HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-RS-TIR-2018-06-18.pdf
PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION
REPORT
Forest Terrace
2611 Union Avenue N.E.
Renton, Washington
Prepared for:
Pulte Group, Inc.
3535 Factoria BLVD S.E., #110
Bellevue, WA 98006
June 18, 2018
Our Job No. 18396
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX
BRANCH OFFICES ¨ TUMWATER, WA ¨ KLAMATH FALLS, OR ¨ LONG BEACH, CA ¨ ROSEVILLE, CA ¨ SAN DIEGO, CA
www.barghausen.com
06/18/18
PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORTForest TerraceCity of Renton, WashingtonOur Job No. 18396
18396.003.TIR.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
Figure 1 – Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet
Figure 2 – Vicinity Map
Figure 3 – Predeveloped Drainage Basin Map
Figure 4 – Soils
Figure 5 – Assessor's Map
Figure 6 – FEMA Map
Figure 7 – Sensitive Area Map
Figure 8 – Downstream Basin Map
2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
2.1 Analysis of the Core Requirements and Special Requirements
3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS
4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
4.1 Existing Site Hydrology
4.2 Developed Site Hydrology
4.3 Performance Standards
4.4 Flow Control System
4.5 Water Quality System
5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES
6.1 Geotechnical Report for Vandermay prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. dated July 19, 2017
6.2 Arborist Report by Tree Solutions, Inc. dated December 15, 2017
7.0 OTHER PERMITS
8.0 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
9.0 BOND QUANTITIES AND FACILITY SUMMARIES
10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
Tab 1.0
18396.003.TIR.doc
1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
This section contains the following information:
Figure 1 – Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet
Figure 2 – Vicinity Map
Figure 3 – Predeveloped Drainage Basin Map
Figure 4 – Soils
Figure 5 – Assessor's Map
Figure 6 – FEMA Map
Figure 7 – Sensitive Area Map
Figure 8 – Downstream Basin Map
18396.003.TIR.doc
1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Forest Terrace project is a single-family residential project consisting of the development of a
forested area generally located between Union Ave NE to the East, single-family homes to the
North and West, and Sierra Heights Elementary School to the south. More specifically the site is
located at 2611 Union Ave NE Renton, Washington 98059. The project area is approximately
13.4(±) acres in size. The proposed project is to construct 25 single-family lots with associated
roads, utilities, and stormwater facilities. The project site is located within a portion of Section 4,
Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, in the City of Renton, Washington.
Developable portions of the project will include areas outside of the existing PSE easements and
the area designated for the Perkins property. The property consists of one existing tax parcel
042305-9142 and portions of a second tax parcel 042305-9114. On-site vegetation consists of
native trees such as fir, cedar, hemlock, and maple ranging in size from saplings up to trunks 64
inches in diameter. Elevations range from 342 to 442 across the site. The site is mostly a steep
hillside with slopes of up to 50 percent on the south side of the site, with some gentler slopes of 5
percent on the northern side of the site.
The King County Soils Conservation Service Soils Map for this area shown in Figure 4 of this
section indicates that the on-site soils are considered Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with 8 to 15
percent slopes, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with 0 to 8 percent slopes, Everett very gravelly
sandy loam with slopes 0 to 8 percent, and Everett very gravelly sandy loam with 15 to 30 percent
slopes. Please see the Geotechnical Engineering Study included in Section 6.1 of this report.
Please refer to Figure 3 of this section for the predeveloped drainage basin map.
On-site construction will include roadways with vertical curb and sidewalk, landscaping tracts, a
water quality facility, and two detention facilities. Additionally, stormwater catch basins and storm
pipes as well as water mains and sewer facilities will be constructed onsite. There will be frontage
improvements along Union Ave NE including stormwater catch basins and storm pipes as well as
pavement overlay, vertical curb and sidewalk. A drainage swale will also be constructed on the
west side of Union Ave NE along the Dalpay Property.
Stormwater runoff generated by the lots, Tracts A and F, Road A and the frontage area will be
routed to a detention vault. Stormwater generated by Road B and Tract B will be routed to a
detention Tank. The outfall from the detention tank and the detention vault discharges into a
StormFilter for basic water quality treatment. The discharge from the StormFilter continues to a pipe
system in Union Ave NE which routes to a drainage swale along Union Ave NE, which finally
connects to an existing catch basin at the intersection of Union Ave NE and SE 95th Way. The
stormwater continues within the existing drainage system outlets onto a hillside on the northern part
of SE 95th Way, which will eventually flow to May Creek.
The project will be mass graded to balance cut and fills so that all lots will be level flat pads ready
for home building. Site drainage designs are based on the 2017 Renton Surface Water Design
Manual (RSWDM). Please refer to Section 4.0 of this TIR for further details regarding the drainage
facility design.
TIR WorksheetFigure 1
-1- 18396.004.Wkst.doc
King County Department of Development and Environmental Services
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Project Owner
Pulte Group, Inc
Kyle Lublin Project Name
Address 3535 Factoria BLVD S.E., #110 Forest Terrace
Bellevue, WA 98006 Location 2611 Union Ave NE Renton, WA 98059
Phone (425) 216-3466 Township 23 N
Project Engineer Barry Talkington Range 5E
Company Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Section 4
Address/Phone 18215 – 72nd Avenue South Section
Kent, WA 98032 / (425) 251-6222
Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS
Subdivision DFW HPA Shoreline Management
Short Subdivision COE 404 Rockery
Grading DOE Dam Safety Structural Vaults
Commercial FEMA Floodplain
Other Lock and
Load Wall
Other COE Wetlands
Part 5 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN
Community
Renton
Drainage Basin
Cedar River/Lake Washington
Part 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS
River Floodplain
Stream Wetlands
Critical Stream Reach Seeps/Springs
Depressions/Swales High Groundwater Table
Lake Groundwater Recharge
Steep Slopes Other
-2- 18396.004.Wkst.doc
Part 7 SOILS
Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential Erosive Velocities
Everett gravelly sandy
loam 0 to 30 percent Low
Alderwood gravelly
sandy loam 8 to 30 percent Low
Additional Sheets Attached
Part 8 DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS
REFERENCE LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT
Additional Sheets Attached
Part 9 ESC REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS
DURING CONSTRUCTION
MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS
AFTER CONSTRUCTION
Sedimentation Facilities Stabilize Exposed Surface
Stabilized Construction Entrance Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities
Perimeter Runoff Control Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris
Clearing and Grading Restrictions Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities
Cover Practices Flag Limits of SAO and Open Space Preservation Areas
Construction Sequence Other
Other
Part 10 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM
Grass Lined Channel Tank Infiltration Method of Analysis
Pipe System Vault Depression WWHM2012
Open Channel Energy Dissipater Flow Dispersal Compensation/Mitigation
Dry Pond Wetland Waiver of Eliminated Site Storage
Wet Pond Stream Regional Detention
Brief Description of System Operation
Stormwater will be conveyed to a Detention vault and Detention Tank, which
will discharge to a stormfilter. From the stormfilter stormwater will flow to an
existing conveyance system on SE 95th Way which empties to May Creek
Facility Related Site Limitations
Reference Facility Limitation
-3- 18396.004.Wkst.doc
Part 11 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Part 12 EASEMENTS/TRACTS
Cast in Place Vault Drainage Easement
Retaining Wall Access Easement
Rockery > 4' High Native Growth Protection Easement
Structural on Steep Slope Tract
Other Other
Part 13 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this
worksheet and the attachments. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate.
Signed/Dated
12/12/17
12/12/17
Vicinity MapFigure 2
Predeveloped Drainage
Basin Map
Figure 3
FOREST TERRACE FOREST TERRACE
Soils MapFigure 4
Assessor's MapFigure 5
FEMA MapFigure 6
Sensitive Area MapFigure 7
Downstream Basin
Map
Figure 8
King C ou nty
King C ou nty iMa p
Date: 11/15/2017
Notes:
±The i nfor ma tion inclu ded on thi s map has been c om pil ed by King Cou nty s taff from a vari ety of so urc es a n d is subject to c ha n ge w ith out n otice. King C ountymakes n o r epr e sentations o r w ar ra ntie s, express o r i mp li ed , as to acc ur a cy, co m pl ete ness, tim e line ss, or ri g hts to the use of s uc h i nform a tion . T hi s doc um e n t i snot intended for us e as a su rvey pr odu ct. King C ounty shall not be l iabl e for an y gene r al , spec ia l, in dire ct, inci de n ta l, or conse que ntia l dam a ges i nclu d in g,but n ot li mi ted to, lost reve n ues o r l os t p r ofi ts resulting fro m the use or mi suse of the i nfor ma tion contained on this m ap. An y s al e of this m ap or in form atio n onthis map is prohibited ex cept by wr itten pe r mis sion of King Cou n ty.Union Ave NESE 95th PLNew storm System
connects to existing
conveyance system
through a culvert
from the new swale.
Stormwater outlets from
conveyance system
through open pipe
beneath SE 95th PL. Flow
travels down the hillside
over quarry spalls
Mays Creek is now 1/4
mile down stream of initial
outlet. The stream
continues Wests.
Site
Flow Connects
with Mays
Creek.
May's Creek
May's Creek
Tab 2.0
18396.003.TIR.doc
2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
This section contains the following information:
2.1 Analysis of the Core Requirements and Special Requirements
18396.003.TIR.doc
2.1 Analysis of the Core Requirements and Special Requirements
CORE REQUIREMENTS HOW PROJECT HAS ADDRESSED REQUIREMENT
No. 1: Discharge at Natural
Location
Stormwater from the site will be detained within one of two drainage
facilities and treated within a single drainage facility prior to being
discharged May Creek, its natural location.
No. 2: Off-Site Analysis The off-site analysis has been included within Section 3.0 of this
Technical Information Report.
No. 3: Flow Control The Detention Vault and Detention Tank have been designed for
Level 2 flow control and released matching predeveloped conditions
for 50% of the 2 year to the 50-year flow.
No. 4: Conveyance System The conveyance and backwater analysis will be designed per the
2017 RSWDM for the proposed storm drainage system, and will be
included in Section 5.0 of this Technical Information Report at final
engineering.
No. 5: Erosion and Sediment
Control
Temporary erosion control measures for this project will include:
stabilized construction entrances, perimeter runoff control, cover
practices, sedimentation facilities, and construction sequencing.
No. 6: Maintenance and
Operations
The City will own and maintain the public drainage facility for this
project. An Operations and Maintenance Manual, if required, will be
provided in Section 10.0 of this Technical Information Report.
No. 7: Bonds and Liability Bonding will be completed as required by the City of Renton using
the city’s Bond Quantity Worksheet.
No. 8: Water Quality The project is proposing a StormFilter for basic water quality in
accordance with the 2017 RSWDM.
No. 9: Flow Control BMPs Roadside Bioretention swales will be included wherever possible
within the planter along Road A. Individual lot BMP's will be
addressed during the Building Permit stage. See section 4.0 of this
Technical Information Report for further details. All disturbed onsite
soils will be amended per 2017 RSWDM requirements.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS HOW PROJECT HAS ADDRESSED REQUIREMENT
No. 1: Other Adopted Area
Specific Requirements
This special requirement does not apply to this project.
