The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutD_Allura at Tiffany Park RVMP_finalDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Routine Vegetation Management Permit PLANNING DIVISON ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PREMIT AND CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS EVALUATION FORM & DECISION DATE OF DECISION: December 22, 2025 PROJECT NUMBER: LUA25-000432, RVMP PROJECT NAME: Allura at Tiffany Park Tree Removal PROJECT MANAGER: Ian Harris, Associate Planner APPLICANT/ CONTACT: Jessy Jacquinot, A Plus Tree, LLC 6412 S 900 E, Suite 201, Murray, UT 84121 OWNER: Marcel Scheel, Board President of Allura at Tiffany Park HOA 3452 SE 18th St, Renton, WA 98058 PROJECT LOCATION: Open Space/Tree Proctection Parcel southeast of 3542 SE 18th St (APN 018880TR-H) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Jessy Jacquinot, an ISA Certified Arborist for A Plus Tree, LLC, is requesting a Routine Vegetation Management Permit (RVMP) to remove or snag one (1) tree located in the native growth protection area (NGPA) tract managed by the Allura at Tiffany Park Homeowners Association (HOA) (APN 018880TR-H). The 0.30-acre tract is situated within the Residential-8 (R-8) and Residential-6 (R- 6) zones and within the Benson Community Planning Area. Per City of Renton (COR) Maps, the only critical areas on-site are moderate slopes (>15% to <=25%). According to the Arborist Report, prepared by A Plus Tree, LLC, dated November 18, 2025 (Attachment A), one (1) Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) tree is proposed for removal or snagging as it poses a moderate risk of failure and damage. The tree is considered a “landmark tree” as it has a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 33 inches (33”). The tree is also equivalent to 12 tree credits. In 2024, branches falling from the subject tree caused damage to an adjacent property’s roof prompting the HOA to seek out a tree assessment. According to the submitted ISA Tree Risk Assessment form for the subject tree (Attachment B), the arborist has classified the overall risk of the 110-foot (110’) tall tree as Docusign Envelope ID: 15CFB8EF-E773-4B0B-88C7-4412A38F4B4D City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Allura at Tiffany Park RVMP Routine Vegetation Management Permit LUA25-000432, RVMP Permit Date: December 22, 2025 Page 2 of 4 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 is an open space/tree protection tract (Tract H) created with the development of Allura at Tiffany Park recorded on February 22, 2019. According to the recorded plat notes, all vegetation must remain undisturbed unless the express written authorization of the City has been received (Attachment D). The applicant is proposing to remove one (1) tree, leaving 13 trees to remain. Removal of the landmark tree is equivalent to 12 tree credits. The remaining trees within the tract equal 75 credits, as calculated by the applicant (Attachment C). To mitigate the loss of the subject tree (a Priority One tree), all disturbed areas shall be restored, and one (1) five-gallon Douglas Fir tree shall be planted within 60 days following the completion of tree snagging activities. Once the replacement trees have been installed on-site, the applicant shall notify the Current Planning Project Manager to complete a final landscape inspection. 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: Per City of Renton (COR) Maps, the only critical areas on-site are regulated slopes (>15% to <=25%). The subject tree proposed for removal does not appear to be located within the regulated slope area. YES, IF CONDITIONS ARE MET 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: Because the subject tree has a DBH in excess of 24 inches (24”), it is classified as a “landmark tree,” and is subject to the criteria for removal of a landmark tree located in RMC 4-4-130F.2.c. Removal of a landmark tree may be granted in instances where the tree is causing obvious physical damage to buildings (such as the adjacent dwelling’s roof) and no reasonable alternatives to tree removal exist. While the tree is evidently causing damage to the adjacent dwelling per the applicant’s arborist report (Attachment A), the report leaves open the suggestion that snagging the tree, instead of removal, would be a reasonable alternative to mitigate the moderate risk of branch failure in the next two (2) years. Therefore, staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that the applicant use Best Management Practices for tree snagging in the open space/tree protection tract (Tract H). The landmark tree shall be reduced to a minimum 10-foot (10’) tall wildlife snag. In addition, the applicant shall keep heavy equipment and vehicles out of the open space/tree protection tract to the maximum extent possible. N/A 4. Street frontage and parking lot trees and landscaping shall be preserved, unless otherwise approved by the Administrator. moderate risk, due to branch failure and the likelihood of impact to the adjacent property’s roof in the next two (2) years. CRITITCAL AREAS: Regulated Slopes (>15% to <=25%) Docusign Envelope ID: 15CFB8EF-E773-4B0B-88C7-4412A38F4B4D City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Allura at Tiffany Park RVMP Routine Vegetation Management Permit LUA25-000432, RVMP Permit Date: December 22, 2025 Page 3 of 4 Staff Comments: Not applicable. The subject tree is not a street frontage tree nor a parking lot tree. Neither street frontage nor parking landscape is proposed to be removed. YES, IF CONDITIONS ARE MET 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 removal would remove one (1) protected tree that was retained in an open space/tree protection tract created as part of a land development permit. All vegetation must remain undisturbed within Tract H unless the express written authorization of the City has been received (Attachment D). See the recommended condition of approval above which requires the applicant to use Best Management Practices for tree snagging in the open space/tree protection tract. 