The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutD_Fire Station 14 Tree Removal_final_20251211DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Routine Vegetation Management Permit PLANNING DIVISON ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PREMIT EVALUATION FORM & DECISION DATE OF DECISION: December 11, 2025 PROJECT NUMBER: LUA25-000407, RVMP PROJECT NAME: Fire Station 14 Tree Removal PROJECT MANAGER: Ashley Wragge, Assistant Planner APPLICANT/CONTACT: Ryan Simonds 18002 108th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98055 OWNER: Renton Regional Fire Authority (RRFA) 18002 108th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98055 PROJECT LOCATION: 1900 Lind Ave SW, Renton, WA 98057 (APN 3340400425) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Ryan Simonds from Renton Regional Fire Authority (RRFA), is requesting a Routine Vegetation Management Permit (RVMP) to remove fourteen (14) trees from the Fire Station 14 parking lot located at 1900 Lind Ave SW (APN 3340400425). The subject property is approximately 261,781 square feet (6.01 acres) and located within the Commercial Office (CO) zone and the Valley Community Planning Area. According to City of Renton (COR) Maps, the property is mapped with flood hazards, high seismic hazards, sensitive slopes (>15% & <= 25%), and a wetland. An Arborist Report, prepared by Terrence J. Flatley, dated September 5, 2025 (Attachment A), was submitted with the application. In the report, the arborist proposes the removal of fourteen (14) landscaping trees ranging from seven inches (7”) to fourteen inches (14”) in diameter at breast height (dbh) and approximately eleven feet (11’) to twenty-eight feet (28’) tall. The proposed trees for removal are Beech (Fagus), Leyland cypress (Cuprocyparis leylandii), Cherry (Prunus), and Pear (Pyrus). In the Project Narrative (Attachment B), the applicant contends that the trees proposed for removal are all dead and therefore should be removed. All the trees proposed for removal are landscaping trees and the applicant proposes to replant more suitable trees in the landscaping areas. CRITITCAL AREA: Sensitive slopes (>15% & <=25%), 100-year flood plain, high seismic hazards, and East Valley B Wetland. Docusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Fire Station 14 Tree Removal Routine Vegetation Management Permit LUA25-000407, RVMP Permit Date: December 11, 2025 Page 2 of 4 Routine Vegetation Management Permit ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA 4-9-195D.4: YES 1. The lot shall comply with minimum tree credit requirements pursuant to RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. Staff Comments: In accordance with RMC 4-4-130H, compliance with tree credit requirements necessitates a minimum of 30 tree credits per net acre. The subject property, located at 1900 Lind Ave SW (APN 3340400425), is approximately 261,781 square feet (6.01 acres). Based on the property size, 180 tree credits are required to meet the minimum tree density requirement (30 tree credits per acre × 6.01 acres = 180.3 credits). According to the Project Narrative (Attachment B), the property has approximately 437 trees measuring between six inches (6”) and twenty-eight inches (28”) in diameter at breast height (dbh), which means that the minimum tree retention and credits would be met after the proposed 14 trees are removed. Retention of landscaping trees is required and is discussed further in Sections 4 and 5. 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 City of Renton (COR) Maps, Fire Station 14 is mapped with sensitive slopes (>15% & <=25%), the 100-year fiood plain, high seismic hazards, and the East Valley B Wetland. The trees proposed for removal include landscape trees located along SW 19th St (north side of the building), trees located in the parking lot along Lind Ave SW (west side of the building), and trees located southwest of the building inside the fence (at the site entrance). No trees are proposed for removal within the wetland and/or wetland buffer and therefore, the removal would not impact this on-site critical area. In addition, the proposed tree removal work is not expected to impact the other critical areas on-site including the mapped regulated slopes (topography), fiooding hazards, or seismic hazards. Due to these factors, the proposed tree removals do not require additional critical areas review, and the proposed action is consistent with restrictions for critical areas. N/A 3. Removal of a landmark tree shall meet the review criteria for removal of a landmark tree, pursuant to RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. Staff Comments: Per RMC 4-11-200, Deflnitions T, a landmark tree is classifled as such if it measures 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. The trees proposed for mitigation are between seven inches (7”) and fourteen inches (14”) in diameter at breast height (dbh). Per the City’s classiflcation these are signiflcant trees; therefore, the review criteria for removal of landmark trees do not apply. YES, IF CONDITIONS ARE MET 4. Street frontage and parking lot trees and landscaping shall be preserved, unless otherwise approved by the Administrator. Staff Comments: The trees proposed for removal are located within landscape areas along the right-of-way and parking lot. Approval of the requested RVMP would act as obtaining administrator approval to remove the trees located within the required street frontage landscape area (ten feet [10'] along all public street frontages), perimeter landscaping, and interior parking lot landscaping with more than fourteen (14) parking spaces. Docusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Fire Station 14 Tree Removal Routine Vegetation Management Permit LUA25-000407, RVMP