HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_200 Mill Ave S Tree Trimming_RVMP_final_20260407DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
D_200 Mill Ave S Tree Trimming_RVMP CAE_Final
PLANNING DIVISION
ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT
AND CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM
CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS
EVALUATION FORM & DECISION
DATE OF DECISION: April 7, 2026
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA26-000097, RVMP, CAE
PROJECT NAME: 200 Mill Ave S Tree Trimming
PROJECT MANAGER: Ian Harris, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: City of Renton Parks and Recreation, Attn: Gabriella Golzarian
1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057
OWNER: City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057
CONTACT: Gabriella Golzarian
1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057
PROJECT LOCATION: Right bank of the Cedar River, adjacent to Liberty Park (APN 1723059043)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of a Routine Vegetation Management Permit
(RVMP) and Critical Area Exemption (CAE) to allow for the maintenance of six (6) Black
Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) trees. A Routine Vegetation Management Permit
(RVMP) is required to remove or prune any dangerous trees located within the shoreline
vegetation conservation buffer. The trees are located along the right bank of the Cedar
River, a Type S stream, immediately southwest of Liberty Park (APN 1723059043). While
the site is not within a specific zoning designation, it is identified as being within the
Cedar River right-of-way on City of Renton (COR) Maps. The trees are located within the
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Shoreline High Intensity designation and the Cedar
River Reach B jurisdiction. Per Washington Administrative Code (WAC), vegetation
management within SMP overlays is not considered development.
According to the Arborist Report prepared by Gabriella Golzarian of the City of Renton
Parks and Recreation Department (Attachment A), the proposed scope of work
includes trimming work on six (6) cottonwood trees. This proposal follows a recent
history of whole-tree failure and collapse in 2022 and 2024, both events resulting in
damage to property. In 2025, the Cedar River experienced historic flood levels, after
which city staff assessed the trees on the site. Topping of the six (6) subject trees is
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit
200 Mill Ave S Tree Trimming LUA26-000097, RVMP, CAE
Permit Date: April 7, 2026 Page 2 of 6
D_200 Mill Ave S Tree Trimming_RVMP CAE_Final
proposed to mitigate the risk of future whole tree failure by lowering their height to
ninety feet (90’). This is anticipated to reduce the load and instability of the tree
specimens. Topping is recommended instead of full removal because retaining the root
systems will help stabilize the riverbank and reduce erosion, while remaining stems will
continue to provide habitat and shade for wildlife. According to City of Renton (COR)
Maps, the tree pruning project site is mapped within several critical areas, including the
100-year floodplain and floodway of the Cedar River (FEMA Flood Zone AE), Shoreline
High Intensity Designation of reach B of the Cedar River, sensitive slopes (>15% to
<=90%), a high seismic hazard area, a Type S classified stream (Cedar River), and the
Downtown Wellhead protection area Zone 1.
CRITICAL AREAS: According to COR Maps, critical areas on-site include the 100-year floodplain and
floodway of the Cedar River (FEMA Flood Zone AE), Shoreline High Intensity
Designation of reach B of the Cedar River, sensitive slopes (>15% to <=90%), a high
seismic hazard area, a Type S classified stream (Cedar River), and the Downtown
Wellhead protection area Zone 1.
EXEMPTION
JUSTIFICATION: Renton Municipal Code (RMC), Section 4-3-050C.3.c.iii High-Risk Trees: Removal of
non-native invasive ground cover or weeds listed by King County Noxious Weed Board
or other government agency or dangerous trees, as defined in Chapter 4-11 RMC which
have been approved by the City and certified dangerous by a licensed landscape
architect, or certified arborist, selection of whom to be approved by the City based on
the type of information required. Limited to cutting of high-risk trees; such hazardous
trees shall be retained as large woody debris in critical areas and/or associated buffers,
where feasible.
RMC Section 4-3-050C.3.e Public and Private Roads, Parks, Utilities: Maintenance
activities, including routine vegetation management and essential tree removal, and
removal of non-native invasive vegetation or weeds listed by the King County Noxious
Weed Board or other government agency, for public and private utilities, road rights-of-
way and easements, and parks.
ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA 4-9-195D.4:
N/A 1. The lot shall comply with minimum tree density requirements pursuant to RMC 4-4-130,
Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations.
Staff Comments: Not applicable. The trees being trimmed are within the Cedar River
Waterway. Tree density requirements do not apply.
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 COR Maps, the trees proposed to be trimmed are within a Flood
Hazard; Floodway: FEMA Zone AE; Sensitive Slopes (>25% & <= 90%; Seismic Hazard
Area: High; Regulated Shoreline: Cedar River Reaches: CR-B; Wellhead Protection Area:
Downtown Zone 1.
Removal of high-risk trees is an exempt activity within critical areas. A written report was
provided by a certified arborist identifying the Black Cottonwoods as high-risk trees.