No. 2: Floodplain/Floodway
Delineation
The proposed development is not located within the 100-year
floodplain.
No. 3: Flood Protection
Facilities
This project does not rely on an existing flood protection facility, nor
propose to modify or construct a new flood protection facility;
therefore this special requirement does not apply.
No. 4: Source Controls Source controls, such as covered dumpsters, will be applied to the
project as applicable.
No. 5: Oil Control This site is not classified as a high-use site given the criteria found
in the 2017 RSWDM, therefore no special oil control treatment is
necessary.
Tab 3.0
18396.003.TIR.doc
3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS
This section contains the following information:
Task 1 – Study Area Definitions and Maps
Task 2 – Resource Review
Task 3 – Field Inspection
3.1 Conveyance System Nuisance Problems (Type 1)
3.2 Severe Erosion Problems (Type 2)
Task 4 – Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions
18396.003.TIR.doc
TASK 1 – STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS
The proposed Plat of Forest Terrace is a single-family residential project consisting of 25 lots
zoned R-4. The project is 13(±) acres in size containing one tax parcel: 042305-9142 and
portions of a second tax parcel 042305-9114. The site is located at 2611 Union Ave NE Renton,
Washington 98059 in a portion of Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette
Meridian, in the City of Renton, Washington.
The developed portion of the site consists of two single-family homes with driveways and a PSE
easement. Development will take place outside of the PSE Easement and the portion of the site
that will be deeded to the Perkins property.
The site is bordered by single family homes to the North and West, Union Ave NE to the East and
Sierra Heights Elementary School to the South. Onsite soils were found to be a majority classified
as Everett very gravelly sandy loam and Alderwood gravelly sandy loam filling in the edges.
Please refer to the soils map in Section 1, Figure 4. All drainage calculations were modeled as till
soils.
The topography on site is a very steep hillside with slopes of up to 50 percent in some areas. The
site generally slopes to the North with elevations ranging from 342 to 442 across the site. The
project will be mass graded with cuts and fill balanced on site. There is a 100-foot wide PSE
easement that runs through the eastern portion of the site. Portions of the site will be undisturbed
in an attempt to retain as many existing trees as possible.
The proposed drainage facilities are required to meet the requirements of the 2017 Renton
Surface Water Design Manual (RSWDM). The drainage design shall meet at a minimum the
Conservation Flow Control (previously known as Level 2) and Basic Water Quality Treatment.
One detention vault is proposed to address a majority of the stormwater needs of the site while a
detention tank is proposed to address the stormwater that flows off of Road B and Tract B.
Following the detention facilities, the controlled stormwater will be conveyed to a StormFilter for
basic water quality treatment before discharging to an existing drainage system which drains to
May Creek. In existing condition there is an offsite basin that flows through the site. This area is
collected and routed through the developed site before being released through a dispersal trench
into the PSE easement. Please refer to Section 4.0 for detailed drainage calculations.
UPSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
The property is located on a hillside and bordered by Union Ave NE to the west, Sierra Heights
Elementary School to the South, two large lots to the east and north. Since the property is on the
hillside that falls south to north the only possible contributing basins come from the school
property and some undeveloped portion to the west of the school. The school property consists of
the main school building, a large parking lot, several out buildings and a large baseball and
playfield. The contributing area west of the school property is a forested area that continues west
to the Puget Sound Energy power easement.
The forested area west of the school property sheet flows on to the property as it flows down the
hill over the existing contours. Runoff from the elementary school playfield flows to one of the
four catchbasins located in relative low points at the edges of the fields as shown in the following
photos.
18396.003.TIR.doc
18396.003.TIR.doc
18396.003.TIR.doc
These drains flow back towards the main school area and connect with the catchbasins located in
the paved play area. These all flow towards a large drainage ditch on the northern border of the
school property, shown in the photos below.
18396.003.TIR.doc
Runoff within the ditch is conveyed out to catchbasins in Union Avenue. From here the runoff
continues to a 24-inch pipe that flows directly onto the site. The picture below shows the pipe
outlet flowing on to the site.
For further detail, please refer to Section 1.0, Figure 3 - Predeveloped Drainage Basin.
18396.003.TIR.doc
TASK 2 – RESOURCE REVIEW
Adopted Basin Plans: May Creek is drains to Lake Washington, part of the Cedar River-Lake
Washington Watershed.
Finalized Drainage Studies: This is not applicable.
Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report: This is not applicable.
Critical Drainage Area Maps: This project will discharge into a storm system that discharges to
May Creek, a Class 2 stream, in the Cedar River-Lake Washington Watershed. Prior to
discharge, stormwater shall be released matching historical forested conditions and treated via a
StormFilter. As a result, no critical areas are to be affected.
Floodplain and Floodway FEMA Maps: Please see the attached FEMA Map (Section 1.0) utilized
for this analysis. As indicated on the map, the site is located in Zone X and is outside of the 500-
year flood plain.
Other Off-Site Analysis Reports: A site investigation was conducted in preparation of this Level 1
Off-Site Drainage Analysis. The United States Department of Agriculture Soils Conservation
Service Map is also provided. See Figure 4 – Soils Map in Section 1.0.
Sensitive Areas Folios: This is not applicable
Road Drainage Problems: This is not applicable.
United States Department of Agriculture King County Soils Survey : Based on the Soils Map for
this area (see Figure 4 – Soils Map Section 1.0), the majority of the site is located in the soils
configuration known as Everett very gravelly sandy loam , with Alderwood gravelly sandy loam
filling in the edges.
Wetland Inventory Map: Using the King County iMAP applications, there is no known wetland on
this project site.
Migrating River Studies: This is not applicable.
18396.003.TIR.doc
TASK 3 – FIELD INSPECTION
Level 1 Off-site Drainage Analysis:
The field reconnaissance for an initial Level 1 Off -site Drainage Analysis was conducted on
November 28, 2017. On the day of the site visit, conditions were rainy and cool. The proposed
vault outfall will connect with the existing conveyance system at the intersection of Union Ave NE
and SE 95th Way. The existing conveyance system then outlets from a pipe to a hillside north of
SE 95th Way which eventually flows to meet Mays Creek at the base of the hill. The 1/4-mile
downstream flow path begins at this outlet point to Mays Creek. Stormwater flows out from an
open 24-inch pipe located several feet below SE 95th Way and travels directly down the hi llside
towards Mays Creek. The stormwater leaves the 24-inch pipe and follows the hillside through an
armored path down to Mays Creek. There were no discernable adverse erosion impacts seen at
the 24-inch outlet at the time of the site visit. We followed the Creek further along its flow path
until it was 1/4-mile away from the outlet pipe. The gradient of Mays Creek over this 1/4-mile
threshold is about 15 feet. There were no erosion control issues along the length of this portion of
Mays Creek. In our professional opinion, there will be no adverse impacts to the downstream
system as a result of this project.
3.1 Conveyance System Nuisance Problems (Type 1)
Conveyance system nuisance problems are minor but not chronic flooding or erosion problems
that result from the overflow of a constructed conveyance system that is substandard or has
become too small as a result of upstream development. Such problems warrant additional
attention because of their chronic nature and because they result from the failure of a
conveyance system to provide a minimum acceptable level of protection.
There were no conveyance system nuisance problems observed during the November 28, 2017
site visit. This site will match forested durations for 50 percent of the 2 -year through 50-year
peaks, and will provide adequate mitigation to prevent any future drainage complaints as a result
of this proposed site development.
3.2 Severe Erosion Problems (Type 2)
Severe erosion problems can be caused by conveyance system overflow or the concen tration of
runoff into erosion-sensitive open drainage features. Severe erosion problems warrant additional
attention because they pose a significant threat either to health and safety, or to public or private
property.
There are no defined drainage channels or ditches that leave the site. All runoff sheet flows from
South to North across the site where it is dispersed into the residential lots eventually flowing to
the conveyance systems on SE 95th Way to the north. The run off will be collected and conveyed
to a detention and water quality facility where it will then be discharged into an existing
conveyance system. This existing conveyance system outlets to an armored hillside where it then
flows down to meet with Mays Creek.
Based on our site visit, there was no evidence of, or potential for, erosion/incision sufficient to
pose a sedimentation hazard downstream within the limits of the study. Reviewing the King
County iMap for drainage complaints it appears that there are no drainage complaints along the
1/4-mile study area within the past 10-years.
18396.003.TIR.doc
TASK 4 – DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS
DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS (LEVEL 1)
The field reconnaissance for the Downstream Analysis was conducted on November 28, 2017. It
was during a m oderately heavy rainstorm. Around 3/4" of rain was estimated to fall at this time for
the City of Renton area. The site inspection began at the 24-inch pipe outfall beneath the
guardrail at SE 95th Way and then follows Mays Creek downstream for 1/4-mile. During the field
inspection there was no evidence of any erosion control issues or adverse flooding impacts, nor
are there any expected within Mays Creek as a result of this project.
A series of photographs and descriptions documenting the downstream syste m as part of this
analysis can be found below.
18396.003.TIR.doc
The above two photos show the 24-inch outlet pipe below the guardrail along SE 95th Way. The
outlet is located several feet below the existing roadway. There is a considerable amount of
vegetation around the outlet. At the time of the site visit there was no visible flow leaving the
outlet pipe.
Above is a photo taken from the 24-inch outlet pipe showing the downhill slope that flows down to
Mays Creek. The slope is heavily vegetated with a path of quarry spalls that leads from the outlet
pipe to protect the slope from erosion. The quarry spalls (pictured below) are scattered along the
hill but are generally concentrated along a flow path down the hillside.
18396.003.TIR.doc
Based on the observations made during this inves tigation, and the fact that the detention facilities
on site are providing Flow Control Duration Matching Forested Condition Areas and Basic Water
Quality treatment, its determined that this project will have no adverse effects on the downstream
system.
For visual reference of the downstream flow path covered in this Downstream Analysis, please
refer to Figure 8 – Downstream Basin Map located within this section of the report.
18396.003.TIR.doc
TASK 2 – RESOURCE REVIEW
Adopted Basin Plans: May Creek is drains to Lake Washington, part of the Cedar River-Lake
Washington Watershed.
Finalized Drainage Studies: This is not applicable.
Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report: This is not applicable.
Critical Drainage Area Maps: This project will discharge into a storm system that discharges to
May Creek, a Class 2 stream, in the Cedar River-Lake Washington Watershed. Prior to
discharge, stormwater shall be released matching historical forested conditions and treated via a
StormFilter. As a result, no critical areas are to be affected.
Floodplain and Floodway FEMA Maps: Please see the attached FEMA Map (Section 1.0) utilized
for this analysis. As indicated on the map, the site is located in Zone X and is outside of the 500-
year flood plain.
Other Off-Site Analysis Reports: A site investigation was conducted in preparation of this Level 1
Off-Site Drainage Analysis. The United States Department of Agriculture Soils Conservation
Service Map is also provided. See Figure 4 – Soils Map in Section 1.0.