Permit Date: December 11, 2025 Page 3 of 4 Routine Vegetation Management Permit It is not reasonably feasible to preserve the existing trees proposed for removal because the trees are dead and most of them have a high-risk rating for failure. In RMC 4-4-070A, the purpose and intent of landscaping include improving the aesthetic quality of the built environment, establish a healthier environment by producing oxygen, along with improving and softening the appearance of parking areas among other intents. Retaining the existing dead and dying trees runs counter to the intent behind the landscaping standards. To support the purpose and intent of landscaping, staff supports replacing the parking lot trees instead of preserving the existing dead or dying landscaping. Therefore, to preserve and enhance the landscape character of the City and as a condition of approval, the dead or dying 14 high-risk trees shall be replaced at a one-to- one (1:1) ratio, in approximately the same locations as those proposed trees for removal. As suggested by the arborist in the Replanting Plan (Attachment C), the eight (8) trees labeled 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 22, and 23 shall be replaced with Honey Locust trees, while the six (6) trees labeled 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, and 11 shall be replaced with Tupelo trees. These trees are recommended due to their suitability for canopy width and the availability of adequate space for root growth. YES 5. The land clearing and tree removal shall not remove any landscaping or protected trees required as part of a land development permit. Staff Comments: The proposed tree removals are a part of parking lot landscaping and removal of landscaping is not permissible per code. As discussed above, no live landscaping would be eliminated, rather the existing dead or 50 percent (50%) dead trees would be replaced with alternative tree species that are more appropriate for the site conditions. This would mitigate the issue of preserving the existing dead trees occupying the landscaping areas and would revitalize the appearance of the landscaping at the project site. 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 trees proposed for removal are trees used for landscaping along the right-of-way and near the flrehouse. These trees are not intended to serve the function as visual screening and buffering between land uses. There is a grove of cottonwood trees to the south of the parcel to act as a buffer between the Commercial Office (CO) use and the Light Industrial (IL) use as well as a grove along the east to buffer the wetland. None of these trees are proposed for removal; therefore, the proposed removal and replacement would not adversely affect buffering or screening efforts. YES 7. The land clearing and tree removal shall not create or contribute to a hazardous condition, such as increased potential for blowdown, pest infestation, disease, or other problems that may result from selectively removing trees and other vegetation from a lot. Staff Comments: The provided documentation did not indicate that the removal and replacement of the existing trees with a more appropriate tree species would create or contribute to a hazardous condition. N/A 8. The land clearing and tree removal shall be consistent with the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program, pursuant to RMC 4-3-090F.1, Vegetation Conservation, and RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. Docusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Fire Station 14 Tree Removal Routine Vegetation Management Permit LUA25-000407, RVMP Permit Date: December 11, 2025 Page 4 of 4 Routine Vegetation Management Permit Staff Comments: Not applicable. The property is not located within shoreline jurisdiction. DECISION: The Fire Station 14 Tree Removal Routine Vegetation Management Permit, LUA25-000407, RVMP is Approved* and subject to the following conditions: . *CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The applicant shall replace the fourteen (14) landscaping trees at a one-to-one (1:1) ratio, in approximately the same locations as those proposed for removal. Trees labeled 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 22, and 23 shall be replaced with Honey Locust trees, while trees labeled 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, and 11 shall be replaced with Tupelo trees. All tree replacement and replanting activity shall be completed within six (6) months. SIGNATURE & DATE OF DECISION: Matthew Herrera, Planning Director Date RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that the decision be reopened by the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he flnds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the approval body flnds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must flle a formal appeal within the 14-day appeal time frame. APPEALS: This administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on December 29, 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 fioor Lobby Hub Monday through Friday. The appeal fee, normally due at the time an appeal is submitted, will be collected at a future date if your appeal is submitted electronically. The appeal submitted in person may be paid on the flrst fioor in our Finance Department. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office, cityclerk@rentonwa.gov. EXPIRATION: 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 justiflcation for the extension. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Arborist Report, prepared by Terrence J. Flatley, dated September 5, 2025 Attachment B: Project Narrative Attachment C: Replanting Plan Docusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F 12/11/2025 | 4:04 PM PST ARBORIST REPORT Prepared By: Terrence J. Flatley Certified Arborist TRAQ Firestation 14, 1900 Renton, WA 98055 C/O Donald Highley, Facility Technician September 5, 2025 Attachment A RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F ARBORIST REPORT Firestation 14 1900 SW Lind Avenue Renton, Washington 98055 C/O Donald Highley, Facility Technician INTRODUCTION Donald Highley, Facility Technician to the Renton Regional Fire Authority, requested an Arborist Report to apply for City of Renton permits in order to remove several dead trees on the grounds of Firestation 14. The ﬁrestation is located at 1900 SW Lind Avenue. Geographically it is located in the Southwest Quarter Section 19, Township 23 North, Range 5 East. The parcel identiﬁcation number is 3340400425. The parcel is 261,781 square feet including the ﬁrestation and maintained grounds as well as a wooded cottonwood stand along the east and south boundaries. This report applies to the landscape trees found along the north side of the building, trees in the parking lot, trees along SW Lind Avenue and trees along the south side of the building inside the fence. METHOD Each tree was measured to gather data shown in Table 1 below using a basic level of tree risk assessment from ground level. Information was gathered on the “ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form.” Tree locations were pinpointed by number on aerial maps. The maps relate to Table 1. Photographs of the dead trees were taken with labels for Trees 1 through 15. Live trees are shown with numbers 16 through 27 on the maps only; live trees were not photographed intentionally. An estimate of the quantity of cottonwood trees was made for areas to the east and south boundaries. Table 1 is the tree inventory for Trees 1 through 27. It summarizes information on the assessment forms for each tree. “Basic Tree Risk Assessment Forms were completed for tree removals (Trees 1 through 7, 10 and 11, 13 through 15, 22 and 23) found at the end of this report. RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F TREE LOCATION MAPS Area Map Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 2 14 Map 1. Loca(on of Firesta(on 14 at 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Site and Tree Location Map Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 3 14 Map 2. Dead and Live Trees RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F TABLE 1. TREE INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT Tree No. Species DBH (In.) Height (Ft.) Crown Diameter (Ft.) Condi=on (%) Risk Ra=ng Comment 1 Beech 11 20 24 0 High Dead 2 Beech 7 21 22 0 High Dead 3 Beech 10 40 30 0 High Dead 4 Leyland cypress 14 40 24 0 High Dead 5 Cherry 7 10 10 0 Low Dead 6 Cherry 8 16 24 0 High Dead 7 Cherry 10 18 24 0 High Dead 8 Pear 6 28 18 50 Low Prune 9 Pear 2 12 6 50 Low Prune 10 Pear 7 24 24 40 Low Dead 11 Pear 7 24 22 20 High Remove 12 Pear 8 27 24 60 Moderate Prune 13 Cherry 9 16 16 0 Low Dead 14 Cherry 7 11 15 0 Low Dead 15 Cherry 7 11 21 0 Low Dead 22 Cherry 11 17 33 50 Low Dead 23 Cherry 10 16 27 60 Low 50% Dead Trees Not Scheduled for Maintenance (Below) 16 Beech 12 32 36 80 Low Live 17 Leyland cypress 20 70 27 80 Low Live 18 Beech 10 32 15 70 Low Live 19 Pear 6 20 21 80 Low Live 20 Pear 5 13 21 70 Low Live 21 Pear 6 13 15 70 Low Live Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 4 14 RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F 24 Leyland cypress 25 90 42 80 Low Live 25 Pear 6 16 10 80 Low Live 26 Pear 6 16 10 70 Low Live 27 Leyland cypress 25 87 30 80 Low Live Tree No. Species DBH (In.) Height (Ft.) Crown Diameter (Ft.) Condi=on (%) Risk Ra=ng Comment Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 5 14 Map 3. Dead Trees 1 thru 7, 10, 11, 13 thru 15 and 22, 23 to be removed Map 4. Live Trees 16 thru 21, 24 thru 27 to be retained RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F CONCLUSION The information in this report uses a basic level assessment at ground level and considers tree condition under normal weather conditions typical of the Puget Sound Region. Periodic inspections should be considered as site conditions may change over time. Property owners should consider the facts presented in this report and decide what actions to pursue. Because no one person can predict when trees will fail, there is no warranty or guarantee that trees in this report will not fail. For further information please contact Terry Flatley, 425-891-2625, tjﬂyﬁshing@me.com TREE PHOTOGRAPHS Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 6 14 RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 7 14 RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 8 14 RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 9 14 RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 10 14 RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 11 14 RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 12 14 RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 13 14 RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 14 14 RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Dead/Missing bark  Abnormal bark texture/color  Codominant stems  Included bark  Cracks  Sapwood damage/decay  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sap ooze  Lightning damage  Heartwood decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper  Lean _____° Corrected? __________________________________ Response growth Condition(s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Collar buried/Not visible  Depth________ Stem girdling  Dead  Decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Ooze  Cavity  _____% circ. Cracks  Cut/Damaged roots  Distance from trunk _______ Root plate lifting  Soil weakness  Response growth Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 1 1 2 (American) Beech 11”20’24’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately Building Concrete wall ✔✔✔4 N N Vehicles None ✔✔3 N Y People None ✔✔2 N Y None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■■0 None evident Lack of adequate water ■■ ■■■■ Branches susceptible to breakage during wind events; trunk currently 100% dead, subject to failure as time passes 0 ■100 4” ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ Branch failure at the present time 4” ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Dead tree 11”20’ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Dead root system ■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ Overall tree risk rating Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Overall residual risk None  Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Building Whole tree Dead tree ●●●●Low Vehicles ●●●●High People ●●●●High Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Tree removal 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Dead/Missing bark  Abnormal bark texture/color  Codominant stems  Included bark  Cracks  Sapwood damage/decay  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sap ooze  Lightning damage  Heartwood decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper  Lean _____° Corrected? __________________________________ Response growth Condition(s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Collar buried/Not visible  Depth________ Stem girdling  Dead  Decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Ooze  Cavity  _____% circ. Cracks  Cut/Damaged roots  Distance from trunk _______ Root plate lifting  Soil weakness  Response growth Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 2 1 2 (American) Beech 7”21’22’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately Building None ✔✔✔4 N N Vehicles None ✔✔3 N Y People None ✔✔✔2 N Y None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■■0 None evident Lack of adequate water ■■ ■■■■ Branches susceptible to breakage during wind events; trunk currently 100% dead, subject to failure as time passes 0 ■100 4” ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ Branch failure at the present time 4”21’21’ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Dead tree 7”21’ ■ ■ ■ Dead root system ■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ Overall tree risk rating Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Overall residual risk None  Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Building Whole tree Dead tree ●●●●Low Vehicles ●●●●Low People ●●●●High Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Tree removal 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Dead/Missing bark  Abnormal bark texture/color  Codominant stems  Included bark  Cracks  Sapwood damage/decay  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sap ooze  Lightning damage  Heartwood decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper  Lean _____° Corrected? __________________________________ Response growth Condition(s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Collar buried/Not visible  Depth________ Stem girdling  Dead  Decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Ooze  Cavity  _____% circ. Cracks  Cut/Damaged roots  Distance from trunk _______ Root plate lifting  Soil weakness  Response growth Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 3 1 2 (American) Beech 10”40’30’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately Building None ✔✔✔4 N N Vehicles None ✔✔✔3 N Y People None ✔✔✔2 N Y None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■■0 None evident Lack of adequate water ■■ ■■■ Branches susceptible to breakage during wind events; trunk currently 100% dead, subject to failure as time passes 0 ■100 6” ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ Branch failure at the present time 6”40’40’ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Dead tree 10”40’ ■ ■ ■ Dead root system ■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ Overall tree risk rating Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Overall residual risk None  Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Building Whole tree Dead tree ●●●●Low Vehicles ●●●●High People ●●●●High Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Tree removal 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Dead/Missing bark  Abnormal bark texture/color  Codominant stems  Included bark  Cracks  Sapwood damage/decay  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sap ooze  Lightning damage  Heartwood decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper  Lean _____° Corrected? __________________________________ Response growth Condition(s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Collar buried/Not visible  Depth________ Stem girdling  Dead  Decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Ooze  Cavity  _____% circ. Cracks  Cut/Damaged roots  Distance from trunk _______ Root plate lifting  Soil weakness  Response growth Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 4 1 2 Leyland cypress 13”40’24’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately Lighting None ✔✔4 N N Vehicles None ✔✔✔3 N Y People None ✔✔✔2 N Y None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■■0 None evident Lack of adequate water ■■ ■■■ Branches susceptible to breakage during wind events; trunk currently 100% dead, subject to failure as time passes 0 ■100 <3” ■ ■ ■■ ■ Branch failure at the present time 6”40’40’ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ Dead tree 13”40’ ■ ■ ■ Dead root system ■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ Overall tree risk rating Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Overall residual risk None  Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Lighting