A high-risk tree is any tree that has been certified in a written arborist report, prepared by
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit
200 Mill Ave S Tree Trimming LUA26-000097, RVMP, CAE
Permit Date: April 7, 2026 Page 3 of 6
D_200 Mill Ave S Tree Trimming_RVMP CAE_Final
an arborist with ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualifications (TRAQ), as possessing the
following ISA Tree Risk Assessment characteristics:
1. The tree has a probable or imminent likelihood of failure;
2. The tree has a medium or high likelihood of impact; and
3. The consequences of failure for the tree are significant or severe.
Per the arborist report (Attachment A), authored by Gabriella Golzarian, the City of
Renton’s Interim Urban Forestry Manager, the location of the subject trees has been the
site of previous failures impacting nearby property, and is regularly monitored for
continued deterioration. If the tree heights are not reduced from their current height, they
will continue to pose a risk to people and property, including parked cars, adjacent
structures, and an adjacent park with a playground.
Shoreline regulations apply to all use and development activities within the shoreline. The
trees are located within the Shoreline High Intensity/Cedar River Reaches B designation
and are within the 100-foot (100’) vegetation conservation buffer. Removal of a tree does
not meet the definition of “development” within the WAC Shoreline Management Act.
Removal of the Black Cottonwood trees does not meet the applicability of development
and therefore, shoreline regulations do not apply. A Routine Vegetation Management
Permit is required for the removal of any trees within shoreline jurisdiction if the removal is
not included in another land use permitting process.
See Critical Area Exemption Findings below for additional exemption information. The
proposed trimming of the subject trees is consistent with restrictions for critical areas,
pursuant to RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations, and RMC 4-3-
050, Critical Area Regulations.
YES 3. Removal of a landmark tree shall meet the review criteria for removal off landmark tree,
pursuant to RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations.
i. The tree is determined to be dangerous; or
ii. The tree is causing obvious physical damage to structures including but not limited
to building foundations, driveways or parking lots, and for which no reasonable
alternative to tree removal exists. Routine maintenance of roofs that is required
due to leaf fall does not constitute obvious physical damage to structure; or
iii. Removal of tree(s) to provide solar access to buildings incorporating active solar
devices. Windows are solar devices only when they are south-facing and include
special storage elements to distribute heat energy; or
iv. The Administrator determines the removal is necessary to achieve a specific and
articulable purpose or goal of this Title.
Staff Comments: A landmark tree is defined as a tree with a caliper of 24-inches (24”) or
greater, except for Big Leaf Maples, Black Cottonwoods and Red Alder trees which qualify
as landmark trees with a caliper of 30-inches (30”) or greater. The subject Black
Cottonwood trees all have a caliper more than 30-inches (30”); therefore, they are
categorized as landmark trees.
See the previous Criteria 2 for the determination that the Black Cottonwood trees are high-
risk trees. Trimming the trees meets review criteria for removal or vegetation management
of landmark trees.
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit
200 Mill Ave S Tree Trimming LUA26-000097, RVMP, CAE
Permit Date: April 7, 2026 Page 4 of 6
D_200 Mill Ave S Tree Trimming_RVMP CAE_Final
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 trees proposed for topping are not street frontage,
parking lot or landscaping trees.
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 trees are proposed for topping at this time, not
removal. No land clearing will take place as part of the trimming activity.
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 subject trees and native riparian vegetation would be maintained
within the shoreline vegetation conservation buffer after topping the trees.
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 RVMP is being requested because several trees must be trimmed
to prevent potential damage to people or property resulting from partial or total tree failure.
Provided documentation in the arborist report indicated a history of tree failure at the site.
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. No land clearing or tree removal is proposed.
CRITICAL AREA EXEMPTION FINDINGS:
The proposed development is consistent with the following findings pursuant to RMC section 4-3-050C.2.d:
YES, IF
CONDITION OF
APPROVAL IS MET
i. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other provision of the Renton Municipal Code
or State or Federal law or regulation;
Staff Comments: The trimming of the subject trees is not prohibited by this or any other
provision of the Renton Municipal Code or State or Federal law or regulations. Approval
of this exemption will act as written permission to trim the subject trees as described in
the project description.
Additionally, the applicant has conferred with the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the
placement of woody debris in the riverbed (Attachment B). This action is allowed without
a Corps permit so long as the tree debris is not anchored or clumped in a way that acts
like a dam or obstructs water flow. See Critical Area Exemption Finding iii for more
discussion. Therefore, staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that the applicant
shall retain trimmed portions of the Black Cottonwood trees as large woody debris within
the critical areas and the shoreline vegetation conservation buffer, where feasible, and
in a manner that does not impede river flow.
YES ii. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry
standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles;
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit
200 Mill Ave S Tree Trimming LUA26-000097, RVMP, CAE
Permit Date: April 7, 2026 Page 5 of 6
D_200 Mill Ave S Tree Trimming_RVMP CAE_Final
Staff Comments: According to the provided documentation, it is recommended that the
subject trees be trimmed to prevent future damage to people and property.