Sensitive Areas Folios: This is not applicable
Road Drainage Problems: This is not applicable.
United States Department of Agriculture King County Soils Survey: Based on the Soils Map for
this area (see Figure 4 – Soils Map Section 1.0), the majority of the site is located in the soils
configuration known as Everett very gravelly sandy loam, with Alderwood gravelly sandy loam
filling in the edges.
Wetland Inventory Map: Using the King County iMAP applications, there is no known wetland on
this project site.
Migrating River Studies: This is not applicable.
18396.003.TIR.doc
TASK 3 – FIELD INSPECTION
Level 1 Off-site Drainage Analysis:
The field reconnaissance for an initial Level 1 Off-site Drainage Analysis was conducted on
November 28, 2017. On the day of the site visit, conditions were rainy and cool. The proposed
vault outfall will connect with the existing conveyance system at the intersection of Union Ave NE
and SE 95th Way. The existing conveyance system then outlets from a pipe to a hillside north of
SE 95th Way which eventually flows to meet Mays Creek at the base of the hill. The 1/4-mile
downstream flow path begins at this outlet point to Mays Creek. Stormwater flows out from an
open 24-inch pipe located several feet below SE 95th Way and travels directly down the hillside
towards Mays Creek. The stormwater leaves the 24-inch pipe and follows the hillside through an
armored path down to Mays Creek. There were no discernable adverse erosion impacts seen at
the 24-inch outlet at the time of the site visit. We followed the Creek further along its flow path
until it was 1/4-mile away from the outlet pipe. The gradient of Mays Creek over this 1/4-mile
threshold is about 15 feet. There were no erosion control issues along the length of this portion of
Mays Creek. In our professional opinion, there will be no adverse impacts to the downstream
system as a result of this project.
3.1 Conveyance System Nuisance Problems (Type 1)
Conveyance system nuisance problems are minor but not chronic flooding or erosion problems
that result from the overflow of a constructed conveyance system that is substandard or has
become too small as a result of upstream development. Such problems warrant additional
attention because of their chronic nature and because they result from the failure of a
conveyance system to provide a minimum acceptable level of protection.
There were no conveyance system nuisance problems observed during the November 28, 2017
site visit. This site will match forested durations for 50 percent of the 2-year through 50-year
peaks, and will provide adequate mitigation to prevent any future drainage complaints as a result
of this proposed site development.
3.2 Severe Erosion Problems (Type 2)
Severe erosion problems can be caused by conveyance system overflow or the concentration of
runoff into erosion-sensitive open drainage features. Severe erosion problems warrant additional
attention because they pose a significant threat either to health and safety, or to public or private
property.
There are no defined drainage channels or ditches that leave the site. All runoff sheet flows from
South to North across the site where it is dispersed into the residential lots eventually flowing to
the conveyance systems on SE 95th Way to the north. The run off will be collected and conveyed
to a detention and water quality facility where it will then be discharged into an existing
conveyance system. This existing conveyance system outlets to an armored hillside where it then
flows down to meet with Mays Creek.
Based on our site visit, there was no evidence of, or potential for, erosion/incision sufficient to
pose a sedimentation hazard downstream within the limits of the study. Reviewing the King
County iMap for drainage complaints it appears that there are no drainage complaints along the
1/4-mile study area within the past 10-years.
18396.003.TIR.doc
TASK 4 – DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS
DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS (LEVEL 1)
The field reconnaissance for the Downstream Analysis was conducted on November 28, 2017. It
was during a moderately heavy rainstorm. Around 3/4" of rain was estimated to fall at this time for
the City of Renton area. The site inspection began at the 24-inch pipe outfall beneath the
guardrail at SE 95th Way and then follows Mays Creek downstream for 1/4-mile. During the field
inspection there was no evidence of any erosion control issues or adverse flooding impacts, nor
are there any expected within Mays Creek as a result of this project.
A series of photographs and descriptions documenting the downstream system as part of this
analysis can be found below.
18396.003.TIR.doc
The above two photos show the 24-inch outlet pipe below the guardrail along SE 95th Way. The
outlet is located several feet below the existing roadway. There is a considerable amount of
vegetation around the outlet. At the time of the site visit there was no visible flow leaving the
outlet pipe.
Above is a photo taken from the 24-inch outlet pipe showing the downhill slope that flows down to
Mays Creek. The slope is heavily vegetated with a path of quarry spalls that leads from the outlet
pipe to protect the slope from erosion. The quarry spalls (pictured below) are scattered along the
hill but are generally concentrated along a flow path down the hillside.
18396.003.TIR.doc
Based on the observations made during this investigation, and the fact that the detention facilities
on site are providing Flow Control Duration Matching Forested Condition Areas and Basic Water
Quality treatment, its determined that this project will have no adverse effects on the downstream
system.
For visual reference of the downstream flow path covered in this Downstream Analysis, please
refer to Figure 8 – Downstream Basin Map located within this section of the report.
Tab 4.0
18396.003.TIR.doc
4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
This section contains the following information:
4.1 Existing Site Hydrology
4.2 Developed Site Hydrology
4.3 Performance Standards
4.4 Flow Control System
4.5 Water Quality System
18396.003.TIR.doc
4.1 Existing Site Hydrology
The project site is located on the forested hillside West of Union Ave NE and South of Sierra
Heights Elementary School. A 100' PSE Easement bisects the property on the western portion of
the site. Stormwater generally lands on the site and flows from the South to the North down the
hillside and onto the abutting southern properties. There is a catch basin along Union Ave NE in the
Southeast corner of the site that drains stormwater from the School to the south onto the site. This
forms a small creek that flows down the hill and disperses across the site. The proposed detention
systems will be used to mitigate all the stormwater on site and discharge it downstream on Union
Ave NE. For the purposes of modeling, the existing basin area will be modeled as till forest with
moderate slope totaling 13.84 acres.
18396.003.TIR.doc
4.2 Developed Site Hydrology
When completed the Forest Terrace development will result in 25 new single-family homes. New
impervious surfaces will include roadways, sidewalks, driveways, and roof areas. The project will
be providing landscaped pervious areas, drainage facilities, and tree retention areas. The offsite
stormwater that drains onto the site will be routed around the site down Union Ave NE and will
connect back with the outfall catch basin. Due to the relative onsite elevations the stormwater will
be sent to one of two detention systems located on site.
Stormwater generated by Road B in the center of the site will be routed to a detention tank in
Tract B. A conveyance system consisting of catch basins and storm pipes will be constructed to
collect drainage from the road and route it to the detention tank.
The remaining stormwater generated by the lots and remaining roads will be routed to a detention
vault located in Tract A. A conveyance system consisting of catch basins and storm pipes will be
constructed on the roadways to collect drainage from impervious areas and lots. All rooftop areas
are to be routed to the front of the lots and tight lined to the stormwater conveyance system. The
proposed detention vault has been sized for Conservation Flow Control Areas to mitigate
potential downstream erosion hazards. The detention vault will flow to a control structure that will
match the predeveloped discharge rates from 50 percent of the 2-year peak flow and up to the full
50-year peak flow.
There is an upstream contributing basin located offsite south and east of the project. This area
flow onsite and generally collects into a drain in the eastern portion of the site. A catchbasin with
a birdcage grate is positioned to collect the runoff from this basin area and route it to the northern
border of the site. There the runoff is dispersed through a dispersal trench to continue flowing
down the hill minimizing the existing condition.
Water quality will be provided for the entire site though a single StormFilter located downstream
of the detention tank and detention vault. Please refer to section 4.5 for further detail regarding
water quality treatment details and sizing information.
This project will be implementing BMP's for individual lots and plat infrastructure improvements in
order to satisfy Core Requirement #9. Due to the poor infiltration capacity of onsite soils the
proposed detention facilities were sized assuming no treatment credit from these BMP's. As there
is no treatment credit assigned to the Individual lot BMP's, further discussion of the type of BMP
and their implementation will be addressed with the acquisition of the Building Permits.
The plat infrastructure BMP's will address runoff from roads and sidewalks within the Right-of-
Way. Due to the size of the proposed roads and sidewalk system, the relative elevation difference
onsite and the lack of viable undeveloped land, full dispersion was deemed not feasible for this
site. Both limited and full infiltration methods were also deemed infeasible per the results of the
geotechnical report, which is included in Section 6.1 of this TIR. Therefore, Bioretention facilities
will be proposed wherever possible in the planters along onsite road systems. Road B slopes
down at 15 percent in order to meet existing grade and therefore cannot support any Bioretention
facility which requires slopes at 8 percent or less. Road A has maximum road slopes of 6 percent
in some areas and can thus support the gentle slopes required for Bioretention swales. The
Bioretention swales will be proposed for wherever they can fit between driveways, street tree,
streetlights, and fire hydrants proposed within the planter. Each swale will receive runoff from
Road A through curb breaks and overflow will be drained into a catch basin which will route
stormwater to the site detention facility.
In addition to these Bioretention BMP's, all lots will provide perforated stub out connections when
tight lined to the proposed stormwater conveyance s ystem.
TPN:0423059114TPN:0423059142TPN:0423059069TPN:0423059002TPN:0423059314TPN:0423059234UNION AVE NE TPN:3345100511TPN:3345100510TPN:3345100460TPN:3345100450TPN:37788000070FOREST TERRACE FOREST TERRACE
18396.003.TIR.doc
The basin areas that are tributary to the detention tank and detention vault are as follows:
Detention Vault
Impervious Pervious Total Area
5.35 Ac(1) 8.49 Ac(2) 13.84 Ac
Notes:
1. Roads and Sidewalks = 2.14 Ac
Lot Area @ 55% impervious = 3.21 Ac
2. Modeled as till grass = 8.49 Ac
Detention Tank
Impervious Pervious Total Area
0.19 Ac(1) 0.00 Ac(2) 0.19 Ac
Notes:
3. Roads and Sidewalks = 0.19 Ac
4. There is no contributing pervious area
For detention tank and detention pond WWHM2012 design calculations please refer to section
4.4. For Water Quality facility sizing information, please see section 4.5.
18396.003.TIR.doc
4.3 Performance Standards
Within the property the on-site soils are entirely till soils. A geotechnical analysis revealed that the
delineated basin is unsuitable for infiltration. Please refer to the Geotechnical Report for
Vandermay by Terra Associates, Inc. dated July 19, 2017. The WWHM2012 program was used
to size the detention facilities. The detention facilities were sized for Conservation Flow Control
based on the requirements of the 2017 RSWDM. Please see the WWHM2012 calculations
located in Section 4.4 (Flow Control System) of this report.
Per Core requirement #9 this project will be providing BMP’s for individual lots and on-site roads.
The proposed BMP's will not be used for any sizing or treatment credits for the detention or water
quality facilities proposed. The proposed detention and water quality facilities have been sized for
the full site.
This project is required to provide Basic Water Quality and will do so via a StormFilter designed
following the 2017 RSWDM. See Section 4.5 (Water Quality System) for more detail.
