HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_Huynh_Tree_Removal_20251126DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
D_Huynh RVMP_251126_Final
PLANNING DIVISION
ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT
EVALUATION FORM & DECISION
DATE OF DECISION: November 26, 2025
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA25-000395, RVMP
PROJECT NAME: Huynh RVMP
PROJECT MANAGER: Ian Harris, Associate Planner
APPLICANT/CONTACT: Mitchel Flannery
38120 192nd Ave SE, Auburn, WA 98092
OWNER: Hanh Huynh
11850 SE 157th Pl, Renton, WA 98058
PROJECT LOCATION: 11850 SE 157th Pl, Renton, WA 98058
(APN 1432600730)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of a Routine Vegetation Management Permit
(RVMP) to remove three (3) Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra ‘Italica’) trees. Lombardy poplars are a cultivar
of the more commonly known Black cottonwood (Populus nigra) species. The three (3) trees are assessed at
50- to 60-inch (50” to 60”) diameter at breast height (DBH), with a height range of approximately 100- to 120-
plus feet (100’ to 120’+). The subject property is located at 11850 SE 157th Pl (APN 1432600730) (Attachment
A). The 6,979 square foot (0.16 acre) property is situated within the Residential-6 (R-6) zone and the Benson
Community Planning Area.
An Arborist Report, prepared by Arborist Mitch Flannery of Arbor Barber Tree Service, dated October 22, 2025
(Attachment B) was submitted with the application. Mr. Flannery identified four (4) trees on the subject
property, including one (1) significant Thundercloud plum (Prunus cerasifera ‘Thundercloud’) with a DBH of
12”, and three (3) landmark Lombardy poplar trees; one with a DBH of sixty inches (60”) and a height of over
100 feet (100’+), one with a DBH of fifty inches (50”) and a height of over 120 feet (120’+), and one with a DBH
of sixty inches (60”) and a height of over 120 feet (120’+). The report recommends removal of the three (3)
Lombardy poplar trees due to poor health, high potential for failure, high chance of branch shedding and
large limb failures, inappropriately planted species in tight quarters, and potential for property damage.
According to City of Renton (COR) Maps, a portion of the property is partially within a Regulated Slope (>15%
& <=25%) area.
CRITICAL AREA: Regulated Slope (>15% & <=25%)
Docusign Envelope ID: 6068E074-142E-4973-BA22-589541CEA59D
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit
Huynh RVMP LUA25-000395, RVMP
Permit Date: November 26, 2025 Page 2 of 4
D_Huynh RVMP_251126_Final
GENERAL REVIEW CRITERIA 4-9-195D.4:
YES 1. The lot shall comply with minimum tree density requirements pursuant to RMC 4-4-
130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations.
Staff Comments: In accordance with RMC 4-4-130H, compliance with tree credit
requirements necessitates a minimum of 30 tree credits per net acre. The subject
property is approximately 6,979 square foot (0.16 acre). Based on the property size, five
(5) tree credits are required to meet the minimum tree density requirement (30 tree
credits/acre × 0.16 acres = 4.8 credits). After the proposed removal of three (3) trees,
the remaining one (1) tree maintains five (5) tree credits for the subject property and
there would be enough tree credits retained (Attachment C).
RMC 4-4-130H also requires that 30% of trees on site be retained. This would require
one (1) tree to be retained or replaced on the property out of the existing four (4). The
applicant is proposing to remove three (3) trees, leaving one (1) tree to remain. Due to
rounding (allowed under RMC 4-4-130H) there would be enough trees retained under
this requirement as well.
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: According to the city’s mapping system (COR Maps), the subject
property contains regulated slopes (>15% & <=25%). The regulated slopes are not
within the rear yard of the property, where the trees proposed for removal are located.
Based on the existing improvements and topography of the site, it is not anticipated
that removing the Lombardy poplar trees in the rear yard would impact the regulated
slope on the property. Therefore, the proposed action is consistent with the critical
area regulations.