YES iii. Impacts are minimized and, where applicable, disturbed areas are immediately
restored;
Staff Comments: Trimming of the subject trees will minimize impacts to adjacent
people and property. To best align with footnote 8 in RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas
Regulations, staff is recommending that the applicant retain trimmed portions of the
trees as large woody debris within the critical areas and the shoreline vegetation
conservation buffer, where feasible, and in a manner that river flow is not impacted.
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: No other vegetation besides the Black Cottonwoods is proposed for
maintenance or removal. Where feasible, trimmed material will be retained onsite as
large woody debris within the critical area and shoreline vegetation conservation buffer.
See Critical Area Exemption Finding iii for additional details.
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. A hazardous material, activity and/or facility is not a
part of the project.
DECISION: The 200 Mill Ave S Tree Trimming Routine Vegetation Management Permit and Critical Areas
Exemption, LUA26-000097, RVMP, CAE is Approved with Conditions*.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall retain trimmed portions of the Black Cottonwood trees as large woody debris within the
critical areas and the shoreline vegetation conservation buffer, where feasible, and in a manner that does
not impede river flow.
SIGNATURE & DATE OF DECISION:
Matthew Herrera, Planning Director Date
RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that the decision be reopened by
the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior the
original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration
request, if the approval body finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further
extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14-day
appeal time frame.
APPEALS: Appeals of permit issuance must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 21, 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
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
4/7/2026 | 7:56 AM PDT
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Routine Vegetation Management Permit
200 Mill Ave S Tree Trimming LUA26-000097, RVMP, CAE
Permit Date: April 7, 2026 Page 6 of 6
D_200 Mill Ave S Tree Trimming_RVMP CAE_Final
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 Gabriella Golzarian, City of Renton
Attachment B: City of Renton communication with Army Corps of Engineers
Attachment C: ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Forms, dated January 2026
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
1 | 200 Mill Ave S Report
200 Mill Ave S Tree Maintenance Project Summer 2026
Background: October 12, 2022, city tree TRE-24595 (black cottonwood) experienced
whole-tree failure and fell across the river, damaging several employee vehicles in the
parking deck of 200 Mill Ave S. On April 5, 2023, a contractor was hired to prune 5 riverside
trees to reduce load on the branches.
December 26, 2024, City tree TRE-24580 experienced whole-tree failure and fell across the
river, breaking through the glass of the building.
December 2025, the river experienced historic flood levels. Following the flooding, a
request was made to perform a tree risk assessment of the remaining black cottonwoods
on the riverbank.
Assessment: The Interim Urban Forester performed a Level 2 assessment on January 27,
2026. The trees have responded well to the pruning and show no noticeable signs of decay
in the canopy. However, the base of the trees presents some concerning signs. Flooding
deposited significant silt over the root plates. Previous assessments documented root
plate heaving due to sandy and silty soil conditions, and prior tree failures occurred at the
roots. Several trees exhibit large decay pockets at the base. Although some
compartmentalization is evident, the extent of decay cannot be confirmed without a Level
3 assessment. The tallest tree measures 150 feet, and the shortest measures 120 feet. The
distance between the riverbank where the cottonwoods are located and the building and
parking lot across the river is 105 feet. Tree measurements are provided in the table above.
Scope of work: The Interim Urban Forester mitigation recommendations include topping
the trees to a height of 90 feet and gently lowering debris into the Cedar River. Work will
occur between July 16 and August 31 in accordance with fish habitat protection guidelines
established by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Branches will remain as intact as possible to function as large woody debris for habitat,
while being sized appropriately to avoid damage to the library over the Cedar River and
downstream bridges. The volume and size of debris are not expected to alter water flow or
Tree Species ID# DBH Notes
1 Cottonwood 24589 72 Reduce height to 90 feet
2 Cottonwood 24592 42 Reduce height to 90 feet
3 Cottonwood 24596 44 Reduce height to 90 feet
4 Cottonwood 24598 69 Reduce height to 90 feet
5 Cottonwood 24605 74 Reduce height to 90 feet
6 Cottonwood 24607 68 Reduce height to 90 feet
Attachment A
RECEIVED
02/18/2026 JCisneros
PLANNING DIVISION
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
2 | 200 Mill Ave S Report
the ordinary high-water mark. Debris will be lowered carefully to avoid disturbing the
riverbed.
Topping is recommended instead of removal for two reasons. First, retaining the root
systems will help stabilize the riverbank and reduce erosion. Second, the remaining stems
will continue to provide habitat and shade for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife.
Figure 1: A map of the proposed work with the trees to be pruned highlighted in blue circles.