18396.003.TIR.doc
4.4 Flow Control System
Flow control is provided by a Detention Vault that was sized to take in the storm water from all the
onsite lots, all of Road A, the frontage area and Tracts A and F. The Detention Tanks were sized
to take in the storm water runoff from Road B. WWHM2012 was used to size the detention
facilities. Please refer to the WWHM2012 computations included within this section of the report.
The required and provided volumes for the Detention Vault and Detention Tanks are as follows:
Tract A - Detention Vault Volume
Required Provided
191,353 CF 201,000 CF
Tract B - Detention Tank Volume
Required Provided
4,356 CF 4,378 CF
The control structure and riser within the Detention Vault have been sized to overtop the 100-year
unmitigated release rate of 8.93 CFS should the control structure's orifices become plugged or
fail.
Peak design flows for the predeveloped, developed and mitigated developed site area as follows:
Detention Vault - Design Flow Rates (CFS)
Peak Flows Predeveloped Developed Mitigated
Developed
2-year 0.57 3.45 0.30
10-year 1.29 5.68 0.78
100-year 2.56 8.92 1.84
Detention Tanks - Design Flow Rates (CFS)
Peak Flows Predeveloped Developed Mitigated
Developed
2-year 0.008 0.1 0.004
10-year 0.017 0.15 0.01
100-year 0.035 0.21 0.03
18396.003.TIR.doc
4.5 Water Quality System
Water Quality Facilities proposed for the project will be sized in accordance with the 2017
RSWDM for providing Basic Water Quality Treatment. A single water quality facility is being
proposed and is located within Tract A. Basic water quality will be provided with a StormFilter.
StormFilter has been approved for Basin Water Quality through Washington State Department of
Ecology GULD. The StormFilter will be installed directly downstream of the Detention Vault and
Detention Tank. Per the RSWDM the StormFilter has been sized to treat the combined 2-year
release rate from the Detention Vault (0.23 CFS) and Detention Tank (0.004 CFS) of 0.24 CFS.
The StormFilter vault is fitted with a weir to bypass the flows higher than the 2-year flows up to
the unmitigated 100-year release rate of 7.25 CFS. The basin breakdown is as follows:
Detention Vault
Impervious Pervious Total Area
5.32 Ac(1) 5.13 Ac(2) 10.45 Ac
Notes:
1. Roads and Sidewalks = 2.14 Ac
Lot Area @ 55% impervious = 3.18 Ac
2. Modeled as till grass = 5.13 Ac
Detention Tank
Impervious Pervious Total Area
0.19 Ac(1) 0.00 Ac(2) 0.19 Ac
Notes:
3. Roads and Sidewalks = 0.19 Ac
4. There is no contributing pervious area
The GULD sizing information for StormFilter has been included within this section. Detailed
sizing of the StormFilter will be provided during final engineering. Alternative methods of providing
water quality may also be utilized during final engineering if accepted by the City.
Tab 5.0
18396.003.TIR.doc
5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
The on-site conveyance system will be designed in accordance with the 2017 RSWDM. The
proposed conveyance system for this project is curb, gutter, catch basins, and storm drainage
pipe. The storm drainage pipe used will consist of smooth-walled corrugated polyethylene pipe
with a Manning's roughness coefficient of 0.014.
100-year conveyance calculations for the pipes will be completed using the rational method. The
design intent of the conveyance system is to fully accommodate the 100-year storm event flowing
at full condition. Conveyance calculations will be provided during final engineering.
Tab 6.0
18396.003.TIR.doc
6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES
6.1 Geotechnical Report for Vandermay prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. dated July 19, 2017
6.2 Arborist Report by Tree Solutions, Inc. dated December 15, 2017
SITE
Environmental Earth Sciences
Terra
Associates, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and Figure 1
VICINITY MAP
0 2000 4000
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
Proj.No. T-7677 Date: JULY 2017
RENTON, WASHINGTON
VANDERMAY
TP-1TP-2TP-3TP-4TP-5TP-6TP-7TP-8TP-9TP-10TP-11TP-12TP-13TP-14TP-15TP-16TP-17TP-18REFERENCE:REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FORDESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. IT IS INTENDED FORNOTE:THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHEMATIC. ALL LOCATIONS ANDConsultants in Geotechnical EngineeringTerraAssociates, Inc.Geology andEnvironmental Earth SciencesEXPLORATION LOCATION PLANFigure 2LEGEND:0100200APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEETSITE PLAN PROVIDED BY BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS.APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATIONProj.No. T-7677Date: JULY 2017RENTON, WASHINGTONVANDERMAY
Proj.No. T-7677 Date: JULY 2017
RENTON, WASHINGTON
VANDERMAY
Environmental Earth Sciences
Terra
Associates, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
TYPICAL SLOPE KEY AND BENCH DETAIL
Figure 3
NOT TO SCALE
6' (MIN.)
2
1
EXISTING
SLOPE TOE
NOTES:
1)STRUCTURAL FILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 95%
OF ASTM D 698 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY VALUE.
TOE OF NEW
FILL EMBANKMENT
KEYWAY
6' (MIN.)
2' (MIN.)
1
1
STRUCTURAL FILL
(SEE NOTE 1)
TYPICAL SLOPE BENCH
CLEARED AND STRIPPED
NATIVE GROUND
1
1
2)DRAINS SHALL CONSIST OF 6" DIA. PERFORATED PVC PIPE ENVELOPED
IN 1 cu ft OF 3/4" WASHED GRAVEL. DRAIN PIPE SHALL BE DIRECTED TO
KEYWAY DRAIN
(SEE NOTE 2)
THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM OR APPROVED POINT OF DISCHARGE.
(SEE NOTE 3)
3)ADDITIONAL BENCHES AND BENCH DRAINS MAY BE REQUIRED
BASED ON FIELD EVALUATION BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
12"
COMPACTED
STRUCTURAL FILL
EXCAVATED SLOPE
(SEE REPORT TEXT
FOR APPROPRIATE
INCLINATIONS)
SLOPE TO DRAIN
12" MINIMUM 3/4"
MINUS WASHED
GRAVEL
3" BELOW PIPE
12" OVER PIPE
4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE
SEE NOTE
6"(MIN.)
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE:
MIRADRAIN G100N PREFABRICATED DRAINAGE PANELS OR SIMILAR
PRODUCT CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE 12-INCH WIDE GRAVEL
DRAIN BEHIND WALL. DRAINAGE PANELS SHOULD EXTEND A MINIMUM
OF SIX INCHES INTO 12-INCH THICK DRAINAGE GRAVEL LAYER
OVER PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE.
Environmental Earth Sciences
Terra
Associates, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
TYPICAL WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
Figure 4Proj.No. T-7677 Date: JULY 2017
RENTON, WASHINGTON
VANDERMAY
Environmental Earth Sciences
Terra
Associates, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER
SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
GRAVELS
More than 50%
of coarse fraction
is larger than No.
4 sieve
Clean
Gravels (less
than 5%
fines)
GW Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines.
GP Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines.
Gravels with
fines
GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines.
GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines.
SANDS
More than 50%
of coarse fraction
is smaller than
No. 4 sieve
Clean Sands
(less than
5% fines)
SW Well-graded sands, sands with gravel, little or no fines.
SP Poorly-graded sands, sands with gravel, little or no fines.
Sands with
fines
SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines.
SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines.
SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid Limit is less than 50%
ML Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey silts with slight plasticity.
CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity. (Lean clay)
OL Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity.
SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid Limit is greater than 50%
MH Inorganic silts, elastic.
CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity. (Fat clay)
OH Organic clays of high plasticity.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat.COARSE GRAINED SOILSMore than 50% material largerthan No. 200 sieve sizeFINE GRAINED SOILSMore than 50% material smallerthan No. 200 sieve sizeDEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS
COHESIONLESSCOHESIVE Standard Penetration
Density Resistance in Blows/Foot
Very Loose 0-4
Loose 4-10
Medium Dense 10-30
Dense 30-50
Very Dense >50
Standard Penetration
Consistancy Resistance in Blows/Foot
Very Soft 0-2
Soft 2-4
Medium Stiff 4-8
Stiff 8-16
Very Stiff 16-32
Hard >32
2" OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPILT SPOON SAMPLER
2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER OR
SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER
WATER LEVEL (Date)
Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf
Pp PENETROMETER READING, tsf
DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot
LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent
PI PLASTIC INDEX
N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Figure A-1Proj.No. T-7677 Date: JULY 2017
RENTON, WASHINGTON
VANDERMAY
2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670
www.tr ee solut ion s. net
Project No. TS - 5487
Arborist Report
TO: Pulte Group, Kyle Lublin
SITE: Forest Terrace - 2611 Union Ave NE, Renton, WA 98059
RE: Tree Inventory & Assessment
DATE: December 15, 2017
PROJECT ARBORISTS: Katie Hogan
ISA Certified Arborist #PN-8078A
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Katherine Taylor
ISA Certified Arborist #PN-8022A
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
ATTACHED: Table of Trees; Preliminary Grading Plan: Sheet 7
Summary
One-thousand and twenty-four (1024) significant trees were inventoried and assessed at the above-
addressed site; thirty-three (33) of which meet Landmark status. The city of Renton defines a significant
tree as any tree six (6) inches or greater in diameter at standard height (DSH), except red alder (Alnus
rubra) and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) which must be eight (8) inches or greater. A
Landmark tree is defined as any tree thirty (30) inches DSH or greater.
Twenty-seven (27) trees addressed in this report were not inventoried and assessed by Tree Solutions,
Inc. These trees were collected by the land surveyor after the initial tree inventory. Thirty-two (32) trees
were also assessed that are adjacent to the property and have canopies overhanging the project site.
The site is 584,380 square feet (13.4 acres) and is located in an R-4 Zone within the city of Renton. Based
on the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4.4.130, land development in R-4 Zoning is required to retain
thirty (30) percent of viable significant trees on site.
Thirty-nine (39) trees were determined to be potentially nonviable due to being in poor health and/or
structural condition. These trees were not included in the tree retention and replacement calculations
for this project but should be retained if they are in forest settings and do not present risk to the
surrounding area.
One-hundred and thirty-eight (138) trees are proposed for removal as part of a right-of-way (ROW)
improvement requirement requested by the City. Trees removed within areas of mandatory ROW
improvements do not require replacement.
Arborist Report - Pulte Group – Forest Ridge
12.15.2017 page 2 of 12
2940 Westlake Ave. N #200 · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670
www.tr ee solut ion s. net
After considering nonviable and ROW trees, the total number of viable site trees within the project area
is eight-hundred and forty-seven (847) trees. Currently, one-hundred and nineteen (119) trees are
proposed for retention which is below the 30 percent requirement for this site.
The majority of the trees proposed for retention are along the southern property boundary. Based on
the proposed plans, a large grove of trees will be preserved south of the slated development. When
considering tree retention, the likelihood of windthrow following adjacent tree removals should be
evaluated. Following tree removal, trees that were previously sheltered within a grove can become
more prone to whole tree failure. Trees that will be the new forest edge should be healthy trees with
good structure and large canopies.