YES 3. Removal of a landmark tree shall meet the review criteria for removal off landmark tree,
pursuant to RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. The criteria
are:
i. The tree is determined to be a high-risk tree; or
ii. The tree is causing obvious physical damage to buildings (over 200 square
feet), driveways, parking lots, or utilities, and it can be demonstrated to the
Administrator’s satisfaction that no reasonable alternative to tree removal
exist, including tree root pruning, tree root barriers, tree cabling, or
preventative maintenance, such as cleaning leaf debris, deadwood removal,
or directional/clearance pruning; or
iii. Removal of tree(s) to provide solar access to buildings incorporating active
solar devices. Windows are solar devices only when they are south facing and
include special storage elements to distribute heat energy; or
iv. The Administrator determines the removal is necessary to achieve a specific
and articulable purpose or goal of this Title.
Staff Comments: The three (3) Lombardy poplar trees proposed for removal are
classified as “landmark trees,” according to Renton Municipal Code (RMC), as the
trees are a cultivar of Black Cottonwood and have a DBH greater than thirty inches
Docusign Envelope ID: 6068E074-142E-4973-BA22-589541CEA59D
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit
Huynh RVMP LUA25-000395, RVMP
Permit Date: November 26, 2025 Page 3 of 4
D_Huynh RVMP_251126_Final
(30”). According to the ISA Tree Risk Assessment Forms completed by Mr. Flannery, all
three trees are classified as “high-risk” (Attachment D). Therefore, the three (3)
landmark trees requested for removal meet the review criteria for removal under RMC
tree regulations.
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 tree is not a street frontage tree nor a
parking lot tree. Neither street frontage nor parking landscape is proposed to be
removed.
N/A 5. The land clearing and tree removal shall not remove any landscaping or protected
trees required as part of a land development permit.
Staff Comments: Not applicable. The tree removal would not be removing
landscaping or protected trees required as part of a land development permit.
YES 6. The land clearing and tree removal shall maintain visual screening and buffering
between land uses of differing intensity, consistent with applicable landscaping and
setback provisions.
Staff Comments: The three (3) trees proposed for removal are located along the rear
property line of the subject property. The adjacent parcel to the rear (northeast) of the
subject property contains underground water utilities owned by the City of Seattle.
Above ground, this property mostly appears as open space with mostly low-lying
vegetation. Many single-family properties which also border along this utility parcel
have no vegetation to visually buffer between their rear yards and the above ground
open space of the utility parcel. The subject property, adjacent single-family
properties, and the utility parcel all are within the Residential-6 (R-6) zone.
Beyond the utility parcel to the northeast sits another single-family neighborhood
similar in character to the one within which the subject parcel exists. These single-
family properties are within the Residential-8 (R-8) zone. The proposed tree removal
would be visible to the properties in this neighborhood. However, a lack of trees along
the rear property line of the subject property would be typical as previously described.
The subject property also contains fencing which screens much of the rear yard of the
property and is not proposed to be removed by the applicant at this time.
Therefore, due to the consistency in zoning and land uses on the subject parcel and
surrounding properties, the tree removal is not anticipated to impact visual screening
between uses of differing intensity and is consistent with applicable landscaping and
setback provisions.
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 removal of the Lombardy poplar trees, as recommended by Mr.
Flannery, is not anticipated to create hazardous conditions. Instead, it would mitigate
potential damage to property on the project site, as the overgrown Lombardy poplar
trees are identified as “high-risk” in a small space.
Docusign Envelope ID: 6068E074-142E-4973-BA22-589541CEA59D
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit
Huynh RVMP LUA25-000395, RVMP
Permit Date: November 26, 2025 Page 4 of 4
D_Huynh RVMP_251126_Final
N/A 8. The land clearing and tree removal shall be consistent with the requirement of the
Shoreline Master Program, pursuant to RMC 4-3-090F1, 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.