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 tree proposed for removal is located along the rear property line of the subject property. The subject property is an open space/tree protection tract that was created as part of the development of a single-family residential subdivision, Allura at Tiffany Park (Attachment D). The adjacent parcel to the rear (northeast) of the subject property contains underground water utilities owned by the City of Seattle. Above ground, this property mostly appears as open space with mostly low-lying vegetation, a path, and trees located on the periphery. Many single-family properties also border along this utility parcel and have ample vegetation and/or fencing to visually buffer between their rear yards and the above-ground open space of the utility parcel. The subject property, adjacent single-family properties, and the utility parcel are within the Residential-8 (R-8) and Residential-6 (R-6) zones. Both are low-to-medium density zones with similar development standards. Therefore, due to the similarities in zoning and land uses on the subject parcel and surrounding properties, the tree removal is not anticipated to impact visual screening between uses of differing intensity and is consistent with applicable landscaping and setback provisions. YES 7. The land clearing and tree removal shall not create or contribute to a hazardous condition, such as increased potential for blowdown, pest infestation, disease, or other problems that may result from selectively removing trees and other vegetation from a lot. Staff Comments: The provided documentation did not indicate that the removal of the subject tree 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. Staff Comments: Not applicable. The property is not located within shoreline jurisdiction. DECISION: The Allura at Tiffany Park Tree Removal Permit, LUA25-000432, RVMP is Approved* and subject to the following conditions: *CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Docusign Envelope ID: 15CFB8EF-E773-4B0B-88C7-4412A38F4B4D City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Allura at Tiffany Park RVMP Routine Vegetation Management Permit LUA25-000432, RVMP Permit Date: December 22, 2025 Page 4 of 4 1. The applicant shall use Best Management Practices for tree snagging in the open space/tree protection tract (Tract H). The landmark tree shall be reduced to a minimum ten-foot (10’) tall wildlife snag. In addition, the applicant shall keep heavy equipment and vehicles out of the open space/tree protection tract to the maximum extent possible. 2. All disturbed areas shall be restored, and one (1) flve-gallon Douglas Fir tree shall be planted within 60 days following the completion of tree snagging activities. Once the replacement trees have been installed on-site, the applicant shall notify the Current Planning Project Manager to complete a flnal landscape inspection. 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 January 5, 2026. 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 for the property, prepared by A Plus Tree, LLC, dated November 18, 2025 Attachment B: ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form, dated November 20, 2025 Attachment C: Tree Retention and Credit Worksheet Attachment D: Allura at Tiffany Park Plat Docusign Envelope ID: 15CFB8EF-E773-4B0B-88C7-4412A38F4B4D 12/22/2025 | 3:38 PM PST Arborist Report for Allura at Tiffany Park 3309 SE 18th St Renton, WA 98058 Prepared on November 18th, 2025 Prepared by: Jessy Jacquinot ISA Certified Arborist #WE-13500A jessy@aplustree.com Background Information: This report was prepared on behalf of Allura at Tiffany Park concerning one (1) Douglas fir located near 3542 SE 18th St. The report is being written as the tree has been recommended for removal to reduce risk, and a permit is required as the tree is located in a critical area. The tree was assessed on February 2nd, 2025 by Daniel Potts, ISA Certified Arborist #11534A. Assignment (and any limiting factors): The assignment is to perform a visual assessment regarding health condition, structural integrity, threat of pest or disease, and potential hazards. The visual inspection was from ground grade only. The assignment is to assess and provide recommendations for future action. Observations: At the time of the assessment, the following was observed (please refer to photos in Attachment A and locations in Attachment B): • Douglas fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii • 33.2” DBH • Approximately 110 ft tall, 40 ft crown diameter Attachment A RECEIVED 11/26/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 15CFB8EF-E773-4B0B-88C7-4412A38F4B4D • Poor taper • Overextended branches • LCR is about 55-60% • Failure of a branch within three years is probable, likelihood of impact is high, damage would be minor. Moderate risk tree. Testing & Analysis: There were no soil, tree, or other physical testing. Discussion & Recommendation: The Douglas fir located in the green belt area near 3542 SE 18th St is in poor health with poor taper, overextended branches, and a LCR of 55-60%. At the time of assessment, the foliage was sparse, but there was some new growth present. There was a fence built very close to the trunk, which likely caused some root damage that may be contributing to poor health in the canopy. This was a retained tree, so the entire development of the community may have impacted the root system as well. The resident of the nearby house reported that branches have fallen onto the house twice in the past two years and damaged the roof last time they fell in winter of 2024. We are qualifying roof damage as minor damage, making the risk of this tree moderate, although branch failure in the next two years is probably with a high likelihood of impact. Although the risk rating of the tree is moderate, the resident has requested removal for their peace of mind. Removal is a reasonable option and would not be detrimental to the greenbelt area. Logs would be left in the greenbelt to serve as habitat. If removal is not approved by the city, snagging would be another option to mitigate risk. If neither of these are approved, monitoring of the tree is recommended to determine if the risk rating increases in the future. Pictures of the tree proposed for removal are in Attachment A and the location is in Attachment B. RECEIVED 11/26/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 15CFB8EF-E773-4B0B-88C7-4412A38F4B4D Arborist Disclaimer Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that may fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe, or fail for that matter, under all circumstances, or for a given period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatments, pruning and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, sight lines, disputes between neighbors, landlord-tenant matters, etc. Arborists cannot take such issues into account unless complete and accurate information is given to the arborist. The person hiring the arborist accepts full responsibility for authorizing the recommended treatment or remedial measures. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near a tree is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risks is to eliminate all trees. This consultant does not verify the safety or health of any tree for any period of time. Construction activities are hazardous to trees and cause many short and long-term injuries, which can cause trees to die or topple. Even when every tree is inspected, inspection involves sampling; therefore, some areas of decay or weakness may be missed. Weather, winds and the magnitude and direction of storms are not predictable, and some failures may still occur despite the best application of high professional standards. I hereby declare that the above observations, discussion, and recommendations are true to the best of my knowledge, belief, and professional opinion. In addition, A Plus Tree is held harmless of any of these opinions from future tree failures. Sincerely, Jessy Jacquinot| A Plus Tree, LLC ISA Certified Arborist #WE-13500A RECEIVED 11/26/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 15CFB8EF-E773-4B0B-88C7-4412A38F4B4D Attachment A: RECEIVED 11/26/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 15CFB8EF-E773-4B0B-88C7-4412A38F4B4D RECEIVED 11/26/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 15CFB8EF-E773-4B0B-88C7-4412A38F4B4D Attachment B: Property site map with location of proposed snagging. RECEIVED 11/26/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 15CFB8EF-E773-4B0B-88C7-4412A38F4B4D — 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 1x 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 rate 1–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 Attachment B RECEIVED 11/26/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISION Allura at Tiffany Park 11/20/2025 3309 SE 18th St, Renton, WA 98058 1 1 1 Douglas fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii 33.2”110’~40’ Jessy Jacquinot, Daniel Potts DBH tape 2 years Building none 4 4 no no multiple failed branches in the past 2 years n likely root damage from fence construction SW/W n n n n n n prone to root rot, sudden limb drop n n n n n 55-60 n overextended branches 5”110’ n n n poor taper 33.2”110 n n n n Docusign Envelope ID: 15CFB8EF-E773-4B0B-88C7-4412A38F4B4D 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 Negligible 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 RECEIVED 11/26/2025 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISION 1 l l l l Low 1 l l l l Moderate Resident has reported falling branches hitting the roof at least twice in the past two years. Most recent failure damaged the roof. Fence built around the tree, likely some root damage occured that is contributing to poor health in canopy. removal none pruning low n n yearly (if pruned) Docusign Envelope ID: 15CFB8EF-E773-4B0B-88C7-4412A38F4B4D rentonwa.gov/permitservices | planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov | 425-430-7294 10/24/2023 Page 1 of 3 CITY OF RENTON Ι PERMIT SERVICES TREE RETENTION AND CREDIT WORKSHEET TREE RETENTION REQUIREMENTS A minimum retention of thirty percent (30%) of all significant trees (as defined in RMC 4-11-200) is required on site. Please complete the form below to verify compliance