Furthermore, there are several trees proposed for retention where the limits of grading encroaches
slightly within the tree protection area (drip line radius). These trees should be individually evaluated by
the project arborist to determine if the proposed grading activities will impact the long-term viability of
the tree. Tree viability is highly site specific and often depends on soil depth, root characteristics, and
species tolerance to disturbances. All construction activities that will occur with the drip line for
protected trees will be monitored by the project arborist.
When the minimum tree retention is not met, the City may require that protected trees be replaced at a
rate of twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees for each tree removed beyond the minimum requirement
(RMC 4.4.130). Replacement trees must have a minimum caliper size of two (2) inches diameter;
effectively resulting in six (6) new replacement trees for each tree removed on site. Up to fifty (50)
percent of the landscape trees required per RMC 4.4.070 may contribute to replacement trees on site.
Alternatively, if the tree replacement requirements cannot be satisfied on the site due to spatial
constraints, the City may allow payment in-lieu to the City’s Urban Forestry fund. The payment amount
shall be determined by the City.
Based on the current site plans, six-hundred and eighty-two (682) trees are required to replace trees
removed from the project area. This number includes the landscape tree allowance described above.
All trees proposed for retention should have tree protection measures implemented pursuant to the
RMC 4.4.130. This includes the protection of trees adjacent to the site that have drip lines (canopies)
overlapping the development site. Trees should be preserved in continuous groves wherever feasible to
preserve healthy soil conditions.
Arborist Report - Pulte Group – Forest Ridge
12.15.2017 page 3 of 12
2940 Westlake Ave. N #200 · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670
www.tr ee solut ion s. net
Assignment & Scope of Report
This report outlines the site inspection by Tree Solutions Inc. in July of 2016. We were asked to visit the
site and inventory the significant trees on site. We were asked to produce an Arborist Report
documenting our findings and recommendations. Kyle Lublin, of Pulte Group, requested these services
to determine project feasibility.
Specifics for each tree can be found in the attached Table of Trees. A Preliminary Grading Plan is also
attached. An aerial view of the site is included in Figure 2. Photographs, a glossary and list of references
follow the report. Limits of assignment can be found in Appendix A. Methods can be found in Appendix
B. Assumptions and limiting conditions can be found in Appendix C.
Observations
The Site and History
The 584,380 square foot (13.4 acre) site is heavily forested. One single-family house exists in the
southeast corner of the property and a utility corridor with high voltage powerlines run from north to
south near the western property edge.
The Trees
The trees species composition consists mostly of native trees including western redcedar (Thuja plicata),
Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), black cottonwood (Populus
trichocarpa), bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata), and red alder (Alnus rubra).
The majority of the trees assessed were found to be in good to fair health and structural condition. We
identified 39 trees that were in poor condition due to health or structural issues.
Adjacent Trees
Thirty-two trees adjacent to the subject site were assessed due to having canopies that overlap property
lines. Most of these trees appeared to be in good condition. We noted several clusters of trees adjacent
to the property. These trees were found on all sides of the site, primarily along the south and north
property lines.
Discussion
Tree Protection
Denser forests that do not have multiple tiers of vegetation at varying heights typically include trees
with low live crown ratios and smaller crowns overall. Smaller crown size to overall height can reduce
the ability of a tree to dampen forces which can in turn increase susceptibility to windthrow.
When considering development for this site, trees that are more open grown with higher live crown
ratios are more likely to tolerate new exposure that results from adjacent tree removals. This should be
taken into consideration when determining whether a tree would have a safe and useful life expectancy
after development has occurred.
Arborist Report - Pulte Group – Forest Ridge
12.15.2017 page 4 of 12
2940 Westlake Ave. N #200 · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670
www.tr ee solut ion s. net
Wherever possible, clusters of trees should be preserved rather than individual trees. Isolated trees that
are desired to be retained should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they
would be predisposed to windthrow.
Twelve trees are located at the edge of proposed grading activities; trees 36, 78, 202, 252, 253, 254,
255, 262, 284, 305, 817, and 925. Slight encroachment within the drip line area of these trees may be
feasible if careful tree protection measures are implemented. All work within the canopy areas of these
trees should be monitored by the project arborist.
For trees that are to be retained, tree protection measures should be implemented to ensure viability.
This includes the installation of protection fencing where no disturbance is to occur. Heavy materials or
equipment should not be stored within tree protection areas to avoid soil compaction. Additional tree
protection measures as outlined in the Renton Municipal Code are included below.
Tree Replacement
In order to satisfy development standards outlined in the RMC 4.4.130, 30 percent of viable trees on site
are required for retention. If this requirement is not met due to site constraints, the City may require
that protected trees be replaced at a rate of twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees for each tree
removed beyond the minimum requirement (RMC 4.4.130). Replacement trees must have a minimum
caliper size of two (2) inches diameter; effectively resulting in six (6) new replacement trees for each
tree removed on site. Fifty (50) percent of the landscape trees required per RMC 4.4.070 may contribute
to replacement trees on site.
The City may also allow payment in-lieu to the City’s Urban Forestry fund. The value of each tree is
determined by the City and approximates the current market value of the replacement trees. Approval
from the City is required prior to using this alternative.
Based on the current site plans, six-hundred and eighty-two (682) trees are required to replace trees
removed from the project area. This number includes the landscape tree allowance described above.
Specific details regarding these calculations is shown below in Figure 1.
Arborist Report - Pulte Group – Forest Ridge
12.15.2017 page 5 of 12
2940 Westlake Ave. N #200 · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670
www.tr ee solut ion s. net
Figure 1. Replacement Tree Table
Total Viable Site Trees 847
30 % Retention Trees 254
Proposed Retained Trees 119
Trees Requiring Replacement 135
Replacement Trees 811
Proposed Landscape Trees 254
50 % Landscape Tree
Allowance
129
Total Replacement Trees
Required
682
Significant trees are to be replaced at a 6:1 ratio. This ratio was calculated by dividing the required caliper inches
(12) of new trees for each tree removed by the minimum caliper size required for all new trees (2).
Replacement Tree Calculations
30 Percent Tree Retention Requirement: 847 x 0.30 = 254 trees
Remaining Trees Requiring Replacement: 254 – 119 = 135 trees
Replacement Trees Required: 135 x (12/2) = 811 trees*
*rounded up from 810.6
Landscape Tree Allowance (RMC 4.4.070): 254 x 0.5 = 129 trees*
*rounded up from 128.5
Replacement Trees Required after Landscape Tree Allowance: 811 – 129 = 682 replacement trees
Recommendations
• Retain clusters of healthy trees wherever feasible to decrease chance of windthrow and
preserve healthy soil conditions.
• Retain mature, healthy conifers and their native understory species where possible.
• Maintain trees free of invasive species, and carefully remove invasive plants on the ground
wherever possible.
• Leave trees as wildlife snags wherever possible.
• Tree protection areas should be established prior to the commencement of site work activities,
and maintained throughout all phases of development until completion. See Protection
Measures During Construction RMC 4.4.130 below for more details.
o Project arborist shall be on site monitoring any ground disturbance work within the drip
line of protected trees.
• Obtain all necessary permits prior to any site work commencement.
Arborist Report - Pulte Group – Forest Ridge
12.15.2017 page 6 of 12
2940 Westlake Ave. N #200 · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670
www.tr ee solut ion s. net
Protection Measures During Construction (RMC 4.4.130)
a. Construction Storage Prohibited: The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment,
dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or
compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained.
b. Fenced Protection Area Required: Prior to development activities, the applicant shall erect and
maintain six-foot (6') high chain link temporary construction fencing around the drip lines of all retained
trees or at a distance surrounding the tree equal to one and one-quarter feet (1-1/4') for every one inch
(1") of trunk caliper, whichever is greater, or along the perimeter of a tree protection tract. Placards
shall be placed on fencing every fifty feet (50') indicating the words, “NO TRESPASSING – Protected
Trees,” or on each side of the fencing if less than fifty feet (50'). Site access to individually protected
trees or groups of trees shall be fenced and signed. Individual trees shall be fenced on four (4) sides. In
addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near trees.
c. Protection from Grade Changes: If the grade level adjoining to a tree to be retained is to be raised,
the applicant shall construct a dry rock wall or rock well around the tree. The diameter of this wall or
well must be equal to the tree’s drip line.
d. Impervious Surfaces Prohibited within the Drip Line: The applicant may not install impervious
surface material within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained.
e. Restrictions on Grading within the Drip Lines of Retained Trees: The grade level around any tree to
be retained may not be lowered within the greater of the following areas: (i) the area defined by the
drip line of the tree, or (ii) an area around the tree equal to one and one-half feet (1-1/2') in diameter
for each one inch (1") of tree caliper. A larger tree protection zone based on tree size, species, soil, or
other conditions may be required. (Ord. 5676, 12-3-2012)
f. Mulch Layer Required: All areas within the required fencing shall be covered completely and evenly
with a minimum of three inches (3") of bark mulch prior to installation of the protective fencing.
Exceptions may be approved if the mulch will adversely affect protected ground cover plants. (Ord.
5676, 12-3-2012)
g. Monitoring Required during Construction: The applicant shall retain a certified arborist or licensed
landscape architect to ensure trees are protected from development activities and/or to prune branches
and roots, fertilize, and water as appropriate for any trees and ground cover that are to be retained.
h. Alternative Protection: Alternative safeguards may be used if determined to provide equal or greater
tree protection. (Ord. 5676, 12-3-2012; Ord. 5841, 6-12-2017)
Arborist Report - Pulte Group – Forest Ridge
12.15.2017 page 7 of 12
2940 Westlake Ave. N #200 · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670
www.tr ee solut ion s. net
Site Map
Figure 2. Aerial photograph of the subject site. Source: King County iMap, accessed 12.15.2017.
Photographs
Photo 1. View from the school parking lot toward the south property boundary. Photo shows typical forest density
and species composition.
Arborist Report - Pulte Group – Forest Ridge
12.15.2017 page 8 of 12
2940 Westlake Ave. N #200 · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670
www.tr ee solut ion s. net
Glossary
chlorotic: foliage with whitish or yellowish discoloration caused by lack of chlorophyll
codominant stems: stems or branches of nearly equal diameter, often weakly attached (Matheny et al.