DECISION: The Huynh RVMP, LUA25-000395, RVMP is Approved .
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 the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After
review of the reconsideration request, if the approval body finds 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 file a formal appeal within the 14-day appeal time frame.
APPEALS: Appeals of permit issuance must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on December 10,
2025. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC
197-11-680). Appeals must be submitted electronically to the City Clerk at cityclerk@rentonwa.gov or
delivered to City Hall 1st floor 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 first floor 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: The Routine Vegetation Management Permit shall be valid for one year from the date of issuance.
An extension may be granted by the Planning Division for a period of one year upon application by the property
owner or manager. Application for such an extension must be made at least thirty (30) days in advance of the
expiration of the original permit and shall include a statement of justification for the extension.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Site Map
Attachment B: Arborist Report, prepared by Arbor Barber Tree Service, dated October 22, 2025
Attachment C: Tree Retention and Credit Worksheet
Attachment D: ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Forms for the three (3) trees requested for removal
cc: Mitchel Flannery, Applicant/Arborist
Hanh Huynh, Owner
Docusign Envelope ID: 6068E074-142E-4973-BA22-589541CEA59D
11/26/2025 | 9:29 AM PST
Arborist Report
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS
I recommend removal of the 3 Lombardi Poplar’s mentioned in the previous sections of this report. Trees
are to be replaced per RMC.
SITE MAP
A
B
C
NORTH
D
ATTACHMENT A
RECEIVED
11/06/2025 jcisneros
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 6068E074-142E-4973-BA22-589541CEA59D
Arborist Report
Page 1
Arbor Barber Tree Service ISA# PN-9076A
MITCH FLANNERY
38102 192ND Ave SE
AUBURN WA, 98092
(253) 410-9287
sales@arborbarber.com
Hanh Huynh
11850 Southeast 157th Place, Renton, Washington, 98058
Site Inspection Date: 9/19/25 Report Date: 10/22/25
ASSIGNMENT
I was tasked with assessing 3 Lombardi Poplars for health and potential for property damage. Below are
my findings.
SITE OBSERVATIONS
Parcel #1432600730 is a 6,979 square foot lot containing a single-family dwelling in the middle of the
property as well as 3 outbuildings constructed on the North end of the property. Trees on site consist of 3
large Lombardi Poplars planted on the north end of the property and one Thundercloud Plum (D) 12”
DBH (6 Tree Credits) planted on the south end of the property (to be retained).
TREE INVENTORY AND RISK ASSESSMENT
A – Lombardi Poplar 60” DBH @ 100’+ tall (13 Tree Credits) – This specimen is located in proximity
to multiple, high-value targets. The tree is live and healthy, but the species should in no way be planted on
such a small property with so many surrounding targets as they are very prone to large limb failures.
B – Lombardi Poplar 50” DBH @ 120’+ tall (13 Tree Credits) – In addition to being an inappropriately
planted species in tight quarters, this tree is in a severe state of decline, the likelihood of failure is highly
probable with multiple surrounding targets.
C – Lombardi Poplar 60” DBH @ 120’+ tall (13 Tree Credits) – In addition to being an inappropriately
planted species in tight quarters, this tree is in a severe state of decline, the likelihood of failure is highly
probable with multiple surrounding targets.
All of these trees have a high consequence of failure and an extensive history of failures (limbs piled near
trees and broken stubs in crown)
ATTACHMENT B
RECEIVED
11/06/2025 jcisneros
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 6068E074-142E-4973-BA22-589541CEA59D
Arborist Report
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS
I recommend removal of the 3 Lombardi Poplar’s mentioned in the previous sections of this report. Trees
are to be replaced per RMC.
