The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutD_1700 NE 20th St Tree Removal _20260204DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Routine Vegetation Management Permit and Critical Areas Exemption PLANNING DIVISION ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS EVALUATION FORM & DECISION DATE OF DECISION: February 4, 2026 PROJECT NUMBER: LUA26-000027, RVMP, CAE PROJECT NAME: 1700 NE 20th St Tree Removal PROJECT MANAGER: Maya Simon, AICP, Associate Planner APPLICANT/CONTACT: David Coulombe 1712 NE 20th St, Renton, WA 98056 OWNER: Robert and Deanna Dobak 1700 NE 20th St, Renton, WA 98056 PROJECT LOCATION: 1700 NE 20th St, Renton, WA 98056 (APN 3343903560) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, David Coulombe, is requesting a Routine Vegetation Management Permit (RVMP) and an exemption from critical areas regulations (CAE) to remove one (1) Black Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) tree located at 1700 NE 20th St (APN 3343903560). The subject property is approximately 18,600 square feet (0.43 acres), zoned Residential-4 (R-4), and is within the Kennydale Community Planning Area. Per the City of Renton (COR) Maps, the property has sensitive and protected slopes onsite and is within Zone 2 of the Wellhead Protection Area of Well 5A. Adjacent parcels contain a wetland and a Type Ns stream (Kennydale Creek). According to the Arborist Report, prepared by Sound Tree Care LLC, dated January 3, 2026 (Attachment A), a Black Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) is 41 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) and has a dying canopy with a recent fallen branch which damaged a residence. Additionally, the root system is close to the residence and in easily saturated soil which could result in uprooting the tree. The fall zone includes two residences, parked vehicles, overhead utility lines, and a public roadway. The ISA Certified Arborist, Eric Ledford, recommends removal of the high-risk tree to mitigate the ongoing damage and likelihood of tree failure in the future. CRITICAL AREAS: Sensitive slopes, protected slopes, Wellhead Protection Area Zone 2, wetlands (off- site), and Type Ns stream (off-site). Docusign Envelope ID: A494784E-A658-487C-B2F8-DF6C096819B0 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit 1700 NE 20th Street Tree Removal LUA26-000027, RVMP, CAE Permit Date: February 4, 2026 Page 2 of 5 Routine Vegetation Management Permit and Critical Areas Exemption EXEMPTION JUSTIFICATION: Renton Municipal Code (RMC) exempts certain activities from critical areas regulations. RMC 4-3-050C.3 states “Activities taking place in critical areas and their associated buffers and listed in the [Activities – Permitted Within Critical Areas and Associated Buffers] table are exempt from the applicable provisions of [Section 4-3- 050], provided this letter of exemption has been issued.” The table shows removal of a high-risk tree approved by the city, and certified dangerous by a licensed landscape architect or certified arborist, as allowed in Geologically Hazardous Areas (which includes sensitive and protected slopes), Wellhead Protection Areas, Streams, and Wetlands. 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.1.b, the minimum tree credit rate is 30 credits per net acre. Based on the property size, the subject property requires 13 tree credits (30 credits per acre x 0.43 acres = 12.9 credits). According to the Tree Retention and Tree Credit Worksheet (Attachment B), four trees are proposed to be retained, totaling 31 tree credits. The 31 tree credits proposed for retention exceed the minimum tree credit requirements and would maintain the minimum tree density after removal of the Black Cottonwood. 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 COR Maps, the subject property contains sensitive and protected slopes, a Wellhead Protection Area (Zone 2), and is adjacent to a property which contains wetlands and a stream. The Black Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) proposed for removal is outside of the steep slopes and the buffer for Type Ns stream (Kennydale Creek), so those do not apply to this permit. The tree proposed for removal is within Wellhead Protection Area Zone 2 and potentially buffers for the wetland to the north (wetland characteristics and category, which determine buffer width, have not been evaluated for this permit). However, removal of high-risk trees can be exempted from critical areas regulations per RMC 4-3-050C.3 (see exemption below). The arborist report (Attachment A) describes high to severe risk for both branch failure and tree uprooting, and states that pruning is not sufficient due to existing decay and root concerns. A CAE certificate is included as part of this