certification of Performance 7) Tree Inventory Map 8) Tree Tables Arborist Report: Saleh Foundation Center - Renton ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 5 | P a g e PHOTOGRAPHS Photo 1. Trees #272-#274, hazardous cottonwood trees proposed for removal. Arborist Report: Saleh Foundation Center - Renton ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 6 | P a g e G LOSSARY ANSI A300: American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for tree care Chlorotic: discoloration caused by lack of chlorophyll in the foliage Codominant Stems: two or more stems (or leaders) of relatively similar size that emerge from the same location on the main trunk (Gilman, 2002) Conifer: a tree that bears cones and has evergreen needles or scales Crown: the above ground portion of the tree comprised of branches and their foliage DBH or DSH: diameter at breast or standard height; the diameter of the trunk measured 54 inches (4.5 feet) above grade Deciduous: tree or other plant that loses its leaves annually and remains leafless generally during the cold season ISA: International Society of Arboriculture Landscape function: the environmental, aesthetic, or architectural functions that a plant can have Lateral: secondary or subordinate branch Limits of disturbance: The boundary of minimum protection around a tree, the area that cannot be encroached upon without possible permanent damage to the tree. It is a distance determined by a qualified professional and is based on the age of the tree, its health, the tree species tolerance to disruption and the type of disturbance. It also considers soil and environmental condition and previous impacts. It is unique to each tree in its location. Owner/manager: the person or entity responsible for tree management or the controlling authority that regulates tree management Reaction wood: specialized secondary xylem which develops in response to a lean or similar mechanical stress, it serves to help restore the stem to a vertical position Significant tree: a tree measuring a specific diameter determined by the municipality the tree grows in. Some municipalities deem that only healthy trees can be significant, other municipalities consider both healthy and unhealthy trees of a determined diameter to be significant Structural defects: flaws, decay, or other faults in the trunk, branches, or root collar of a tree, which may lead to failure; may be genetic, or environmental Tree credit: a number assigned to a tree by a municipality that may be equal to the diameter of the tree or a numerical count of the tree, or related to diameter by a factor conveyed in a table of the municipal code Visual Tree Assessment (VTA): method of evaluating structural defects and stability in trees by noting the pattern of growth. Developed by Claus Mattheck (Harris, et al 1999) detailed visual inspection of a tree and surrounding site that may include the use of simple tools. It requires that a tree risk assessor walk completely around the tree trunk looking at the site, aboveground roots, trunk, and branches (ISA 2013) Arborist Report: Saleh Foundation Center - Renton ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 7 | P a g e R EFERENCES Dirr, Michael A. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants, Their Identification, Ornamental Characteristics, Culture, Propagation, and Uses. Champaign: Stipes Publishing Company, 1990. Dunster & Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd. Assessing Trees in Urban Areas and the Urban-Rural Interface. US Release 1.0. Silverton: Pacific Northwest Chapter ISA, 2006. Dunster, J. A. 2003. Preliminary Species Profiles for Tree Failure Assessment. Bowen Island: Dunster & Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd. Dunster, Julian A., E. Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny and Sharon Lilly. Tree Risk Assessment Manual. Champaign, Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture, 2013. Harris, Richard W, James Clark, and Nelda Matheny. Arboriculture, Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs, and Vines. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2004. Lilly, Sharon. Arborists’ Certification Study Guide. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, 2001. Matheny, Nelda and Clark, James R. A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. Second Edition. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, 1994. Matheny, Nelda and Clark, James R. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. Mattheck, Claus and Breloer, Helge. The Body Language of Trees: A Handbook for Failure Analysis. London: HMSO, 1994 Schwarze, Francis W.M.R. Diagnosis and Prognosis of the Development of Wood Decay in Urban Trees. Australia: ENSPEC Pty Ltd. 2008 Sinclair, Wayne A., Lyon, Howard H., and Johnson, Warren T. Diseases of Trees and Shrubs. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1987. Smiley, E. Thomas, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly. Tree Risk Assessment Best Management Practices, ANSI A300 Part 9: Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management—Standard Practices (Tree Risk Assessment: Tree Structure Assessment). The International Society of Arboriculture Press. Champaign. IL. 2011. Thies, Walter G. and Sturrock, Rona N. Laminated root rot in Western North American. United States Department of Agriculture. Pacific Northwest. Resource Bulletin PNW-GTR-349. April 1995. Arborist Report: Saleh Foundation Center - Renton ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 8 | P a g e INSPECTION METHODS I performed a Level 2 Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) for each tree. I visually inspected the tree from the ground, walking around the tree to inspect for any basal defects. I then walked further from the tree, looking up into the crown and branches for any notable defects and symptoms of canopy decline. I measured the diameter and dripline radius of each tree using a Spencer Logging Tape. Using the VTA method, I rated the health and structural condition of each tree. This inspection method is an international industry standard for assessing trees from the ground level and identifies external signs of decay, physical damage, growth related defects, and abnormal or declining foliage. Tree health and structure are each assigned their own condition rating. The following ratings are used: Poor: Lacking a full crown, with more than 50% decline and dieback that especially affects larger branches. Low life expectancy for the species. Fair: Crown decline and dieback up to 30% of the canopy. Below-average life expectancy for the species. Good: Imperfect canopy density in 10% or less of the tree. Typical life expectancy for the species. Excellent: Perfect specimen with excellent form and vigor, along with a well-balanced crown. Exceptional life expectancy for the species. Arborist Report: Saleh Foundation Center - Renton ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 9 | P a g e APPENDIX A - A SSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS 1) Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. 2) It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or other governmental regulations. 3) The assessment in this report is based on information and data from sources believed to be reliable, correct, and accurately reported. No responsibility is assumed for false or misleading information provided by others. 4) The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of the report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement. 5) Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. 6) Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser. 7) Neither all nor any part of the contents of the report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser – particularly as to value conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or instate or to any initialed designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in her qualification. 8) The report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant’s/appraiser’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. 9) Sketches, diagrams, graphs, and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aid, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or survey. 10) Unless expressed otherwise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection; and 2 ) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing or coring. There is not warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. Arborist Report: Saleh Foundation Center - Renton ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 10 | P a g e APPENDIX B - C ERTIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE I, Katie Hogan, certify that: • I have personally inspected the trees on the property referenced in this report and the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. • I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. • The reported analysis, opinions, and conclusions are my personal, unbiased professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions. • My analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural best practices. • No individuals or organizations have provided significant assistance with the preparation of this report, except those named in the report. • My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined outcome or direction that favors the cause of the client, the results of the assessment, or the occurrence of any subsequent events. Signed: Cascara Tree Consulting, LLC Client: Saleh Foundation Center Address: 4108 Jones Ave NE, Renton, WA Date: 7/26/2025 Tree Inventory Table On-Site Trees Prepared By: Cascara Tree Consulting [PN-8078A, TRAQ] Tree No. Species Common Name DBH (in)DBH Multi- Stem (in) Health Structure Viable (Yes/No) Dripline Radius (ft) Designation