RECEIVED
02/18/2026 JCisneros
PLANNING DIVISION
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
3 | 200 Mill Ave S Report
RECEIVED
02/18/2026 JCisneros
PLANNING DIVISION
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
4 | 200 Mill Ave S Report
RECEIVED
02/18/2026 JCisneros
PLANNING DIVISION
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
5 | 200 Mill Ave S Report
RECEIVED
02/18/2026 JCisneros
PLANNING DIVISION
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
6 | 200 Mill Ave S Report
RECEIVED
02/18/2026 JCisneros
PLANNING DIVISION
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
Attachment B
RECEIVED
02/18/2026 JCisneros
PLANNING DIVISION
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
RECEIVED
02/18/2026 JCisneros
PLANNING DIVISION
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
RECEIVED
02/18/2026 JCisneros
PLANNING DIVISION
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
— Trunk —
— Crown and Branches —
— Roots and Root Collar —
Unbalanced crown LCR ______%
Dead twigs/branches ____% overall Max. dia. ______
Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ______
Over-extended branches
Pruning history
Crown cleaned
Reduced
Flush cuts
Thinned
Topped
Other
Raised
Lion-tailed
Cracks ___________________________________ Lightning damage
Codominant __________________________________ Included bark
Weak attachments ___________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ.
Previous branch failures _______________ Similar branches present
Dead/Missing bark Cankers/Galls/Burls Sapwood damage/decay
Conks Heartwood decay ________________________
Response growth
Collar buried/Not visible Depth________ Stem girdling
Dead Decay Conks/Mushrooms
Ooze Cavity _____% circ.
Cracks Cut/Damaged roots Distance from trunk _______
Root plate lifting Soil weakness
Response growth
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Dead/Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/color
Codominant stems Included bark Cracks
Sapwood damage/decay Cankers/Galls/Burls Sap ooze
Lightning damage Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms
Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper
Lean _____° Corrected? ________________________________
Response growth
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Time frame_____________ Tools used______________________________
Target Assessment
Ta
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
t
o
m
o
v
e
t
a
r
g
e
t
?
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
?
1
2
3
4
History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____
Site changes None Grade change Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________
Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________
Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low Normal High Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____%
Pests_____________________________________________________ Abiotic ________________________________________________________
Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large
Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss _____________________
Recent or planned change in load factors _________________________________________________________________________________________
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant
Likelihood of failureLikelihood of failure
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Page 1 of 2
Site Factors
Target zone
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
wi
t
h
i
n
1
x
H
t
.
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Improbable Possible Probable Imminent Improbable Possible Probable Imminent Attachment C
City of Renton 1/27/2026 10:30am
200 Mill Ave S 24592 1 2
Populus trichocarpa 42"120'45'
Gabriella Golzarian PN-9283A 2 YEARS Diameter tape, mallet, probe, laser range finder
Major decay pocket noted at the base of the tree.
trong winds in November and flooding in December
Silty/sandy soil deposit
N Y
Extensive flooding winter of 2025
4
n
Parking platform
n
2
Two cottonwoods along the bank failed at the roots 10/2022 and 12/2024
n
n n 20
SW n n
n
none observed
n
n n
n
4 Hedera helix
n
none
20
70
n
S30
small branches
n
No concerns regarding branch failure.
n
n
n 25
n n
No concerns regarding trunk failure.
Minimal CODIT
extensive decay pocket at the root collar.
Whole tree failure at the base due to
n n
n n
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
1
2
3
4
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impacting Target
Very low Low Medium High
Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely
Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely
Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely
Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
n
u
m
b
e
r
Pa
r
t
s
i
z
e
Fa
l
l
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
Target
protection
Conditions
of concern
Failure Impact Failure & Impact
(from Matrix 1)
Likelihood
Im
p
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
Im
m
i
n
e
n
t
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Ve
r
y
l
o
w
Un
l
i
k
e
l
y
Ne
g
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
Me
d
i
u
m
Li
k
e
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Pr
o
b
a
b
l
e
Lo
w
So
m
e
w
h
a
t
Mi
n
o
r
Hi
g
h
Ve
r
y
l
i
k
e
l
y
Se
v
e
r
e
Consequences
Risk rating
of part
(from
Matrix 2)Tree part
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
N e g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe
Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme
Likely Low Moderate High High
Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate
Unlikely Low Low Low Low
Data Final Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________
Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________
Notes, explanations, descriptions
Mitigation options _____________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme Work priority 1 2 3 4
Overall residual risk Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists – 2013
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Ta
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
HIGHRoot
Collar
10"1 None120'Decay pocket
This cottonwood is 120' tall and parked vehicles are within the fall path.
The building is frequently occupied and cars are currently not parking in
the nearest row. The tree has been reduced before to minimize load on
defect and the decay pocket continues to grow with minimal response wood.
noneTotal tree removal
Reduce the height of the tree none
n n
n
n 1 year
n
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
— Trunk —
— Crown and Branches —
— Roots and Root Collar —
Unbalanced crown LCR ______%
Dead twigs/branches ____% overall Max. dia. ______
Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ______
Over-extended branches
Pruning history
Crown cleaned
Reduced
Flush cuts
Thinned
Topped
Other
Raised
Lion-tailed
Cracks ___________________________________ Lightning damage
Codominant __________________________________ Included bark
Weak attachments ___________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ.