SITE MAP
A
B
C
NORTH
D
RECEIVED
11/06/2025 jcisneros
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 6068E074-142E-4973-BA22-589541CEA59D
Arborist Report
Page 3
A B C
RECEIVED
11/06/2025 jcisneros
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 6068E074-142E-4973-BA22-589541CEA59D
rentonwa.gov/permitservices | planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov | 425-430-7294 10/24/2023 Page 1 of 3
CITY OF RENTON Ι PERMIT SERVICES
TREE RETENTION AND CREDIT WORKSHEET
TREE RETENTION REQUIREMENTS
A minimum retention of thirty percent (30%) of all significant trees (as defined in RMC 4-11-200) is required on site.
Please complete the form below to verify compliance with minimum tree retention requirements.
• Identify total number of trees 6-inch caliper or greater (or alder or
cottonwood trees 8-inch caliper or greater) on site: Trees
Trees
Trees
Trees
Trees
Trees Required
Trees Proposed
•Deductions – Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation:
o Trees that are high-risk, as defined in RMC 4-11-200:
o Trees within existing and proposed public right-of-way:
o Trees within wetlands, streams, very high landslide hazards,
protected slopes, and associated buffers:
•Total remaining trees after deductions:
•Required tree retention (30%):
•Identify number of trees proposed for retention:
•Identify number of trees requested for replacement in lieu of retention
(skip page 3 if no tree replacement is requested):Trees
TREE CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
Tree credit requirements apply at a minimum rate of thirty (30) credits per net acre. Complete the form below to
determine minimum tree credit requirements.
•Gross area of property in square feet: Square Feet
•Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from tree credit calculation:
o Existing and proposed public right-of-way: Square Feet
o Wetlands, streams, very high landslide hazards, protected slopes,
and associated buffers: Square Feet
•Total excluded area:Square Feet
•Net land area (after deductions) in square feet:Square Feet
•Net land area (after deductions) in acres:Acres
•Required tree credits:Tree Credits Required
ATTACHMENT C
RECEIVED
11/06/2025 jcisneros
PLANNING DIVISION
4
3
0
0
1
0.3
1
-0.7
6979
0
0
0
6979
0.16
5
Docusign Envelope ID: 6068E074-142E-4973-BA22-589541CEA59D
rentonwa.gov/permitservices | planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov | 425-430-7294 10/24/2023 Page 2 of 3
TREE RETENTION AND CREDIT WORKSHEET
PROPOSED TREE CREDITS
Please complete the table below to calculate the total tree credits proposed for your project. Identify the quantity of trees
for each tree category, after deducting trees within excluded areas, as shown in the previous section.
TREE SIZE TREE CREDITS TREE QUANTITY TOTAL TREE CREDITS
RETAINED TREES
Preserved tree 6 – 9” caliper 4
Preserved tree 10 – 12” caliper 5
Preserved tree 12 – 15” caliper 6
Preserved tree 16 – 18” caliper 7
Preserved tree 19 – 21” caliper 8
Preserved tree 22 – 24” caliper 9
Preserved tree 25 – 28” caliper 10
Preserved tree 29 – 32” caliper 11
Preserved tree 33 – 36” caliper 12
Preserved tree 37” caliper and greater 13
NEW TREES
New small species tree (30' or less at maturity) 0.25
New medium species tree (30' to 50' at maturity) 1
New large species tree (50' or more at maturity) 2
TREE CREDITS PROPOSED:
RECEIVED
11/06/2025 jcisneros
PLANNING DIVISION
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Docusign Envelope ID: 6068E074-142E-4973-BA22-589541CEA59D
rentonwa.gov/permitservices | planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov | 425-430-7294 10/24/2024 Page 3 of 3
TREE RETENTION AND CREDIT WORKSHEET
TREE REPLACEMENT JUSTIFICATION
Replacement may be authorized as an alternative to 30% retention provided the removal is the minimum necessary to
accomplish the desired purpose and provided the proposal meets one of the following options:
a.There are special circumstances related to the size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings of the subject
property; or
b.The strict application of the code would prevent reasonable use of property; or
c.The strict application of the code would prevent compliance with minimum density requirements of the zone; or
d.The project is a short plat with four (4) or fewer lots.