decision. YES 3. Removal of a landmark tree shall meet the review criteria for removal off landmark tree, pursuant to RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. i. The tree is determined to be a high-risk tree; or ii. The tree is causing obvious physical damage to buildings (over two hundred (200) square feet), driveways, parking lots, or utilities, and it can be demonstrated to the Administrator’s satisfaction that no reasonable alternatives to tree removal exists, including tree root pruning, tree root barriers, tree cabling, or preventive maintenance, such as cleaning leaf debris, deadwood removal, or directional/clearance pruning; or iii. Removal of tree(s) to provide solar access to buildings incorporating active solar devices. Windows are solar devices only when they are south-facing and include Docusign Envelope ID: A494784E-A658-487C-B2F8-DF6C096819B0 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit 1700 NE 20th Street Tree Removal LUA26-000027, RVMP, CAE Permit Date: February 4, 2026 Page 3 of 5 Routine Vegetation Management Permit and Critical Areas Exemption special storage elements to distribute heat energy; or iv. The Administrator determines the removal is necessary to achieve a specific and articulable purpose or goal of this Title. Staff Comments: According to RMC 4-11-200AA.2, black cottonwoods with a caliper of 30 inches or more are considered landmark trees. The black cottonwood tree proposed for removal has a caliper of 41 inches, classifying it as a landmark tree. The arborist report (Attachment A) rates the tree’s branch failure risk as high-to-severe due to a dying canopy located over the primary residence, with history of fallen branches damaging the residence. It also rates whole-tree failure risk as high due to exposed roots in easily saturated soils and a natural lean towards public utilities and the public roadway. N/A 4. Street frontage and parking lot trees and landscaping shall be preserved, unless otherwise approved by the Administrator. Staff Comments: Not applicable. The subject tree is not a street frontage tree nor a parking lot tree. Neither street frontage nor parking landscape is proposed to be removed. N/A 5. The land clearing and tree removal shall not remove any landscaping or protected trees required as part of a land development permit. Staff Comments: Not applicable. The tree removal would not be removing landscaping or protected trees required as part of a land development permit. N/A 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: Not applicable. The tree removal is in the front yard of an R-4-zoned property adjacent to other R-4-zoned properties. 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 submitted Arborist Report and ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form (Attachment C) did not indicate that the removal of the tree would create or contribute to a hazardous condition. YES 8. The land clearing and tree removal shall be consistent with the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program, pursuant to RMC 4-3-090F1, Vegetation Conservation, and RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. Staff Comments: The property is not subject to the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program. The proposed tree removal is consistent with tree retention and land clearing regulations. CRITICAL AREA EXEMPTION FINDINGS: The proposed development is consistent with the following findings pursuant to RMC section 4-3-050C.2.d: YES i. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other provision of the Renton Municipal Code or State or Federal law or regulation; Docusign Envelope ID: A494784E-A658-487C-B2F8-DF6C096819B0 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit 1700 NE 20th Street Tree Removal LUA26-000027, RVMP, CAE Permit Date: February 4, 2026 Page 4 of 5 Routine Vegetation Management Permit and Critical Areas Exemption Staff Comments: Removal of dangerous trees is not prohibited by any federal regulations, and it is an exempt activity in the City’s critical areas regulations. Approval of this exemption would act as written permission to allow removal of the identified tree. YES ii. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles; Staff Comments: The Arborist Report (Attachment A) recommends that the tree removal be performed by a qualified and insured tree service. The tree proposed for removal may be within an undetermined wetland buffer, but as there is existing development between the tree and the wetland, complete removal of the tree is not expected to impact the ecological function of the wetland. YES iii. Impacts are minimized and, where applicable, disturbed areas are immediately restored; Staff Comments: Impact of removing the black cottonwood should be minimal and no mitigation is proposed. YES iv. Where water body or buffer disturbance has occurred in accordance with an exemption during construction or other activities, revegetation with native vegetation shall be required; Staff Comments: The tree proposed for removal is approximately 130 feet from wetlands as measured in COR Maps. The wetland characteristics and category, which determine buffer width, have not been evaluated. There is existing development between the wetlands and the subject tree. As removal of this high-risk tree is not expected to impact the ecological function of the wetland, no revegetation is proposed. N/A v. If a hazardous material, activity, and/or facility that is exempt pursuant to this Section has a significant or substantial potential to degrade groundwater quality, then the Administrator may require compliance with the Wellhead Protection Area requirements of this Section otherwise relevant to that hazardous material, activity, and/or facility. Such determinations will be based upon site and/or chemical-specific data. Staff Comments: Not applicable. The proposal does not include a significant or substantial potential to degrade groundwater quality. DECISION: The 1700 NE 20th St Tree Removal Routine Vegetation Management Permit and Critical Areas Exemption, LUA26-000027, RVMP, CAE is Approved. SIGNATURE & DATE OF DECISION: Matthew Herrera, Planning Director Date RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that the decision be reopened by the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the approval body finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further Docusign Envelope ID: A494784E-A658-487C-B2F8-DF6C096819B0 2/4/2026 | 9:19 AM PST City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit 1700 NE 20th Street Tree Removal LUA26-000027, RVMP, CAE Permit Date: February 4, 2026 Page 5 of 5 Routine Vegetation Management Permit and Critical Areas Exemption extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14-day appeal time frame. APPEALS: Appeals of permit issuance must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on February 18, 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 floor Lobby Hub Monday through Friday. The appeal fee, normally due at the time an appeal is submitted, will be collected at a future date if your appeal is submitted electronically. The appeal submitted in person may be paid on the first floor in our Finance Department. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office, cityclerk@rentonwa.gov. EXPIRATION: Two (2) years from the date of decision (date signed). ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Arborist Report, prepared by Eric Ledford, dated January 3, 2026 Attachment B: Tree Retention and Tree Credit Worksheet Attachment C: Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form, dated January 2, 2026 Docusign Envelope ID: A494784E-A658-487C-B2F8-DF6C096819B0 Eric Ledford Sound Tree Care LLC Jan 3, 2026 | 12 Photos Arborist Report Cover Page 1 / 11 Dave Coulomb - Arborist Report Attachment A RECEIVED 01/15/2026 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: A494784E-A658-487C-B2F8-DF6C096819B0 Arborist Report Jan 3, 2026 Qualifications and Methodology Arborist Credentials & Professional Experience Observations and recommendations are based on extensive experience as a professional arborist working across urban forestry, tree risk assessment, site development, and tree health management. Professional Certifications: • ISA Certified Arborist • ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) • NUCA Dig Safe Certified With years of field-based experience, I regularly provide: • Tree risk evaluations and hazard mitigation • Tree preservation guidance for residential, commercial, and municipal projects • Compliance support for local tree codes and permitting • Practical solutions for managing trees in built environments This background ensures a balanced approach to tree care, risk management, and regulatory compliance — grounded in industry standards and real-world application. Qualifications and Methodology 2 / 11 Dave Coulomb RECEIVED 01/15/2026 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: A494784E-A658-487C-B2F8-DF6C096819B0 Arborist Report Jan 3, 2026 ARBORIST REPORT & TREE RISK ASSESSMENT Property Address: 1712 NE 20th St Renton, WA 98056 Client: Dave Coulomb Prepared By: Eric Ledford ISA Certified Arborist PN-9290A ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor (TRAQ) Sound Tree Care LLC Date of Assessment: January 2, 2026 Job Number: 2248 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this arborist report is to: • Evaluate the condition and risk associated with a mature cottonwood tree located on the subject property • Document observed structural