with minimum tree retention requirements. • Identify total number of trees 6-inch caliper or greater (or alder or cottonwood trees 8-inch caliper or greater) on site: Trees Trees Trees Trees Trees Trees Required Trees Proposed •Deductions – Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: o Trees that are high-risk, as defined in RMC 4-11-200: o Trees within existing and proposed public right-of-way: o Trees within wetlands, streams, very high landslide hazards, protected slopes, and associated buffers: •Total remaining trees after deductions: •Required tree retention (30%): •Identify number of trees proposed for retention: •Identify number of trees requested for replacement in lieu of retention (skip page 3 if no tree replacement is requested):Trees TREE CREDIT REQUIREMENTS Tree credit requirements apply at a minimum rate of thirty (30) credits per net acre. Complete the form below to determine minimum tree credit requirements. •Gross area of property in square feet: Square Feet •Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from tree credit calculation: o Existing and proposed public right-of-way: Square Feet o Wetlands, streams, very high landslide hazards, protected slopes, and associated buffers: Square Feet •Total excluded area:Square Feet •Net land area (after deductions) in square feet:Square Feet •Net land area (after deductions) in acres:Acres •Required tree credits:Tree Credits Required Attachment C RECEIVED 12/08/2025 IHarris PLANNING DIVISION 14 0 0 0 14 4.2 13 0 13,283 0 13283 0.30 9 Docusign Envelope ID: 15CFB8EF-E773-4B0B-88C7-4412A38F4B4D rentonwa.gov/permitservices | planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov | 425-430-7294 10/24/2023 Page 2 of 3 TREE RETENTION AND CREDIT WORKSHEET PROPOSED TREE CREDITS Please complete the table below to calculate the total tree credits proposed for your project. Identify the quantity of trees for each tree category, after deducting trees within excluded areas, as shown in the previous section. TREE SIZE TREE CREDITS TREE QUANTITY TOTAL TREE CREDITS RETAINED TREES Preserved tree 6 – 9” caliper 4 Preserved tree 10 – 12” caliper 5 Preserved tree 12 – 15” caliper 6 Preserved tree 16 – 18” caliper 7 Preserved tree 19 – 21” caliper 8 Preserved tree 22 – 24” caliper 9 Preserved tree 25 – 28” caliper 10 Preserved tree 29 – 32” caliper 11 Preserved tree 33 – 36” caliper 12 Preserved tree 37” caliper and greater 13 NEW TREES New small species tree (30' or less at maturity) 0.25 New medium species tree (30' to 50' at maturity) 1 New large species tree (50' or more at maturity) 2 TREE CREDITS PROPOSED: 8 0 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 32 0 18 7 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Docusign Envelope ID: 15CFB8EF-E773-4B0B-88C7-4412A38F4B4D rentonwa.gov/permitservices | planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov | 425-430-7294 10/24/2024 Page 3 of 3 TREE RETENTION AND CREDIT WORKSHEET TREE REPLACEMENT JUSTIFICATION Replacement may be authorized as an alternative to 30% retention provided the removal is the minimum necessary to accomplish the desired purpose and provided the proposal meets one of the following options: a.There are special circumstances related to the size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings of the subject property; or b.The strict application of the code would prevent reasonable use of property; or c.The strict application of the code would prevent compliance with minimum density requirements of the zone; or d.The project is a short plat with four (4) or fewer lots. Please attach a written justification demonstrating compliance with the requirements and criteria as descripted above. TREE REPLACEMENT QUANTITY Tree replacement quantity is determined based on the credit value of the trees proposed for removal. Larger, higher priority trees shall be used for calculation of tree replacement. Identify the quantity of each tree requested to be removed in lieu of 30% retention, based on tree size. List the identification number of each tree, as indicated in the arborist report. TREE SIZE TREE CREDITS TREE QUANTITY TREE INDENTIFICATION # TOTAL TREE CREDITS Tree 37” caliper + 13 Tree 33 – 36” caliper 12 Tree 29 – 32” caliper 11 Tree 25 – 28” caliper 10 Tree 22 – 24” caliper 9 Tree 19 – 21” caliper 8 Tree 16 – 18” caliper 7 Tree 12 – 15” caliper 6 Tree 10 – 12” caliper 5 Tree 6 – 9” caliper 4 REPLACEMENT CREDITS REQUIRED: TREE REPLACEMENT PLANTING Identify the quantity of proposed new replacement trees (minimum size of 2-inch caliper). The total replacement credits proposed should be equal to or greater than the replacement credits required, as shown in the previous section. TREE SIZE TREE CREDITS TREE QUANTITY TOTAL TREE CREDITS New small species tree (30' or less at maturity) 0.25 New medium species tree (30' to 50' at maturity) 1 New large species tree (50' or more at maturity) 2 REPLACEMENT CREDITS PROPOSED: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Docusign Envelope ID: 15CFB8EF-E773-4B0B-88C7-4412A38F4B4D Attachment D Docusign Envelope ID: 15CFB8EF-E773-4B0B-88C7-4412A38F4B4D Docusign Envelope ID: 15CFB8EF-E773-4B0B-88C7-4412A38F4B4D Docusign Envelope ID: 15CFB8EF-E773-4B0B-88C7-4412A38F4B4D Docusign Envelope ID: 15CFB8EF-E773-4B0B-88C7-4412A38F4B4D Docusign Envelope ID: 15CFB8EF-E773-4B0B-88C7-4412A38F4B4D Docusign Envelope ID: 15CFB8EF-E773-4B0B-88C7-4412A38F4B4D Docusign Envelope ID: 15CFB8EF-E773-4B0B-88C7-4412A38F4B4D