Please attach a written justification demonstrating compliance with the requirements and criteria as descripted above.
TREE REPLACEMENT QUANTITY
Tree replacement quantity is determined based on the credit value of the trees proposed for removal. Larger, higher
priority trees shall be used for calculation of tree replacement. Identify the quantity of each tree requested to be removed
in lieu of 30% retention, based on tree size. List the identification number of each tree, as indicated in the arborist report.
TREE SIZE TREE CREDITS TREE QUANTITY TREE INDENTIFICATION # TOTAL TREE CREDITS
Tree 37” caliper + 13
Tree 33 – 36” caliper 12
Tree 29 – 32” caliper 11
Tree 25 – 28” caliper 10
Tree 22 – 24” caliper 9
Tree 19 – 21” caliper 8
Tree 16 – 18” caliper 7
Tree 12 – 15” caliper 6
Tree 10 – 12” caliper 5
Tree 6 – 9” caliper 4
REPLACEMENT CREDITS REQUIRED:
TREE REPLACEMENT PLANTING
Identify the quantity of proposed new replacement trees (minimum size of 2-inch caliper). The total replacement credits
proposed should be equal to or greater than the replacement credits required, as shown in the previous section.
TREE SIZE TREE CREDITS TREE QUANTITY TOTAL TREE CREDITS
New small species tree (30' or less at maturity) 0.25
New medium species tree (30' to 50' at maturity) 1
New large species tree (50' or more at maturity) 2
REPLACEMENT CREDITS PROPOSED:
RECEIVED
11/06/2025 jcisneros
PLANNING DIVISION
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Docusign Envelope ID: 6068E074-142E-4973-BA22-589541CEA59D
— 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
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
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
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
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Time frame_____________ Tools used______________________________
Target Assessment
Ta
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description
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
?
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_____________________________________________________ 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 planned change in load factors _________________________________________________________________________________________
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant
Likelihood of failureLikelihood of failure
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Page 1 of 2
Site Factors
Target zone
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
wi
t
h
i
n
1
x
H
t
.
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Improbable Possible Probable Imminent Improbable Possible Probable Imminent ATTACHMENT D
RECEIVED
11/06/2025 jcisneros
PLANNING DIVISION
Hanh Huynh 10/29/25 2:29
11850 Southeast 157th Place, Renton, Washington, 98058 A 1 2
Lombardi Poplar 60"100'+30'
Mitch Flannery PN-9076A 10 Years Visual
Lombardi Poplar known for high chance of branch shedding
NW Weather
No No
n
4
4
4
4
n n
n
Neighbor's House/structures
n
4
Customer's outbuildings 4
Customer's House 4
People within customer's house 4
Multiple branches on ground - stubs in canopy
South n n n n
n 90
No signs
n n
n n
n
2 Trees NW to be removed
No
No
20
90
3"Multiple stems (typical poplar)
nn
No
No
No No
n
=
Overgrown Poplar in small space
Docusign Envelope ID: 6068E074-142E-4973-BA22-589541CEA59D
1
2
3
4
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impacting Target
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
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
n
u
m
b
e
r
Pa
r
t
s
i
z
e
Fa
l
l
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
Target
protection
Conditions
of concern
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
Risk rating
of part
(from
Matrix 2)Tree part
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
N e 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
Mitigation options _____________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme Work priority 1 2 3 4
Overall residual risk Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists – 2013
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Ta
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
RECEIVED
11/06/2025 jcisneros
PLANNING DIVISION
HighCrown28"3 None100'Overgrown
Overgrown Lombardi Poplar
planted in small backyard with multiple surrounding structures.
None
n
n n
n
Docusign Envelope ID: 6068E074-142E-4973-BA22-589541CEA59D
— 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
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
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
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
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Time frame_____________ Tools used______________________________
Target Assessment
Ta
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description
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
?