Previous branch failures _______________ Similar branches present
Dead/Missing bark Cankers/Galls/Burls Sapwood damage/decay
Conks Heartwood decay ________________________
Response growth
Collar buried/Not visible Depth________ Stem girdling
Dead Decay Conks/Mushrooms
Ooze Cavity _____% circ.
Cracks Cut/Damaged roots Distance from trunk _______
Root plate lifting Soil weakness
Response growth
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Dead/Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/color
Codominant stems Included bark Cracks
Sapwood damage/decay Cankers/Galls/Burls Sap ooze
Lightning damage Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms
Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper
Lean _____° Corrected? ________________________________
Response growth
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Time frame_____________ Tools used______________________________
Target Assessment
Ta
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
t
o
m
o
v
e
t
a
r
g
e
t
?
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
?
1
2
3
4
History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____
Site changes None Grade change Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________
Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________
Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low Normal High Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____%
Pests_____________________________________________________ Abiotic ________________________________________________________
Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large
Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss _____________________
Recent or planned change in load factors _________________________________________________________________________________________
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant
Likelihood of failureLikelihood of failure
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Page 1 of 2
Site Factors
Target zone
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
wi
t
h
i
n
1
x
H
t
.
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Improbable Possible Probable Imminent Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
City of Renton 1/27/2026 10:30am
200 Mill Ave S 24596 1 2
Populus trichocarpa 44"120'45'
Gabriella Golzarian PN-9283A 2 Years diameter tape, mallet, probe, laser range finder
none observed
Major decay noted as the base of the tree.
Strong winds in November and flooding in December
Silty/sandy soil deposit
N Y
Extensive flooding winter of 2025
4
n
parking platform
n n
2
Two cottonwoods along the bank failed at the roots 10/2022 and 12/2024
n
n n 20
SW n n
n n
none observed
n
n n
n
4 Hedera helix
n
none
70
S30
small branches
n
no concerns regading branch failure
n
n
n 10
n n
No concerns regarding trunk failure.
minimal
extensive decay pocket at the root collar and lifing soil.
Whole tree failure at the base due to
n n
n n
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
1
2
3
4
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impacting Target
Very low Low Medium High
Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely
Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely
Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely
Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
n
u
m
b
e
r
Pa
r
t
s
i
z
e
Fa
l
l
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
Target
protection
Conditions
of concern
Failure Impact Failure & Impact
(from Matrix 1)
Likelihood
Im
p
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
Im
m
i
n
e
n
t
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Ve
r
y
l
o
w
Un
l
i
k
e
l
y
Ne
g
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
Me
d
i
u
m
Li
k
e
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Pr
o
b
a
b
l
e
Lo
w
So
m
e
w
h
a
t
Mi
n
o
r
Hi
g
h
Ve
r
y
l
i
k
e
l
y
Se
v
e
r
e
Consequences
Risk rating
of part
(from
Matrix 2)Tree part
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
N e g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe
Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme
Likely Low Moderate High High
Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate
Unlikely Low Low Low Low
Data Final Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________
Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________
Notes, explanations, descriptions
Mitigation options _____________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme Work priority 1 2 3 4
Overall residual risk Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists – 2013
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Ta
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
HIGHRoot
collar
7"1 none120'Decay pocket
The cottonwood is 120' tall and the parking platform is within the fall path.
The parking lot is currently restricted but cars still park occasionally within
striking distance. The tree has been reduced in the past. They decay
pocket is monitered annual and conditions contuinue to deteriortate.
noneTotal tree removal
Reduce height of the tree none
n n
n n
n 1 Year
n
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
— Trunk —
— Crown and Branches —
— Roots and Root Collar —
Unbalanced crown LCR ______%
Dead twigs/branches ____% overall Max. dia. ______
Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ______
Over-extended branches
Pruning history
Crown cleaned
Reduced
Flush cuts
Thinned
Topped
Other
Raised
Lion-tailed
Cracks ___________________________________ Lightning damage
Codominant __________________________________ Included bark
Weak attachments ___________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ.
Previous branch failures _______________ Similar branches present
Dead/Missing bark Cankers/Galls/Burls Sapwood damage/decay
Conks Heartwood decay ________________________
Response growth
Collar buried/Not visible Depth________ Stem girdling
Dead Decay Conks/Mushrooms
Ooze Cavity _____% circ.
Cracks Cut/Damaged roots Distance from trunk _______
Root plate lifting Soil weakness
Response growth
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Dead/Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/color
Codominant stems Included bark Cracks
Sapwood damage/decay Cankers/Galls/Burls Sap ooze
Lightning damage Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms
Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper
Lean _____° Corrected? ________________________________
Response growth
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Time frame_____________ Tools used______________________________
Target Assessment
Ta
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
t
o
m
o
v
e
t
a
r
g
e
t
?
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
?