Whole tree Dead tree ●●●●Moderate Vehicles ●●●●High People ●●●●Moderate Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Tree removal 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Dead/Missing bark  Abnormal bark texture/color  Codominant stems  Included bark  Cracks  Sapwood damage/decay  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sap ooze  Lightning damage  Heartwood decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper  Lean _____° Corrected? __________________________________ Response growth Condition(s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Collar buried/Not visible  Depth________ Stem girdling  Dead  Decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Ooze  Cavity  _____% circ. Cracks  Cut/Damaged roots  Distance from trunk _______ Root plate lifting  Soil weakness  Response growth Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 5 1 2 Ornamental cherry 7”10’10’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately Sidewalk None ✔4 N N People None ✔2 N N None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■■0 None evident Lack of adequate water ■■ ■■■ Trunk currently 100% dead, subject to failure as time passes ■0 ■100 6” ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ Branch failure at the present time <6”5’5’ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ Dead tree 7”10’ ■ ■ ■ Dead root system ■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ Overall tree risk rating Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Overall residual risk None  Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Sidewalk Whole tree Dead tree ●●●●Low People ●●●●Low Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Tree removal 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Dead/Missing bark  Abnormal bark texture/color  Codominant stems  Included bark  Cracks  Sapwood damage/decay  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sap ooze  Lightning damage  Heartwood decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper  Lean _____° Corrected? __________________________________ Response growth Condition(s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Collar buried/Not visible  Depth________ Stem girdling  Dead  Decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Ooze  Cavity  _____% circ. Cracks  Cut/Damaged roots  Distance from trunk _______ Root plate lifting  Soil weakness  Response growth Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 6 1 2 Ornamental cherry 8”16’24’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately Sidewalk None ✔✔4 N N People None ✔✔2 N N Vehicles None ✔✔3 N Y None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■■0 None evident Lack of adequate water ■■ ■■■ Trunk currently 100% dead, subject to failure as time passes ■0 ■100 < 6” ■ ■■ ■ ■ Branch failure at the present time <6”8’8’ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ Dead tree 8”16’ ■ ■ ■■ ■ Dead root system ■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ Overall tree risk rating Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Overall residual risk None  Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Sidewalk Whole tree Dead tree ●●●●Low People ●●●●High Vehicles ●●●●Low Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Tree removal 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Dead/Missing bark  Abnormal bark texture/color  Codominant stems  Included bark  Cracks  Sapwood damage/decay  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sap ooze  Lightning damage  Heartwood decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper  Lean _____° Corrected? __________________________________ Response growth Condition(s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Collar buried/Not visible  Depth________ Stem girdling  Dead  Decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Ooze  Cavity  _____% circ. Cracks  Cut/Damaged roots  Distance from trunk _______ Root plate lifting  Soil weakness  Response growth Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 7 1 2 Ornamental cherry 10”18’24’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately Sidewalk None ✔✔4 N N People None ✔✔2 N Y Vehicles None ✔✔3 N Y None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■■0 None evident Lack of adequate water ■■■ ■■■ Trunk currently 100% dead, subject to failure as time passes ■0 ■100 < 4” ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Branch failure at the present time <4”8’8’ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ Dead tree 10”18’ ■ ■ ■■ ■ Dead root system ■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ Overall tree risk rating Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Overall residual risk None  Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Sidewalk Whole tree Dead tree ●●●●Low People ●●●●High Vehicles ●●●●Moderate Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Tree removal 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Dead/Missing bark  Abnormal bark texture/color  Codominant stems  Included bark  Cracks  Sapwood damage/decay  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sap ooze  Lightning damage  Heartwood decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper  Lean _____° Corrected? __________________________________ Response growth Condition(s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Collar buried/Not visible  Depth________ Stem girdling  Dead  Decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Ooze  Cavity  _____% circ. Cracks  Cut/Damaged roots  Distance from trunk _______ Root plate lifting  Soil weakness  Response growth Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 10 1 2 Ornamental pear 7”24’24’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately Emergency Vehicles None ✔3 N N Lighting None ✔4 N N People None ✔✔2 N N Fence None ✔✔4 N N None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■40 None evident Lack of adequate water ■■ ■■ ■40 ■60 < 3” ■ Branch failure at the present time 3” ■ ■ Dying tree ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ Overall tree risk rating Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Overall residual risk None  Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Em. Vehicles Dead branches Dead Branches ●●●●Low Lighting ●●●●Low People ●●●●Low Fence ●●●●Low Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Tree is in decline and not expected to recover Remove tree 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Dead/Missing bark  Abnormal bark texture/color  Codominant stems  Included bark  Cracks  Sapwood damage/decay  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sap ooze  Lightning damage  Heartwood decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper  Lean _____° Corrected? __________________________________ Response growth Condition(s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Collar buried/Not visible  Depth________ Stem girdling  Dead  Decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Ooze  Cavity  _____% circ. Cracks  Cut/Damaged roots  Distance from trunk _______ Root plate lifting  Soil weakness  Response growth Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 11 1 2 Ornamental pear 7”24’22’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately Emergency Vehicles None ✔✔3 N N People None ✔✔2 N N Fence None ✔✔4 N N None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■20 None evident Lack of adequate water ■■ ■■ ■20 ■80 < 4” ■ ■ Branch failure at the present time 4”24’24’ ■ ■ Dying tree ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ Overall tree risk rating Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Overall residual risk None  Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Em. Vehicles Dead branches Dead Branches ●●●●Moderate People ●●●●Low Fence ●●●●Low Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Tree is in decline and not expected to recover Remove tree 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Dead/Missing bark  Abnormal bark texture/color  Codominant stems  Included bark  Cracks  Sapwood damage/decay  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sap ooze  Lightning damage  Heartwood decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper  Lean _____° Corrected? __________________________________ Response growth Condition(s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Collar buried/Not visible  Depth________ Stem girdling  Dead  Decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Ooze  Cavity  _____% circ. Cracks  Cut/Damaged roots  Distance from trunk _______ Root plate lifting  Soil weakness  Response growth Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 13 1 2 Ornamental cherry 9”16’16’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately People None ✔✔2 N N Fence None ✔✔4 N N None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■■ None evident Lack of adequate water ■■■ ■■ ■0 ■100 < 4” ■ ■ ■ Branch failure at the present time 4”16’16’ ■ ■ ■ Dying tree ■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ Overall tree risk rating Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Overall residual risk None  Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Dead branches Dead BranchesPeople ●●●●Low Fence ●●●●●Low Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Remove tree 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Dead/Missing bark  Abnormal bark texture/color  Codominant stems  Included bark  Cracks  Sapwood damage/decay  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sap ooze  Lightning damage  Heartwood decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper  Lean _____° Corrected? __________________________________ Response growth Condition(s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Collar buried/Not visible  Depth________ Stem girdling  Dead  Decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Ooze  Cavity  _____% circ. Cracks  Cut/Damaged roots  Distance from trunk _______ Root plate lifting  Soil weakness  Response growth Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 14 1 2 Ornamental cherry 7”11’15’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately People None ✔✔2 N N Fence None ✔✔4 N N None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■■ None evident Lack of adequate water ■■■ ■■ ■0 ■100 < 4” ■ ■ ■ Branch failure at the present time 4”16’16’ ■ ■ ■ Dying tree ■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ Overall tree risk rating Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Overall residual risk None  Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Dead branches Dead BranchesPeople ●●●●Low Fence ●●●●●Low Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Remove tree 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Dead/Missing bark  Abnormal bark texture/color  Codominant stems  Included bark  Cracks  Sapwood damage/decay  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sap ooze  Lightning damage  Heartwood decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper  Lean _____° Corrected? __________________________________ Response growth Condition(s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Collar buried/Not visible  Depth________ Stem girdling  Dead  Decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Ooze  Cavity  _____% circ. Cracks  Cut/Damaged roots  Distance from trunk _______ Root plate lifting  Soil weakness  Response growth Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 15 1 2 Ornamental cherry 7”11’21’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately People None ✔✔2 N N Fence None ✔✔4 N N None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■■ None evident Lack of adequate water ■■■ ■■ ■0 ■100 < 4” ■ ■ ■ Branch failure at the present time 4”16’16’ ■ ■ ■ Dying tree ■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ Overall tree risk rating Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Overall residual risk None  Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Dead branches Dead BranchesPeople ●●●●Low Fence ●●●●●Low Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Remove tree 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Dead/Missing bark  Abnormal bark texture/color  Codominant stems  Included bark  Cracks  Sapwood damage/decay  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sap ooze  Lightning damage  Heartwood decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper  Lean _____° Corrected? __________________________________ Response growth Condition(s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Collar buried/Not visible  Depth________ Stem girdling  Dead  Decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Ooze  Cavity  _____% circ. Cracks  Cut/Damaged roots  Distance from trunk _______ Root plate lifting  Soil weakness  Response growth Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 22 1 2 Ornamental cherry 12”15’33’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately Sidewalk None ✔✔4 N N People None ✔✔2 N Y Vehicles None ✔✔3 N Y None ■ ■ ■■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■■0 None evident Lack of adequate water ■■■ ■■ Trunk currently 100% dead, subject to failure as time passes ■0 ■100 < 4” ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Branch failure at the present time <4”15’15’ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ Dead tree 12”33’ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ Dead root system ■ ■■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ Overall tree risk rating Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Overall residual risk None  Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Sidewalk Whole tree Dead tree ●●●●Low People ●●●●High Vehicles ●●●●Moderate Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Tree removal 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Dead/Missing bark  Abnormal bark texture/color  Codominant stems  Included bark  Cracks  Sapwood damage/decay  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sap ooze  Lightning damage  Heartwood decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper  Lean _____° Corrected? __________________________________ Response growth Condition(s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Collar buried/Not visible  Depth________ Stem girdling  Dead  Decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Ooze  Cavity  _____% circ. Cracks  Cut/Damaged roots  Distance from trunk _______ Root plate lifting  Soil weakness  Response growth Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 23 1 2 Ornamental cherry 11”13’30’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately Sidewalk None ✔✔4 N N People None ✔✔2 N Y Vehicles None ✔✔3 N Y None ■ ■ ■■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■50 None evident Lack of adequate water ■■■ ■■ Trunk currently 100% dead, subject to failure as time passes ■50 ■100 < 4” ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Branch failure at the present time <4”13’13’ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ Dead tree 11”13’ ■ ■ ■ ■■ Dead root system ■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ 4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ Overall tree risk rating Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Overall residual risk None  Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Sidewalk Whole tree Dead tree ●●●●Low People ●●●●Moderate Vehicles ●●●●Low Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Tree removal 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F PROJECT NARRATIVE: TREE REMOVAL PROJECT Firesta(on 14 1900 SW Lind Avenue Renton, WA 98055 The Tree Removal Project is proposed for tree removal at Firesta(on 14, located at 1900 SW Lind Avenue, further described as being in the Southwest Quarter, Sec(on19, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Renton, King County Washington. The parcel iden(fica(on number is: 3340400425. The project is intended to remove 14 trees that have died and found standing. The parcel currently has 27 trees originally planted in 1996. Along the east side of the parcel is a stand of black coUonwood trees. Based upon the size of the stand it is es(mated to contain approximately 437 trees measuring 6 inches to 28 inches in diameter. They are adjacent to a wetland area on the east and a small wetland por(on on the south. All trees these coUonwood trees shall be retained. Attachment B RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISION Docusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F Planting Plan For Station 14 Renton Regional Fire Authority plan for replacing the dead trees is as follows. Please see the attached arborist report for the numbering of each tree. It is the Fire Authorities plan to replant these trees at the earliest time possible where they will be most viable after planting: Honey Locust along Linda Ave SW and SW 19th St. where there is more room for roots and canopy. It was suggested the rest of the trees could be Tupelo and would fit nicely closer to the building and in parking lot planter strips. Trees 5,6,7,13,14,15,22,23 would be replaced with Honey Locust Trees 1,2,3,4,10,11 would be replaced with Tupelo Attachment C RECEIVED 11/19/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 85F92AC8-485C-4108-949A-B84AB996A55F