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_____________________________________________________ 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 planned change in load factors _________________________________________________________________________________________
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant
Likelihood of failureLikelihood of failure
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Page 1 of 2
Site Factors
Target zone
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
wi
t
h
i
n
1
x
H
t
.
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Improbable Possible Probable Imminent Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
RECEIVED
11/06/2025 jcisneros
PLANNING DIVISION
Hanh Huynh 10/29/25 2:36
11850 Southeast 157th Place, Renton, Washington, 98058 B 1 2
Lombardi Poplar 50"100'+18'
Mitch Flannery PN-9076A 10 Years Visual
Lombardi Poplar known for high chance of branch shedding
90
NW Weather
No No
n
4
4
4
4
n n
n
Neighbor's House/structures
n
4
Customer's outbuildings 4
Customer's House 4
People within customer's house 4
Multiple branches on ground - stubs in canopy
South n n n n
n n 10
No signs
n n
n n n
n
2 surrounding trees to be removed
No
No
90
90
40"Multiple stems (typical poplar)
nn
No
No
No No
n
=
Overgrown, dead/dying Poplar in small space
Docusign Envelope ID: 6068E074-142E-4973-BA22-589541CEA59D
1
2
3
4
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impacting Target
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
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
n
u
m
b
e
r
Pa
r
t
s
i
z
e
Fa
l
l
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
Target
protection
Conditions
of concern
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
Risk rating
of part
(from
Matrix 2)Tree part
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
N e 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
Mitigation options _____________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme Work priority 1 2 3 4
Overall residual risk Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists – 2013
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Ta
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
RECEIVED
11/06/2025 jcisneros
PLANNING DIVISION
HighCrown40"3 None100'Dead/Overgrown
Dead, Overgrown Lombardi Poplar
planted in small backyard with multiple surrounding structures.
None
n
n n
n
Docusign Envelope ID: 6068E074-142E-4973-BA22-589541CEA59D
— 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
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
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
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
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Time frame_____________ Tools used______________________________
Target Assessment
Ta
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description
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
?
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_____________________________________________________ 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 planned change in load factors _________________________________________________________________________________________
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant
Likelihood of failureLikelihood of failure
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Page 1 of 2
Site Factors
Target zone
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
wi
t
h
i
n
1
x
H
t
.
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Improbable Possible Probable Imminent Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
RECEIVED
11/06/2025 jcisneros
PLANNING DIVISION
Hanh Huynh 10/29/25 2:45
11850 Southeast 157th Place, Renton, Washington, 98058 C 1 2
Lombardi Poplar 60"100'+22'
Mitch Flannery PN-9076A 10 Years Visual
Lombardi Poplar known for high chance of branch shedding
90
NW Weather
No No
n
4
4
4
4
n n
n
Neighbor's House/structures
n
4
Customer's outbuildings 4
Customer's House 4
People within customer's house 4
Multiple branches on ground - stubs in canopy
South n n n n
n n 10
No signs
n n
n n
n
2 surrounding trees to be removed
No
No
50
90
20"Multiple stems (typical poplar)
nn
No
No
No No
n
=
Overgrown, dead/dying Poplar in small space
Docusign Envelope ID: 6068E074-142E-4973-BA22-589541CEA59D
1
2
3
4
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impacting Target
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
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
n
u
m
b
e
r
Pa
r
t
s
i
z
e
Fa
l
l
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
Target
protection
Conditions
of concern
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
Risk rating
of part
(from
Matrix 2)Tree part
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
N e 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
Mitigation options _____________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme Work priority 1 2 3 4
Overall residual risk Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists – 2013
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Ta
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
RECEIVED
11/06/2025 jcisneros
PLANNING DIVISION
HighCrown40"3 None100'Dead/Overgrown
Dead, Overgrown Lombardi Poplar
planted in small backyard with multiple surrounding structures.
None
n
n n
n
Docusign Envelope ID: 6068E074-142E-4973-BA22-589541CEA59D