Tree Credits Proposed Action Notes 271 Thuja plicata Western redcedar 40.7 - Fair Fair Yes 15.0 Landmark 13.0 Retain Heavy ivy, thin canopy 272 Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood 34.0 - Fair Poor No 25.0 N/A - High Risk 0.0 Remove Heavy ivy; large over-extended branches 273 Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood 30.0 - Fair Poor No 20.0 N/A - High Risk 0.0 Remove Broken top; large over-extended branches 274 Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood 50.2 37,34 Fair Poor No 30.0 N/A - High Risk 0.0 Remove Heavy ivy; large part failures 275 Alnus rubra Red alder 20.0 - Poor Poor No 17.0 Significant 8.0 Retain Heavy ivy; decayed (no risk) 276 Alnus rubra Red alder 8.6 - Poor Poor No 15.0 Significant 4.0 Retain Nearly dead (no risk) 277 Alnus rubra Red alder 10.6 - Fair Fair Yes 17.0 Significant 5.0 Retain 278 Alnus rubra Red alder 13.1 - Poor Poor No 10.0 Significant 6.0 Retain Nearly dead (no risk) 279 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf maple 40.0 - Fair Poor No 17.0 Landmark 13.0 Retain Broken stem (no risk) 280 Thuja plicata Western redcedar 12.0 - Good Good Yes 15.0 Significant 5.0 Retain 281 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf maple 33.3 12,14,15,17,16 Fair Fair Yes 25.0 Landmark 12.0 Retain 282 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf maple 28.8 12,18,18,6 Fair Poor No 30.0 Landmark 10.0 Retain Decay at base (no risk) 283 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf maple 12.0 - Good Good Yes 18.0 Significant 5.0 Retain 284 Alnus rubra Red alder 8.0 - Fair Fair Yes 15.0 Significant 4.0 Retain 1 of 3 Cascara Tree Consulting, LLC Client: Saleh Foundation Center Address: 4108 Jones Ave NE, Renton, WA Date: 7/26/2025 Tree Inventory Table Off-Site Trees Prepared By: Cascara Tree Consulting [PN-8078A, TRAQ] Tree No. Species Common Name DBH (in)DBH Multi- Stem (in) Health Structure Viable (Yes/No) Dripline Radius (ft) Designation Tree Credits Proposed Action Notes A Salix lucida Pacific willow 16.0 - Poor Poor No 18.0 Significant N/A Retain Broken top B Thuja plicata Western redcedar 11.0 - Good Good Yes 12.0 Significant N/A Retain C Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf maple 18.0 - Good Good Yes 25.0 Significant N/A Retain D Alnus rubra Red alder 10.0 - Fair Fair Yes 16.0 Significant N/A Retain 285 Prunus cerasifera Flowering plum 16.5 - Good Fair Yes 16.0 Significant N/A Retain 286 Alnus rubra Red alder 10.8 - Poor Poor No 10.0 Significant N/A Retain Nearly dead 287 Alnus rubra Red alder 11.0 - Fair Fair Yes 16.0 Significant N/A Retain 2 of 3 Cascara Tree Consulting, LLC Client: Saleh Foundation Center Address: 4108 Jones Ave NE, Renton, WA Date: 7/26/2025 Tree Inventory Table Definitions Prepared By: Cascara Tree Consulting [PN-8078A, TRAQ] Excellent Good Fair Poor Excellent Viable Viable Viable Not viable Good Viable Viable Viable Not viable Fair Viable Viable Not viable Not viable Poor Not viable Not viable Not viable Not viable Health Structure Excellent High or above average vigor No visible defects Good Vigor is normal for species Minor defects Fair Reduced vigor Major defects Poor Poor vigor Major defects that cannot be corrected Diameter at Breast Height (DBH): Landmark Tree: Significant Tree: Developable Area Supplemental Trees Small Tree Medium Tree Large Tree Supplemental tree planting shall consist of new small, medium, or large species trees, as defined in RMC 4-11-200, Definitions T. The supplemental trees shall be planted with a minimum size of two-inch (2") caliper, or evergreen trees with a minimum size of six feet (6') tall. The Administrator shall have the authority to approve, deny, or restrict the tree species for proposed supplemental trees. A tree with a mature height of thirty feet (30') or less. A tree with a mature height between thirty feet (30') and fifty feet (50'). A tree with a mature height of fifty feet (50') or more. Land area outside of critical areas, critical area and shoreline buffers, and public rights-of-way that is otherwise developable Tree Health Tr e e St r u c t u r e The diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at 4.5 feet above average grade. Where a tree splits into several trunks close to ground level, the DBH for the tree is the square root of the sum of the DBH for each individual stem squared (example with three trunks: DBH = square root [(stem1)2 + (stem2)2 + (stem3)2]). A tree with a caliper of twenty four inches (24") or greater, except for big leaf maples, black cottonwoods, and red alder trees, which qualify as landmark trees with a caliper of thirty inches (30") or greater. A tree with a caliper of at least six inches (6"), except alder or cottonwood trees, which qualify as significant trees with a caliper of eight inches (8") or greater. Trees certified as high-risk shall not be considered significant. 3 of 3 Cascara Tree Consulting, LLC