1998)
cracks: defects in trees that, if severe, may pose a risk of tree or branch failure (Lilly 2001)
crown: the aboveground portions of a tree (Lilly 2001)
crown cleaning: selective pruning to remove one or more of the following parts: dead, diseased, and/or
broken branches (ANSI A300)
DBH or DSH: diameter at breast or standard height; the diameter of the trunk measured 54 inches (4.5
feet) above grade (Matheny et al. 1998)
deciduous: tree or other plant that loses its leaves sometime during the year and stays leafless
generally during the cold season (Lilly 2001)
epicormic: arising from latent or adventitious buds (Lilly 2001)
evergreen: tree or plant that keeps its needles or leaves year round; this means for more than one
growing season (Lilly 2001)
ISA: International Society of Arboriculture
included bark: bark that becomes embedded in a crotch between branch and trunk or between
codominant stems and causes a weak structure (Lilly 2001)
lateral: secondary or subordinate branch (Lilly 2001)
level(s) of assessment: categorization of the breadth and depth of analysis used in an assessment (ISA
2013)
mitigation: process of reducing damages or risk (Lilly 2001)
moment: a turning, bending, or twisting force exerted by a lever, defined as the force (acting
perpendicular to the lever) multiplied by the length of the lever (ISA 2013)
monitoring: keeping a close watch; performing regular checks or inspections (Lilly 2001)
owner/manager: the person or entity responsible for tree management or the controlling authority
that regulates tree management (ISA 2013)
pathogen: causal agent of disease (Lilly 2001)
phototropic growth: growth toward light source or stimulant ( Harris et al.1999)
retain and monitor: the recommendation to keep a tree and conduct follow-up assessments after a
stated inspection interval (ISA 2013)
significant size: a tree measuring 6” DSH or greater, with the exception of alder or cottonwood trees
which must be 8” or greater
snag: a tree left partially standing for the primary purpose of providing habitat for wildlife
structural defects: flaws, decay, or other faults in the trunk, branches, or root collar of a tree,
whichmay lead to failure (Lilly 2001)
Visual Tree Assessment (VTA): method of evaluating structural defects and stability in trees by noting
the pattern of growth. Developed by Claus Mattheck (Harris, et al 1999)
Arborist Report - Pulte Group – Forest Ridge
12.15.2017 page 9 of 12
2940 Westlake Ave. N #200 · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670
www.tr ee solut ion s. net
References
ANSI A300 (Part 1) – 2008 American National Standards Institute. American National Standard for Tree
Care Operations: Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Maintenance: Standard Practices (Pruning).
New York: Tree Care Industry Association, 2008.
Dunster & Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd. Assessing Trees in Urban Areas and the Urban-
Rural Interface, US Release 1.0. Silverton: Pacific Northwest Chapter ISA, 2006
Lilly, Sharon. Arborists’ Certification Study Guide. Champaign, IL: The International Society of
Arboriculture, 2001.
Matheny, Nelda and James R. Clark. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees
During Land Development. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 1998.
Mattheck, Claus and Helge Breloer, The Body Language of Trees.: A Handbook for Failure Analysis.
London: HMSO, 1994.
Arborist Report - Pulte Group – Forest Ridge
12.15.2017 page 10 of 12
2940 Westlake Ave. N #200 · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670
www.tr ee solut ion s. net
Appendix A - Limits of Assignment
Unless stated otherwise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those trees that were
examined and reflects the condition of those trees at the time of inspection; and 2) the inspection is
limited to visual examination of the subject trees without dissection, excavation, probing, climbing, or
coring unless explicitly specified. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that
problems or deficiencies of the subject trees may not arise in the future.
Tree Solutions did not review any reports or perform any tests related to the soil located on the subject
property unless outlined in the scope of services. Tree Solutions staff are not and do not claim to be
soils experts. An independent inventory and evaluation of the site’s soil should be obtained by a
qualified professional if an additional understanding of the site’s characteristics is needed to make an
informed decision.
A Hazard Tree is defined as a tree that has been assessed and determined to have characteristics that
make it an unacceptable risk for continued retention. A hazard tree, or a hazardous component, exist
when the sum of the risk factors equals or exceeds a predetermined threshold of risk. The
predetermined threshold for risk and the actions required to reduce the risk below that threshold is
established by the risk manager.
As a Qualified Tree Risk Assessor, my job is to provide the risk manager, in most cases the property
owner, with technical information required to make informed decisions. The risk manager must make
the decision about how to implement the actions required to reduce risk to acceptable levels.
Arborist Report - Pulte Group – Forest Ridge
12.15.2017 page 11 of 12
2940 Westlake Ave. N #200 · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670
www.tr ee solut ion s. net
Appendix B - Methods
We evaluated tree health and structure utilizing visual tree assessment (VTA) methods. The basis behind
VTA is the identification of symptoms, which the tree produces in reaction to a weak spot or area of
mechanical stress. A tree reacts to mechanical and physiological stresses by growing more vigorously to
reinforce weak areas, while depriving less stressed parts (Mattheck & Breloer 1994). An understanding
of the uniform stress allows us to make informed judgments about the condition of a tree.
We measured the diameter at standard height (DSH) of each tree, typically at 54 inches above grade.
If a tree had multiple stems, we measured each stem individually at standard height and determined a
single-stem equivalent diameter by using the method outlined in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th
Edition.
Tree health considers crown indicators including foliar density, size, color, stem shoot extensions, decay,
and damage. We have adapted our ratings based on the Purdue University Extension Formula Values for
health condition. These values are a general representation used to assist in arborists in assigning ratings.
Tree health needs to be evaluated on an individual basis and may not always fall entirely into a single
category, however, I assigned a single condition rating for ease of clarity.
Excellent
Perfect specimen with excellent form and vigor, well-balanced crown. Normal to exceeding shoot length
on new growth. Leaf size and color normal. Trunk is sound and solid. Root zone undisturbed. No apparent
pest problems. Long safe useful life expectancy for the species.
Good
Imperfect canopy density in few parts of the tree, up to 10 percent of the canopy. Normal to less than ¾
of typical growth rate of shoots and minor deficiency in typical leaf development. Few pest issues or
damage, and if they exist they are controllable or tree is reacting appropriately. Normal branch and stem
development with healthy growth. Safe useful life expectancy typical for the species.
Fair
Crown decline and dieback up to 30 percent of the canopy. Leaf color is somewhat chlorotic/necrotic with
smaller leaves and “off” coloration. Shoot extensions indicate some stunting and stressed growing
conditions. Stress cone crop is clearly visible. Obvious signs of pest problems contributing to a lesser
condition. Control might be possible. I found some decay areas in the main stem and branches. Below
average safe useful life expectancy
Poor
Lacking full crown, more than 50 percent decline and dieback, especially affecting larger branches.
Stunting of shoots is obvious with little evidence of growth on smaller stems. Leaf size and color reveals
overall stress in the plant. Insect or disease infestation may be severe and uncontrollable. Extensive decay
or hollows in branches and trunk. Short safe useful life expectancy.
Tree health condition ratings have been adapted from the Purdue University Extension bulletin FNR-473-
W - Tree Appraisal
Arborist Report - Pulte Group – Forest Ridge
12.15.2017 page 12 of 12
2940 Westlake Ave. N #200 · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670
www.tr ee solut ion s. net
Appendix C - Assumptions & Limiting Conditions
1. Consultant assumes that any legal description provided to Consultant is correct and that title to
property is good and marketable. Consultant assumes no responsibility for legal matters. Consultant
assumes all property appraised or evaluated is free and clear, and is under responsible ownership and
competent management.
2. Consultant assumes that the property and its use do not violate applicable codes, ordinances, statutes
or regulations.
3. Although Consultant has taken care to obtain all information from reliable sources and to verify the
data insofar as possible, Consultant does not guarantee and is not responsible for the accuracy of
information provided by others.
4. Client may not require Consultant to testify or attend court by reason of any report unless mutually
satisfactory contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such
Services as described in the Consulting Arborist Agreement.
5. Unless otherwise required by law, possession of this report does not imply right of publication or use
for any purpose by any person other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the pr ior
express written consent of the Consultant.
6. Unless otherwise required by law, no part of this report shall be conveyed by any person, including
the Client, the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media without the
Consultant‘s prior express written consent.
7. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the Consultant, and the
Consultant’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specific value, a stipulated result, the
occurrence of a subsequent event or upon any finding to be reported.
8. All photographs included in this report were taken by Tree Solutions Inc. during the documented site
visit, unless otherwise noted.
9. Sketches, drawings and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily
to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The
reproduction of any information generated by architects, engineers or other consultants and any
sketches, drawings or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference
only. Inclusion of such information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a
representation by Consultant as to the sufficiency or accuracy of the information.
10. Unless otherwise agreed, (1) information contained in this report covers only the items examined and
reflects the condition of the those items at the time of inspection; and (2) the inspection is limited to
visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, climbing, or coring.
Consultant makes no warranty or guarantee, express or implied, that the problems or deficiencies of
the plans or property in question may not arise in the future.