1
2
3
4
History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____
Site changes None Grade change Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________
Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________
Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low Normal High Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____%
Pests_____________________________________________________ Abiotic ________________________________________________________
Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large
Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss _____________________
Recent or planned change in load factors _________________________________________________________________________________________
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant
Likelihood of failureLikelihood of failure
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Page 1 of 2
Site Factors
Target zone
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
wi
t
h
i
n
1
x
H
t
.
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Improbable Possible Probable Imminent Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
City of Renton 1/21/2026 10:30am
200 Mill Ave S 24605 1 2
Populus trichocarpa 74"140 60
Gabriella Golzarian PN-9283A 2 years diameter tape, mallet, probe, laser range finder
Nonve observed
Major decay noted at the base of the tree.
Strong winds in November and flooding in December
Silty/Sany soil deposits
N N4
n
Building
n n
3
Walkway 2
Two cottonwoods along the bank failed at the roots 10/2022 and 12/2024
n
n n
4
20
SW n n
n n
None observed
n
n n
n
4 Hedera helix
n
none
Y
20
70
n 6
S30
N
small branches
n
No concerns regarding branch failure
n
n
n 15
n n
No concerns regarding trunk failure.
Minimal
extensive decay pocket at the root collar.
Whole tree failure at the base due to
n n
n n
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
1
2
3
4
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impacting Target
Very low Low Medium High
Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely
Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely
Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely
Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
n
u
m
b
e
r
Pa
r
t
s
i
z
e
Fa
l
l
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
Target
protection
Conditions
of concern
Failure Impact Failure & Impact
(from Matrix 1)
Likelihood
Im
p
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
Im
m
i
n
e
n
t
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Ve
r
y
l
o
w
Un
l
i
k
e
l
y
Ne
g
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
Me
d
i
u
m
Li
k
e
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Pr
o
b
a
b
l
e
Lo
w
So
m
e
w
h
a
t
Mi
n
o
r
Hi
g
h
Ve
r
y
l
i
k
e
l
y
Se
v
e
r
e
Consequences
Risk rating
of part
(from
Matrix 2)Tree part
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
N e g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe
Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme
Likely Low Moderate High High
Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate
Unlikely Low Low Low Low
Data Final Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________
Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________
Notes, explanations, descriptions
Mitigation options _____________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme Work priority 1 2 3 4
Overall residual risk Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists – 2013
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Ta
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
140'2 stand of alders
HIGHRoot
collar
8"1 stand of alders
8"
140'Decay pocket
LOW
The cottonwood is 140' tall and a building is within the fall path. The
building is frequently occupied. Two previous tree failures have occurred.
The tree has had branches reduced in the past. The decay pocket has
been monitored annually and continues to decline.
noneTotal tree removal
Reduce the height of the tree none
n n
n n
n 1 year
n
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
— Trunk —
— Crown and Branches —
— Roots and Root Collar —
Unbalanced crown LCR ______%
Dead twigs/branches ____% overall Max. dia. ______
Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ______
Over-extended branches
Pruning history
Crown cleaned
Reduced
Flush cuts
Thinned
Topped
Other
Raised
Lion-tailed
Cracks ___________________________________ Lightning damage
Codominant __________________________________ Included bark
Weak attachments ___________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ.
Previous branch failures _______________ Similar branches present
Dead/Missing bark Cankers/Galls/Burls Sapwood damage/decay
Conks Heartwood decay ________________________
Response growth
Collar buried/Not visible Depth________ Stem girdling
Dead Decay Conks/Mushrooms
Ooze Cavity _____% circ.
Cracks Cut/Damaged roots Distance from trunk _______
Root plate lifting Soil weakness
Response growth
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Dead/Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/color
Codominant stems Included bark Cracks
Sapwood damage/decay Cankers/Galls/Burls Sap ooze
Lightning damage Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms
Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper
Lean _____° Corrected? ________________________________
Response growth
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Time frame_____________ Tools used______________________________
Target Assessment
Ta
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
t
o
m
o
v
e
t
a
r
g
e
t
?
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
?
1
2
3
4
History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____
Site changes None Grade change Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________
Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________
Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low Normal High Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____%
Pests_____________________________________________________ Abiotic ________________________________________________________
Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large
Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss _____________________
Recent or planned change in load factors _________________________________________________________________________________________
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant
Likelihood of failureLikelihood of failure
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Page 1 of 2
Site Factors
Target zone
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
wi
t
h
i
n
1
x
H
t
.
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Improbable Possible Probable Imminent Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
City of Renton 1/27/2026 10:30am
200 Mill Ave S 24607 1 2
Populus trichocarpa 72"150'60'
Gabriella Golzarian PN-9283A 2 YEARS diameter tape, mallet, probe, laser range finder
none observed
Major decay noted at the base of the tree.