defects, failure history, and site conditions • Provide a Tree Risk Assessment aligned with ISA TRAQ methodology • Support tree inventory and tree credit calculation requirements for the City of Renton SITE DESCRIPTION & HISTORY • The property is located within an established residential neighborhood • The lot appears to have been historically more heavily wooded • Multiple stumps from prior tree removals were observed throughout the site • Past removals indicate ongoing tree management issues and canopy reduction over time • Current trees are growing in a modified environment with increased wind exposure • The site transitions from a relatively flat upper yard to a steep downslope beyond the residence • Downslope soils are susceptible to saturation during prolonged rainfall events TREE INVENTORY (FOR TREE CREDIT CALCULATION) Tree ID: T-1 RECEIVED 01/15/2026 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: A494784E-A658-487C-B2F8-DF6C096819B0 • Species: Black Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) • Diameter at Standard Height (DSH): 41 inches • Approximate Height: 115 feet • Canopy Position: Dominant • Location: Rear yard, downslope of primary residence Tree ID: T-2 • Species: Bigleaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum) • Structure: Multi-stem • DSH Measurements: Stem A: 18 inches Stem B: 22 inches • Approximate Height: 52 feet • Canopy Position: Co-dominant • Location: Between residential structures Tree ID: T-3 • Species: Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) • Diameter at Standard Height (DSH): 46 inches • Approximate Height: Not measured • Canopy Position: Dominant • Condition: Excellent • Notes: Tree exhibits strong structure and high vigor No significant defects observed at time of inspection Included in inventory for tree credit calculation only No mitigation or removal recommended Tree ID: T-4 • Species: Paper Birch (Betula papyrifera) • Diameter at Standard Height (DSH): 6 inches • Approximate Height: Not measured • Canopy Position: Sub-dominant • Condition: Fair • Notes: Minor dieback typical for species observed No immediate hazard concerns identified Included for tree credit calculation Tree ID: T-5 • Species: Paper Birch (Betula papyrifera) • Diameter at Standard Height (DSH): 6 inches • Approximate Height: Not measured RECEIVED 01/15/2026 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: A494784E-A658-487C-B2F8-DF6C096819B0 • Canopy Position: Sub-dominant • Condition: Good • Notes: Appears structurally sound at time of inspection Included for tree credit calculation SITE CONDITIONS • Tree T-1 is located near the top of a slope that drops steeply beyond the residence • Multiple surface roots were observed downslope of Tree T-1 • Soil depth appears limited on the slope, increasing susceptibility to root plate instability • Tree canopy extends directly over the residence and gutter line • Additional targets are located within one tree height downslope • Overhead utility lines are present between the tree and downslope targets • A public roadway is located in the direction of the tree’s natural lean TREE CONDITION ASSESSMENT – TREE T-1 (COTTONWOOD) Canopy & Crown Condition • Progressive dieback observed in the upper canopy • Decline appears to be occurring from the top down • Multiple dead and dying canopy stems present in the upper crown • Bark sloughing and long-term deadwood observed on several canopy stems • Numerous hanging branches observed throughout the canopy, including: Branches approximately 6–8 inches in diameter at the base Estimated lengths of 20–40 feet • Crown condition is declining and structurally compromised Trunk & Structural Condition • No full trunk failure observed at the time of inspection • Multiple large scaffold unions support dead and dying canopy stems • Structural loading is uneven due to canopy loss and retained deadwood Root System & Soil Interaction • Numerous surface roots exposed on the downslope side of the tree • Roots observed in close proximity to the residence foundation • Root intrusion risk is present and ongoing • Root plate stability is compromised under saturated soil conditions • Root-related impacts are not fully represented within TRAQ defect categories and are document- ed narratively in this report DOCUMENTED FAILURE HISTORY • A large branch recently failed from Tree T-1 • The failed branch struck the residence, damaging and detaching the gutter • The branch broke into multiple pieces upon impact, indicating advanced decay and brittleness RECEIVED 01/15/2026 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: A494784E-A658-487C-B2F8-DF6C096819B0 • Additional fallen branches observed on the ground near the residence TARGET ASSESSMENT Targets located within the fall zone and impact area