11. Loss or alteration of any part of this Agreement invalidates the entire report.
Table of TreesForest Ridge Project, tax parcel 0423059142Renton, WA 98059Date of Inventory: July 2016 Table Prepared: 07.27.2016Updated: 12.15.2017KEYTrees located within area of ROW improvementsNonviable trees ‐ do not count toward trees for siteTree ID Scientific Name Common Name DSH (inches)Multistem DSH (inches)Health ConditionStructural Condition Drip Line Radius (feet)Landmark (Y/N)Viable (Y/N)ROW Trees (Y/N)Proposed Action Notes1Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 25.1 Good Good 21 No Yes No Retain2Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir10.7 Good Good 11 No Yes No Retain Kink in trunk3Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir 14.5 Good Good 12 No Yes No Retain Kink in trunk4Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir7.7 Fair Fair 6 No Yes No Retain Broken top, suppressed5Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir17.3 Good Good 10 No Yes No Retain6Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.5 Fair Fair 5 No Yes No Retain Broken top7Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir11.0 Fair Fair 10 No Yes No Retain Broken top8Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.3 Good Good 25 No Yes No Retain Some dieback in crown9Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.0 8.3, 5.5 Good Good 20 No Yes No Retain Codominant trunk form10Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.2 Fair Fair 15 No Yes No Retain Broken top11Populus trichocarpaBlack cottonwood 27.8 Good Good 22 No Yes No Retain Adjacent to power lines12Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.2 Good Good 19 No Yes No Retain13Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir26.2 Good Good 25 No Yes No Retain Kink in stem14Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir13.8 Good Good 15 No Yes No Retain Kink in stem15Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir17.0 Good Good 17 No Yes No Retain16Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 17.3 12, 12.5 Good Good 22 No Yes No Retain Codominant, asymmetrical to east17Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 29.3 9.7, 11.7 , 6.6, 10.5, 11.9, 10.2, 12.5, 8.4Good Good 35 No Yes No Retain Codominant, asymmetrical to east18Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.1 6.0, 5.4Poor Poor 35 No No No Nonviable Codominant, asymmetrical to east19Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir23.5 Good Good 15 No Yes No Retain Phototropic lean20Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.0 Fair Fair 14 No Yes No Retain Lost top, dieback, codominant21Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir11.2 Good Good 11 No Yes No Retain22Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.7 Good Good 13 No Yes No Retain23Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.5 10.6, 12.7 Good Good 17 No Yes No Retain Codominant at base24Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.8 Good Good 20 No Yes No Retain Broken top25Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.7 Good Good 20 No Yes No Retain Broken top26Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.6 Good Good 18 No Yes No Retain27Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.7 Poor Poor 17 No No No Nonviable Dead top, sprouting along trunk28Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.0 Fair Fair 19 No Yes No Retain Lost top, decay at top29Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir29.0 Good Good 13 No Yes No Retain30Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.1 Good Good 16 No Yes No Retain31Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.6 Good Good 16 No Yes No Retain32Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.5 Good Good 18 No Yes No Retain Broken top, suppressed33Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.1 Good Good 10 No Yes No Retain34Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 22.3 Good Good 35 No Yes No Retain35Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.5 Good Good 20 No Yes No Retain Lost top36Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.2 Good Good 20 No Yes No RetainAssess grading impacts37Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.8 Fair Fair 20 No Yes No Remove Broken top38Alnus rubraRed alder 12.1 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove Broken top39Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.7 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove Broken top40Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir7.2 Poor Poor 10 No No No Nonviable41Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.5 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove Trunk wound, good response growth42Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.3 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove Broken top43Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.0 Good Good 11 No Yes No Remove44Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir7.0 Good Good 6 No Yes No Remove45Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.6 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove Phototropic lean, insect activity at base46Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.0 Good Good 6 No Yes No Remove47Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.3 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove Trunk rubbing with adjacent madrone tree48Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir6.4 Good Good 6 No Yes No Remove Suppressed, kink in trunk49Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir11.7 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove Kink in trunk50Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 13.6 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove Codominant, good union51Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.2 Good Good 27 No Yes No Remove52Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.9 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove53Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir12.2 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove54Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir10.4 Fair Fair 6 No Yes No Remove Suppressed55Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir10.1 Fair Fair 8 No Yes No Remove Crown dieback56Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.4 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove57Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir10.0 Good Good 10 No Yes No Remove58Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.0 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove Curve in trunk at 20 feet59Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.6 Good Good 11 No Yes No RemoveTrees slated for removalTrees slated for retentionTree Solutions, Inc.2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, WA 98109Page 1 of 18www.treesolutions.net206‐528‐4670
Table of TreesForest Ridge Project, tax parcel 0423059142Renton, WA 98059Date of Inventory: July 2016 Table Prepared: 07.27.2016Updated: 12.15.2017Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name DSH (inches)Multistem DSH (inches)Health ConditionStructural Condition Drip Line Radius (feet)Landmark (Y/N)Viable (Y/N)ROW Trees (Y/N)Proposed Action Notes60Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir28.1 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove61Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.0 Fair Fair 7 No Yes No Remove Lost top62Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir11.7 Good Good 10 No Yes No Remove Lost top, epicormic sprouting63Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.5 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove Curved trunk64Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.5 Good Good 13 No Yes No Remove Broken top65Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 29.1 23.9, 16.6Good Good 30 No Yes No Remove Multistemmed 66Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 63.7 Good Good 37 Yes Yes No Retain Diameter measured at narrowest point below codominant union, 4 fused trunks, included bark, some decay, dead wood in canopy67Thuja plicataWestern redcedar 13.4 Good Good 10 No Yes No Retain68Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.8 Good Good 12 No Yes No Retain Some dieback69Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir10.7 Good Good 13 No Yes No Retain Codominant at 20 feet70Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.2 Good Good 10 No Yes No Retain71Alnus rubraRed alder 18.1 Poor Poor 21 No No No Nonviable Main trunk dead, diameter measured at narrowest point below codominant union72Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.7 Good Good 12 No Yes No Retain73Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.2 Good Good 16 No Yes No Retain Phototropic to east74Alnus rubraRed alder 19.5 Good Good 23 No Yes No Retain Broken parts throughout canopy75Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 19.4 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove Old wounds76Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.2 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove Broken top77Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.0 Good Good 16 No Yes No Retain78Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.1 Good Good 25 No Yes No RetainAssess grading impacts79Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir19.9 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove Subdominant trunk at 20 feet80Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 16.8 Good Good 28 No Yes No Remove81Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.8 Poor Poor 4 No No No Nonviable Broken top, epicormic sprouts82Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.2 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove83Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.6 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove84Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 23.6 19.7, 13 Good Good 27 No Yes No Remove Pruned for utilities85Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.5 Good Good 23 No Yes No Remove86Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.2 Good Good 26 No Yes No Remove87Populus trichocarpaBlack cottonwood 29.7 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove88Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.4 Good Good 30 No Yes No Remove Lean to north89Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 17.2 Good Good 28 No Yes No Remove90Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.8 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove91Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir9.9 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove92Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.9 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove93Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.5 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove94Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 13.2 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove95Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.5 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove96Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir10.3 Fair Fair 8 No Yes No Remove Thin crown, swept base97Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.4 Good Good 18 No Yes No RemoveNot on survey98Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.9 Fair Fair 8 No Yes No Remove Thin crown99Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir7.9 Poor Poor 6 No No No Nonviable Broken top100Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir13.5 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove Kink in stem101Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir9.7 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove Thin crown102Sorbus aucupariaEuropean mountain ash6.3 Good Good 8 No Yes No Remove103Alnus rubraRed alder 11.2 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove104Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir34.6 Good Good 25 Yes Yes No Remove Insect holes, flat spot at base, cankers105Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir9.4 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove106Populus trichocarpaBlack cottonwood 24.0 Fair Fair 18 No Yes No Remove Broken codominant trunk107Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.4 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove108Populus trichocarpaBlack cottonwood 27.9 Fair Fair 20 No Yes No Remove Abnormal bark texture at base109Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 13.7 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove110Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.6 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove111Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 6.2 Good Good 10 No Yes No Remove112Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 9.2 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove113Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 7.4 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove Forked top114Populus trichocarpaBlack cottonwood 30.8 Fair Fair 20 Yes Yes No Remove Dead subdominant trunk, forked top, dieback in crown115Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 10.8 Good Good 10 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW116Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir25.4 Good Good 20 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW117Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.1 Good Good 20 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW118Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 19.1 Good Good 27 No Yes No Remove Diameter measured at narrowest point below codominant union119Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.9 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove120Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.3 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove121Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir12.6 Good Good 12 No Yes No RemoveTree Solutions, Inc.2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, WA 98109Page 2 of 18www.treesolutions.net206‐528‐4670
Table of TreesForest Ridge Project, tax parcel 0423059142Renton, WA 98059Date of Inventory: July 2016 Table Prepared: 07.27.2016Updated: 12.15.2017Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name DSH (inches)Multistem DSH (inches)Health ConditionStructural Condition Drip Line Radius (feet)Landmark (Y/N)Viable (Y/N)ROW Trees (Y/N)Proposed Action Notes122Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir6.2 Fair Fair 11 No Yes No Remove Suppressed, leaning into tree 120123Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.5 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove124Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir12.0 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove125Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.0 Fair Fair 10 No Yes No Remove Suppressed, broken top126Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.1 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove127Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir6.7 Good Good 7 No Yes No Remove Previously suppressed128Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.4 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove129Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.8 6.7, 7.2 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove Codominant130Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.6 Good Good 23 No Yes No Remove Broken parts131Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.4 Good Good 19 No Yes No Remove132Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.1 Good Good 22 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW133Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.7 Good Good 16 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Suppressed134Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.7 Good Good 17 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW135Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.8 Poor Poor 15 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Barely alive136Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir19.1 Good Good 17 No No No Nonviable137Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.8 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove Thin canopy138Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir13.2 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove139Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir13.3 Good Good 13 No Yes No Remove140Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir10.0 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove Shared base with 141141Populus trichocarpaBlack cottonwood 27.9 Good Good 30 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Wounds on trunk142Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.0 Good Good 16 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW143Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir19.0 Good Good 11 No Yes No Remove144Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.3 Good Good 11 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW145Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir7.5 Fair Fair 5 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Suppressed, thin crown146Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.5 Good Good 10 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW147Alnus rubraRed alder 10.9 Good Good 12 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Some dieback throughout crown148Alnus rubraRed alder 12.0 Good Good 14 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW149Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.0 Good Good 12 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Forked top150Alnus rubraRed alder 9.0 Good Good 16 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW151Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir13.5 Good Good 13 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Lost top152Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 17.8 Good Good 30 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW153Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.9 Good Good 15 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Phototropic lean154Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir6.4 Fair Fair 4 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Suppressed155Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.0 Good Good 8 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Suppressed156Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir24.8 Good Good 15 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Dead subdominant trunk157Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir28.0 Good Good 17 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW158Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir25.5 Good Good 18 No Yes No RemoveNot on survey159Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.3 Good Good 16 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW160Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.3 Good Good 20 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW161Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.4 6.5, 5.3 Fair Fair 20 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Codominant trunk form162Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.6 Good Good 23 No Yes No Remove163Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.0 Good Good 12 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Dead codominant trunk164Alnus rubraRed alder 11.5 9.0, 7.1 Poor Poor 7 No No Yes Nonviable Bark sloughing165Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir7.0 Good Good 6 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW166Populus trichocarpaBlack cottonwood 13.3 Good Good 16 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Broken top167Alnus rubraRed alder 8.8 Good Good 10 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Leaning168Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.5 Good Good 9 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Thin crown169Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.8 Good Good 27 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW170Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 21.6 14.5, 16 Good Good 24 No Yes No Remove Codominant trunk form, stilted roots171Alnus rubraRed alder 8.3 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove Phototropic lean172Alnus rubraRed alder 11.3 Good Good 10 No Yes No Remove173Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 23.8 12, 8.2, 13.8, 12.8 Good Good 27 No Yes No Remove Codominant trunk form174Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.9 Good Good 23 No Yes No Remove Phototropic to east175Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.5 Good Good 21 No Yes No Remove Phototropic to east176Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 45.4 23.2, 24, 20.5, 23 Good Good 35 Yes Yes No Remove Codominant trunk form, slight decay at base177Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir28.6 24.3, 15 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove Codominant trunk form178Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 8.2 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove179Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 16.0 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove Broken top180Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.3 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove Dead codominant trunk181Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir11.1 Good Good 10 No Yes No Remove Broken top182Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.5 Good Good 6 No Yes No Remove Bowed trunk form183Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir20.8 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove184Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.0 Fair Fair 6 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Suppressed185Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.0 Good Good 16 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW186Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.2 8.4, 3.7 Good Good 16 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW CodominantTree Solutions, Inc.2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, WA 98109Page 3 of 18www.treesolutions.net206‐528‐4670