Strong winds in November and flooding in December
Silty/sandy soil deposit
N N
Extensive flooding winter of 2025
4
n
Building
n n
3
Walkway 2
Two cottonwoods along the bank failed at the roots 10/2022 and 12/2024
n
n n
4
20
SW n n
n n
none observed
n
n n
n
4 Hedera helix
n
none
Y
20
70
n 6
S30
N
Small branches, no target
n
No concerns regarding branch failure.
n
n
n 15
n n
No conerns regarding trunk failure.
None
decay pocket at the root collar
Whole tree failure at the base due to extensive
n n
n n
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
1
2
3
4
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impacting Target
Very low Low Medium High
Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely
Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely
Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely
Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
n
u
m
b
e
r
Pa
r
t
s
i
z
e
Fa
l
l
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
Target
protection
Conditions
of concern
Failure Impact Failure & Impact
(from Matrix 1)
Likelihood
Im
p
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
Im
m
i
n
e
n
t
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Ve
r
y
l
o
w
Un
l
i
k
e
l
y
Ne
g
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
Me
d
i
u
m
Li
k
e
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Pr
o
b
a
b
l
e
Lo
w
So
m
e
w
h
a
t
Mi
n
o
r
Hi
g
h
Ve
r
y
l
i
k
e
l
y
Se
v
e
r
e
Consequences
Risk rating
of part
(from
Matrix 2)Tree part
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
N e g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe
Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme
Likely Low Moderate High High
Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate
Unlikely Low Low Low Low
Data Final Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________
Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________
Notes, explanations, descriptions
Mitigation options _____________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme Work priority 1 2 3 4
Overall residual risk Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists – 2013
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Ta
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
150'2 stand of alders
HIGHRoot
collar
6"1 stand of alders
6"
150'Decay pocket
LOW
Cottonwood is 150' tall and a building is within the fall path. The building
is frequently occupied. Two previous failures have occurred. The tree
has had branches redudced in the past. The decay pocket has been
monitored annually and continues to decline.
noneTotal tree removal
Reduce the height of the tree none
n n
n n
n 1 year
n
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
— Trunk —
— Crown and Branches —
— Roots and Root Collar —
Unbalanced crown LCR ______%
Dead twigs/branches ____% overall Max. dia. ______
Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ______
Over-extended branches
Pruning history
Crown cleaned
Reduced
Flush cuts
Thinned
Topped
Other
Raised
Lion-tailed
Cracks ___________________________________ Lightning damage
Codominant __________________________________ Included bark
Weak attachments ___________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ.
Previous branch failures _______________ Similar branches present
Dead/Missing bark Cankers/Galls/Burls Sapwood damage/decay
Conks Heartwood decay ________________________
Response growth
Collar buried/Not visible Depth________ Stem girdling
Dead Decay Conks/Mushrooms
Ooze Cavity _____% circ.
Cracks Cut/Damaged roots Distance from trunk _______
Root plate lifting Soil weakness
Response growth
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Dead/Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/color
Codominant stems Included bark Cracks
Sapwood damage/decay Cankers/Galls/Burls Sap ooze
Lightning damage Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms
Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper
Lean _____° Corrected? ________________________________
Response growth
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Time frame_____________ Tools used______________________________
Target Assessment
Ta
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
t
o
m
o
v
e
t
a
r
g
e
t
?
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
?
1
2
3
4
History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____
Site changes None Grade change Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________
Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________
Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low Normal High Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____%
Pests_____________________________________________________ Abiotic ________________________________________________________
Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large
Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss _____________________
Recent or planned change in load factors _________________________________________________________________________________________
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant
Likelihood of failureLikelihood of failure
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Page 1 of 2
Site Factors
Target zone
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
wi
t
h
i
n
1
x
H
t
.
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Improbable Possible Probable Imminent Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
City of Renton 1/27/2026 10:30am
200 Mill Ave S TRE-24589 1 2
Populus trichocarpa 72"120'40'
Gabriella Golzarian 2 YEARS Diameter tape, mallet, probe, laser range finder
Major decay pocket noted at the base of the tree.
Strong winds in November and flooding in December
Silty/sandy soil deposit
N Y
Extensive flooding winter of 2025
4
n
Parking platform
n
n
2
Two cottonwoods along the bank failed at the roots 10/2022 and 12/2024
n
n n 20
SW n n
n
non observed
n
n n
n
4 Hedera helix
n
none
20
70
n
S30
large branch failure
n
No concerns regarding branch failure
n
n
n 20
n n
No concerns regarding trunk failure.
Some CODIT
a growing decay pocket at the root collar.