include: • Primary residence directly beneath the canopy and dripline • Neighboring residence downslope • Vehicles parked approximately 87 feet from the trunk • Overhead utility lines • Public roadway located downslope If failure occurs in the direction of the tree’s natural lean, potential impacts include: • Damage to overhead utilities • Impact to vehicles and residential structures • Obstruction of the public roadway • Temporary loss of access for residents and emergency vehicles Targets are considered high-value, frequently occupied, and include public infrastructure. FAILURE MODES IDENTIFIED Two distinct failure modes are present and must be evaluated independently. Branch Failure Mode • Progressive canopy dieback is ongoing • Multiple dead and dying canopy stems remain • Active branch failure has already occurred • Additional branch failures are expected Whole-Tree Failure Mode • Cottonwood is a species with a known propensity for whole-tree failure • Tree is located on a slope with exposed and compromised roots • Soil saturation and high wind events significantly increase uprooting risk • Whole-tree failure would result in multiple simultaneous impacts TREE RISK ASSESSMENT (TRAQ) Branch Failure Scenario • Likelihood of Failure: Probable • Likelihood of Impact: Very Likely • Consequences of Failure: Severe Risk Rating: High to Severe Whole-Tree Failure Scenario RECEIVED 01/15/2026 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: A494784E-A658-487C-B2F8-DF6C096819B0 • Likelihood of Failure: Possible to Likely • Likelihood of Impact: Very Likely • Consequences of Failure: Severe to Catastrophic Risk Rating: High LIMITATIONS OF TRAQ CODING • Root intrusion and proximity to foundations are not fully captured within TRAQ defect categories • Although surface roots are noted, the structural and infrastructural impacts of root intrusion must be documented narratively • These conditions materially increase long-term risk and influence mitigation recommendations CONCLUSIONS • Tree T-1 (cottonwood) is in advanced decline with active and ongoing branch failure • Progressive canopy dieback significantly increases near-term risk • Whole-tree failure is a credible scenario given species characteristics, slope, and soil conditions • Targets include residences, vehicles, utilities, and a public roadway • The risk posed by this tree cannot be adequately mitigated through pruning alone RECOMMENDATIONS • Removal of the cottonwood tree (Tree T-1) is recommended to mitigate unacceptable risk • Pruning or partial mitigation is not sufficient due to: Advanced canopy decline Multiple dead and dying canopy stems Root instability and intrusion concerns • Tree removal should be performed by a qualified and insured tree service • Replacement planting and tree credit calculations should be completed in accordance with City of Renton requirements ARBORIST REPORT & TREE RISK ASSESSMENT 7 / 11 Dave Coulomb RECEIVED 01/15/2026 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: A494784E-A658-487C-B2F8-DF6C096819B0 Arborist Report Jan 3, 2026 1 Subject tree 46" DSH Cottonwood Project: Dave Coulomb Date: Jan 2, 2026, 11:31 AM Creator: Eric Ledford 2 progressive dieback in upper canopy Project: Dave Coulomb Date: Jan 2, 2026, 11:32 AM Creator: Eric Ledford 3 hangars in low canopy Project: Dave Coulomb Date: Jan 2, 2026, 11:33 AM Creator: Eric Ledford 4 distance from neighbors parking Project: Dave Coulomb Date: Jan 2, 2026, 11:36 AM Creator: Eric Ledford ARBORIST REPORT & TREE RISK ASSESSMENT 8 / 11 Dave Coulomb RECEIVED 01/15/2026 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: A494784E-A658-487C-B2F8-DF6C096819B0 Arborist Report Jan 3, 2026 5 canopy lacking balance Project: Dave Coulomb Date: Jan 2, 2026, 11:37 AM Creator: Eric Ledford 6 surface roots Project: Dave Coulomb Date: Jan 2, 2026, 11:38 AM Creator: Eric Ledford 7 surface roots Project: Dave Coulomb Date: Jan 2, 2026, 11:38 AM Creator: Eric Ledford 8 Project: Dave Coulomb Date: Jan 2, 2026, 11:39 AM Creator: Eric Ledford ARBORIST REPORT & TREE RISK ASSESSMENT 9 / 11 Dave Coulomb RECEIVED 01/15/2026 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: A494784E-A658-487C-B2F8-DF6C096819B0 Arborist Report Jan 3, 2026 9 Project: Dave Coulomb Date: Jan 2, 2026, 11:39 AM Creator: Eric Ledford 10 Damage from falling tree limbs Project: Dave Coulomb Date: Jan 2, 2026, 11:39 AM Creator: Eric Ledford 11 Project: Dave Coulomb Date: Jan 2, 2026, 11:40 AM Creator: Eric Ledford 12 Root Intrusion Project: Dave Coulomb Date: Jan 2, 2026, 11:40 AM Creator: Eric Ledford ARBORIST REPORT & TREE RISK ASSESSMENT 10 / 11 Dave Coulomb RECEIVED 01/15/2026 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: A494784E-A658-487C-B2F8-DF6C096819B0 Arborist Report Jan 3, 2026 Certification Statement Certification Statement Certification: I, Eric B. Ledford, Certify to the best of my knowledge: 1. Statements of fact in this report are true and correct. 2. Analysis, opinions, and conclusions are limited to reported assumptions and conditions. They are my unbiased professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions. 3. I have no interest in the property or trees that are the subject of this report. I have no personal interest or bias regarding the parties involved. 4. My analysis, opinions and conclusions reflect conformity with ANSI A300 BMP and Industry Standards. 5. The report is based on information known at the time of assessment. If more information becomes available, I may have more or different opinions. 6. The report is based on the analysis at the time of the assessment and covers only that time frame. Thank you for contacting Sound Tree Care LLC for your arboricultural needs. Eric B. Ledford, ISA Certified Arborist PN-9290A, Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Certification Statement 11 / 11 Dave Coulomb RECEIVED 01/15/2026 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: A494784E-A658-487C-B2F8-DF6C096819B0 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 B RECEIVED 01/15/2026 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISION 5 1 4 2 4 0 19130 0 19130 .44 13 Docusign Envelope ID: A494784E-A658-487C-B2F8-DF6C096819B0 rentonwa.gov/permitservices | planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov | 425-430-7294 10/24/2023 Page 2 of 3 TREE RETENTION AND CREDIT WORKSHEET PROPOSED TREE CREDITS Please complete the table below to calculate the total tree credits proposed for your project. Identify the quantity of trees for each tree category, after deducting trees within excluded areas, as shown in the previous section. TREE SIZE TREE CREDITS TREE QUANTITY TOTAL TREE CREDITS RETAINED TREES Preserved tree 6 – 9” caliper 4 Preserved tree 10 – 12” caliper 5 Preserved tree 12 – 15” caliper 6 Preserved tree 16 – 18” caliper 7 Preserved tree 19 – 21” caliper 8 Preserved tree 22 – 24” caliper 9 Preserved tree 25 – 28” caliper 10 Preserved tree 29 – 32” caliper 11 Preserved tree 33 – 36” caliper 12 Preserved tree 37” caliper and greater 13 NEW TREES New small species tree (30' or less at maturity) 0.25 New medium species tree (30' to 50' at maturity) 1 New large species tree (50' or more at maturity) 2 TREE CREDITS PROPOSED: RECEIVED 01/15/2026 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISION 2 1 1 31 8 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 13 0 0 0 Docusign Envelope ID: A494784E-A658-487C-B2F8-DF6C096819B0 rentonwa.gov/permitservices | planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov | 425-430-7294 10/24/2024 Page 3 of 3 TREE RETENTION AND CREDIT WORKSHEET TREE REPLACEMENT JUSTIFICATION Replacement may be authorized as an alternative to 30% retention provided the removal is the minimum necessary to accomplish the desired purpose and provided the proposal meets one of the following options: a.There are special circumstances related to the size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings of the subject property; or b.The strict application of the code would prevent reasonable use of property; or c.The strict application of the code would prevent compliance with minimum density requirements of the zone; or d.The project is a short plat with four (4) or fewer lots. Please attach a written justification demonstrating compliance with the requirements and criteria as descripted above. TREE REPLACEMENT QUANTITY Tree replacement quantity is determined based on the credit value of the trees proposed for removal. Larger, higher priority trees shall be used for calculation of tree replacement. Identify the quantity of each tree requested to be removed in lieu of 30% retention, based on tree size. List the identification number of each tree, as indicated in the arborist report. TREE SIZE TREE CREDITS TREE QUANTITY TREE INDENTIFICATION # TOTAL TREE CREDITS Tree 37” caliper + 13 Tree 33 – 36” caliper 12 Tree 29 – 32” caliper 11 Tree 25 – 28” caliper 10 Tree 22 – 24” caliper 9 Tree 19 – 21” caliper 8 Tree 16 – 18” caliper 7 Tree 12 – 15” caliper 6 Tree 10 – 12” caliper 5 Tree 6 – 9” caliper 4 REPLACEMENT CREDITS REQUIRED: TREE REPLACEMENT PLANTING Identify the quantity of proposed new replacement trees (minimum size of 2-inch caliper). The total replacement credits proposed should be equal to or greater than the replacement credits required, as shown in the previous section. TREE SIZE TREE CREDITS TREE QUANTITY TOTAL TREE CREDITS New small species tree (30' or less at maturity) 0.25 New medium species tree (30' to 50' at maturity) 1 New large species tree (50' or more at maturity) 2 REPLACEMENT CREDITS PROPOSED: RECEIVED 01/15/2026 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Docusign Envelope ID: A494784E-A658-487C-B2F8-DF6C096819B0 — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ____% overall Max. dia. ______ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ______ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ___________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant __________________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments ___________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _______________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ________________________ Response growth Collar buried/Not visible  Depth________ Stem girdling  Dead  Decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Ooze  Cavity  _____% circ. Cracks  Cut/Damaged roots Distance from trunk _______ Root plate lifting  Soil weakness  Response growth Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant Dead/Missing bark  Abnormal bark texture/color  Codominant stems  Included bark  Cracks  Sapwood damage/decay  Cankers/Galls/Burls Sap ooze  Lightning damage  Heartwood decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper  Lean _____° Corrected? ________________________________ Response growth Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A  Minor Moderate  Significant  Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Time frame_____________ Tools used______________________________ Target Assessment Ta r g e t nu m b e r Target description P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low Normal High Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests_____________________________________________________ Abiotic ________________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or planned change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ _ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate 1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Likelihood of failureLikelihood of failure Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone T a r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t wi t h i n 1 x H t . T a r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Improbable Possible  Probable  Imminent Improbable Possible  Probable  Imminent  Attachment C RECEIVED 01/15/2026 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISION Dave Coulomb 1/2/26 1! AM 1712 NE 20th St Renton, WA 98056 1 of 1 1 2 Black Cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 41 115 45 Eric Ledford ISA Certified Arborist PN-9290A Dead upper canopy Puget Sound hillside No No long term 4 4 4 4 n n 1712 NE 20th St Renton, WA 98056 n n n 4 1715 NE 20th St Renton, WA 98056 4 Utility Primaries and Public Roadway 4 Vehicles and people within these areas 3 Observed and Documented n n 4 SSW n n n n n None Observed n n n n n n 4 ivy on trunk bottom n No No 20 66 6" 4 4" West15 No No No No n None Observed Dead branches and stems falling from tree n n n None Observed and increased whole tree when soil is saturated surface roots/hillside = limited soil volume n n Docusign Envelope ID: A494784E-A658-487C-B2F8-DF6C096819B0 1 2 3 4 Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impacting Target Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Co n d i t i o n n u m b e r Pa r t s i z e Fa l l d i s t a n c e Target protection Conditions of concern Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Risk rating of part (from Matrix 2)Tree part Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure 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 Mitigation options _____________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ Overall tree risk rating Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Work priority 1  2  3  4  Overall residual risk Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ is datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualied (TRAQ) arborists – 2013 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Ta r g e t nu m b e r RECEIVED 01/15/2026 jcisneros PLANNING DIVISION 80'2,3 None HighCrown and Branches 115' 115'115'2,3 1,4 25'1,4 None 25' 80'Several dead stems in upper canopy/hangars Roots and Collar Surface roots/limited soil volume 115' Low Low Moderate Active branch failure has been documented, with multiple dead and dying canopy stems present. Branches have fallen onto adjacent property, causing damage and demonstrating an ongoing likelihood of failure. Mitigation through pruning would require excessive canopy removal, which would further accelerate decline and would not adequately reduce risk; removal is recommended. NoneTree Removal and Stump Grind, replanting if required by code n n n n n vines obstructed collar visibility Docusign Envelope ID: A494784E-A658-487C-B2F8-DF6C096819B0