Whole tree failure at the base due to
n n
n n
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
1
2
3
4
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impacting Target
Very low Low Medium High
Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely
Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely
Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely
Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
n
u
m
b
e
r
Pa
r
t
s
i
z
e
Fa
l
l
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
Target
protection
Conditions
of concern
Failure Impact Failure & Impact
(from Matrix 1)
Likelihood
Im
p
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
Im
m
i
n
e
n
t
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Ve
r
y
l
o
w
Un
l
i
k
e
l
y
Ne
g
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
Me
d
i
u
m
Li
k
e
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Pr
o
b
a
b
l
e
Lo
w
So
m
e
w
h
a
t
Mi
n
o
r
Hi
g
h
Ve
r
y
l
i
k
e
l
y
Se
v
e
r
e
Consequences
Risk rating
of part
(from
Matrix 2)Tree part
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
N e g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe
Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme
Likely Low Moderate High High
Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate
Unlikely Low Low Low Low
Data Final Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________
Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________
Notes, explanations, descriptions
Mitigation options _____________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme Work priority 1 2 3 4
Overall residual risk Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists – 2013
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Ta
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
HIGHRoot
collar
8"1 None120'Decay pocket
This cottonwood is 120' tall and parked vehicles are within the fall path.
Cars are not currently parking on the lowest deck. The tree has been
reduced before to minimize load on the defect and the decay pocket
continues to grow.
noneTotal tree removal
Reduce height of the tree. none
n n
n n
1 year
n
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
— Trunk —
— Crown and Branches —
— Roots and Root Collar —
Unbalanced crown LCR ______%
Dead twigs/branches ____% overall Max. dia. ______
Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ______
Over-extended branches
Pruning history
Crown cleaned
Reduced
Flush cuts
Thinned
Topped
Other
Raised
Lion-tailed
Cracks ___________________________________ Lightning damage
Codominant __________________________________ Included bark
Weak attachments ___________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ.
Previous branch failures _______________ Similar branches present
Dead/Missing bark Cankers/Galls/Burls Sapwood damage/decay
Conks Heartwood decay ________________________
Response growth
Collar buried/Not visible Depth________ Stem girdling
Dead Decay Conks/Mushrooms
Ooze Cavity _____% circ.
Cracks Cut/Damaged roots Distance from trunk _______
Root plate lifting Soil weakness
Response growth
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Dead/Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/color
Codominant stems Included bark Cracks
Sapwood damage/decay Cankers/Galls/Burls Sap ooze
Lightning damage Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms
Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper
Lean _____° Corrected? ________________________________
Response growth
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Time frame_____________ Tools used______________________________
Target Assessment
Ta
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
t
o
m
o
v
e
t
a
r
g
e
t
?
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
?
1
2
3
4
History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____
Site changes None Grade change Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________
Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________
Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low Normal High Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____%
Pests_____________________________________________________ Abiotic ________________________________________________________
Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large
Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss _____________________
Recent or planned change in load factors _________________________________________________________________________________________
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant
Likelihood of failureLikelihood of failure
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Page 1 of 2
Site Factors
Target zone
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
wi
t
h
i
n
1
x
H
t
.
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Improbable Possible Probable Imminent Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
City of Renton 1/27/2026 10:30am
200 Mill Ave S TRE-24598 1 2
Populus trichocarpa 69"100'40'
Gabriella Golzarian PN-9283A 2 YEARS diameter tape, mallet, probe, laser range finder
none observed
Some decay noted at the base of the tree
Strong winds in November and flooding in December
Silty/sandy soil deposit
N Y
Extensive flooding winter of 2025
4
n
Parking platform
n n
2
Two cottonwoods along the bank failed at the roots 10/2022 and 12/2024
n
n n 20
SW n n
n
none observed
n
n n
n
4 Hedera helix
n
none
70
S30
big branches
n
no concerns regarding branch failure
n
n
n 15
n
No concerns regarding trunk failure.
minimal
extensive decay pocket at the root collar and lifing soil.
Whole tree failure at the base due to
n n
n n
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1
1
2
3
4
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impacting Target
Very low Low Medium High
Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely
Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely
Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely
Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
n
u
m
b
e
r
Pa
r
t
s
i
z
e
Fa
l
l
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
Target
protection
Conditions
of concern
Failure Impact Failure & Impact
(from Matrix 1)
Likelihood
Im
p
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
Im
m
i
n
e
n
t
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Ve
r
y
l
o
w
Un
l
i
k
e
l
y
Ne
g
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
Me
d
i
u
m
Li
k
e
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Pr
o
b
a
b
l
e
Lo
w
So
m
e
w
h
a
t
Mi
n
o
r
Hi
g
h
Ve
r
y
l
i
k
e
l
y
Se
v
e
r
e
Consequences
Risk rating
of part
(from
Matrix 2)Tree part
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
N e g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe
Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme
Likely Low Moderate High High
Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate
Unlikely Low Low Low Low
Data Final Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________
Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________
Notes, explanations, descriptions
Mitigation options _____________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme Work priority 1 2 3 4
Overall residual risk Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists – 2013
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Ta
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
HIGHRoot
collar
8"1 none100'Decay pocket
The cottonwood is 120' tall and the parking platform is within the fall path.
The parking lot is currently restricted but cars still park occasionally within
striking distance. The tree has been reduced in the past. They decay
pocket is monitered annual and conditions contuinue to deteriortate.
noneTotal tree removal
Reduce height of the tree none
Docusign Envelope ID: 73C5BDFD-207F-8F50-826A-0E33F80511A1