Table of TreesForest Ridge Project, tax parcel 0423059142Renton, WA 98059Date of Inventory: July 2016 Table Prepared: 07.27.2016Updated: 12.15.2017Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name DSH (inches)Multistem DSH (inches)Health ConditionStructural Condition Drip Line Radius (feet)Landmark (Y/N)Viable (Y/N)ROW Trees (Y/N)Proposed Action Notes187Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir12.1 Good Good 15 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW188Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 13.5 Good Good 25 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW189Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 13.5 Good Good 25 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW190Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.4 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove191Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir11.1 Good Good 11 No Yes No Remove192Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.6 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove Bowed trunk193Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir7.4 Good Good 8 No Yes No Remove Broken top194Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir13.5 Fair Fair 10 No Yes No Remove Broken top, epicormic sprouts, thin crown195Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir9.5 Good Good 8 No Yes No Remove196Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.0 Good Good 9 No Yes No Remove197Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir11.6 Good Good 9 No Yes No Remove198Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir9.4 Fair Fair 12 No Yes No Remove Broken top199Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.9 Good Good 10 No Yes No Remove200Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.0 Good Good 18 No Yes No Retain Broken top201Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.0 Good Good 18 No Yes No Retain Broken top202Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.0 Good Good 18 No Yes No Retain Broken top, assess grading impacts203Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir13.0 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove204Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir9.5 Good Good 10 No Yes No Remove205Alnus rubraRed alder 12.5 Fair Fair 12 No Yes No Remove206Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.8 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove207Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.6 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove208Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.5 Good Good 22 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW209Alnus rubraRed alder 11.0 Good Good 10 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Phototropic lean210Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.8 Good Good 17 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW211Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir6.4 Fair Fair 6 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Suppressed, dead top212Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir11.7 Good Good 15 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW213Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.6 Good Good 16 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW214Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 20.3 17, 6.5, 9 Good Good 30 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Codominant trunk form215Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.5 Good Good 19 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW216Alnus rubraRed alder 16.0 Good Good 13 No Yes No Retain East side of utility easement218Alnus rubraRed alder 13.1 7.9, 10.4Good Good 12 No Yes No Retain Codominant, dead trunk219Alnus rubraRed alder 12.1 Poor Poor 10 No No No Nonviable Dead top220Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.3 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove221Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir23.7 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove222Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 7.7 Good Good 13 No Yes No Remove223Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 7.3 Good Good 8 No Yes No Retain224Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 8.0 Good Good 10 No Yes No Retain225Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 14.9 Poor Poor 12 No No No Nonviable Dying at top226Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 7.2 Good Good 6 No Yes No Remove227Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 16.9 7.1, 12.7, 8.5 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove Codominant trunk228Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 10.2 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove229Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 19.0 Good Good 32 No Yes No Remove230Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 9.4 Good Good 10 No Yes No Remove Codominant at 15'231Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir23.3 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove232Crataegus monogynaCommon hawthorne9.4 5.4, 6, 4.9 Good Good 19 No Yes No Remove Codominant, previous trunk failure,not on survey233Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir26.0 Good Good 18 No Yes No RetainNot on survey234Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 46.2 Good Good 35 Yes Yes No Retain Measured at narrowest point below union, not on survey ‐ likely in tree preservation area ‐ confirm location235Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 24.6 Good Good 18 No Yes No Retain Subdominant stem at 7'236Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.1 Fair Fair 30 No Yes No Retain Canopy mostly to east, dead codominant trunk237Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 25.4 Good Good 31 No Yes No Retain Narrowly attached codominant stem, measured at narrowest point below union238Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 26.7 Poor Poor 23 No No No Nonviable Large tear out, dieback in canopy, saw damage239Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 17.3 14.3, 9.7 Good Good 27 No Yes No Remove Dead tree resting in canopy240Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 18.9 Fair Fair 23 No Yes No Remove Dieback in canopy, stem kink241Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.4 Good Good 24 No Yes No Remove Phototropic, dieback242Cornus nuttaliiPacific dogwood 6.4 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove Dieback in canopy, suppressed243Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.7 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove Dieback in canopy244Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.4 Good Good 19 No Yes No Remove Dieback in canopy245Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.2 Good Good 14 No Yes No Remove Phototropic246Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.6 Good Good 14 No Yes No RemoveNot on survey247Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 20.1 Good Good 30 No Yes No Remove248Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 28.5 Good Good 32 No Yes No Remove Couple mechanical wounds249Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.0 Good Good 21 No Yes No Remove Canopy to east, suppressed250Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 13.3 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove Dieback in canopy251Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.4 Good Good 19 No Yes No Remove Dead subdominant stem at baseTree Solutions, Inc.2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, WA 98109Page 4 of 18www.treesolutions.net206‐528‐4670
Table of TreesForest Ridge Project, tax parcel 0423059142Renton, WA 98059Date of Inventory: July 2016 Table Prepared: 07.27.2016Updated: 12.15.2017Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name DSH (inches)Multistem DSH (inches)Health ConditionStructural Condition Drip Line Radius (feet)Landmark (Y/N)Viable (Y/N)ROW Trees (Y/N)Proposed Action Notes252Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 22.0 Good Good 18 No Yes No Retain 3 sprouts from prostrate tree, stilted roots, assess grading impacts253Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 35.7 Good Good 36 Yes Yes No Retain Good response wood, large wounds with decay, assess grading impacts254Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 17.4 Good Good 38 No Yes No Retain Phototropic southeast, assess grading impacts255Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 22.2 Good Good 26 No Yes No Retain Twisting codominant stem, measured at narrowest point below union,assess grading impacts256Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir10.7 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove257Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 19.9 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove258Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.8 Good Good 19 No Yes No Remove Two dead subdominant stems259Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.2 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove260Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.0 Fair Fair 11 No Yes No Remove Suppressed, adjacent to 261261Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 22.2 18.1, 12.9 Good Good 29 No Yes No Remove Codominant from base262Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.1 Fair Fair No Yes No Retain Suppressed, dieback with decay, assess grading impacts263Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 13.2 9.9, 4, 7.8 Fair Fair 15 No Yes No Retain 1 dead codominant trunk, 3 live trunks at base264Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.5 Good Good 19 No Yes No Retain265Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.4 Good Good 17 No Yes No Retain266Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.0 Fair Fair 18 No Yes No Retain Reiteration from damaged tree, strange structure267Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.7 Good Good 17 No Yes No Retain Stem girdling root, suppressed268Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 25.6 Good Good 26 No Yes No Retain269Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.1 Good Good 18 No Yes No Retain Swept base, codominant stem273Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 30.5 Good Good 25 Yes Yes No Retain On property line, codominant, measured at narrowest point below union275Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 21.8 7.2, 13, 16, 12.4, 9 Good Good 33 No Yes No Retain Stump sprouts, multiple stems, one dead276Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.9 Good Good 25 No Yes No Retain277Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 8.7 Good Good 20 No Yes No Retain Heavy lean278Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.1 Fair Fair No Yes No Retain Wounds, decay, dieback279Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.4 Good Good 24 No Yes No Retain Dead codominant stem, decayed280Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.3 Fair Fair 12 No Yes No Retain Significant dieback, subdominant stem281Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 17.6 Good Good 21 No Yes No Retain282Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 19.1 Good Good 21 No Yes No Retain 3 stems narrowly attached and twisting, measured at narrowest point below union283Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir19.9 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove284Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 21.6 16.3, 14.2, 12.1 Good Good 29 No Yes No Retain 3 codominant at base, small dead trunk in union, assess grading impacts285Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.9 7.6, 9.8, 7.3, 6.7 Fair Fair 17 No Yes No Retain Fallen tree with 4 large spouts and two dead, same tree as 21281 and 21283286Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 18.2 Good Good 18 No Yes No Retain Codominant with weak union, dead codominant trunk 13", dead tree with 3 codominant stems not tagged, small nearby tree 6.2" dead and not tagged287Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.3 Fair Fair 16 No Yes No Remove Swept base, dieback, chlorotic288Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.1 10.9, 10.4Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove Narrow attachment, codominant289Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.7 Good Good 35 No Yes No Remove Girdling root, swept base, asymmetric to East290Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 17.5 6.3, 3, 16 Good Good 30 No Yes No Remove Codominant with smaller 2 subdominant stems 291Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir23.7 Good Good 28 No Yes No Remove292Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir20.4 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove293Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir19.9 Good Good 24 No Yes No Remove294Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.7 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove Growing out of base of 295, swept295Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir24.5 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove 294 growing from base296Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.6 Fair Fair 15 No Yes No Remove Suppressed, lost top297Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir26.1 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove298Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.0 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove299Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.1 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove300Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.7 Fair Fair 12 No Yes No Remove Phototropic, 5 degree lean, not on survey301Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 23.8 10.4, 16, 14.3 Good Good 34 No Yes No Remove 3 codominant trunks302Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.7 Fair Fair 15 No Yes No Retain Decay at base, swept base, wounds303Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.0 Good Good 20 No Yes No Retain Swept base304Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.8 10.7, 11.6Good Good 25 No Yes No Retain Swept base, codominant at base with narrow attachment305Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.3 Good Good 20 No Yes No Retain Asymmetry in crown, assess grading impacts306Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.8 Good Good 13 No Yes No Retain Measured at narrowest point below union, codominant, narrow attachment307Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.7 8.5, 8 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove Dead subdominant stem308Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.5 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove Swept, codominant with wound309Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.4 7.6, 7.1 Good Good 14 No Yes No Remove Wound, codominant, not on survey310Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 30.8 Fair Fair 27 Yes Yes No Remove Measured at narrowest point below union, 6 stems 3 are dead, narrowly attachedTree Solutions, Inc.2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, WA 98109Page 5 of 18www.treesolutions.net206‐528‐4670
Table of TreesForest Ridge Project, tax parcel 0423059142Renton, WA 98059Date of Inventory: July 2016 Table Prepared: 07.27.2016Updated: 12.15.2017Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name DSH (inches)Multistem DSH (inches)Health ConditionStructural Condition Drip Line Radius (feet)Landmark (Y/N)Viable (Y/N)ROW Trees (Y/N)Proposed Action Notes311Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.9 Fair Fair 15 No Yes No Remove Dead leading stem at 20ft312Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 31.7 30.9, 7 Fair Fair 33 Yes Yes No Remove Large dead branches in canopy, significant decay313Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.4 11.3, 5.2 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove Swept base, dieback314Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.7 Fair Fair 15 No Yes No Remove Dead basal subdominant, phototropic lean,not on survey315Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.3 10.3 Fair Fair 14 No Yes No Remove Narrowly attached stems with rubbing, thin canopy316Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.2 7.5, 7.9, 5.5 Fair Fair 21 No Yes No Remove Canopy dieback, codominant317Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 16.1 14, 8 Good Good 24 No Yes No Retain Codominant at base, narrow attachment318Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 25.2 Good Good 27 No Yes No Retain Stilted roots on one side319Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.7 Good Good 15 No Yes No Retain Small dead subdominant stem,not on survey320Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.3 13.4, 7.4 Good Good 23 No Yes No Retain Measured at narrowest point below union, rubbing trunks, narrow attachment321Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 20.7 Good Good 24 No Yes No Retain Measured at narrowest point below union, codominant322Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 40.8 Poor Poor Yes No No Nonviable Dead large branches, thinning canopy, east side tag 325Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.4 4, 8.7, 8, 7.2, 17, 9.5, 2, 3, 1, 1Good Good 23 No Yes No Retain Ivy growing up tree, multiple codominant trunks, stump sprout327Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.3 6.5, 2,2,3,3,1,1,1,2,4Fair Fair 15 No Yes No Retain Stump sprout328Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.3 Good Good 21 No Yes No Remove329Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.7 6.2, 6.4, 4, 4, 2 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove Stump sprout330Thuja plicataWestern redcedar 18.1 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove Topped for utilities331Pinus contorta var. contortaShore pine 13.1 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove Codominant at 5', near utilities332Pinus contorta var. contortaShore pine 11.9 Fair Fair 10 No Yes No Remove Codominant, near utilities333Crataegus monogynaCommon hawthorne13.8 9.8, 8.2, 5.2 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove334Malus domesticaCommon apple 14.7 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove Sap sucker activity335Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 60.7 Good Good 35 Yes Yes No Remove 12" root cut to West, great crown structure, test if retained336Malus domesticaCommon apple 7.0 Fair Fair 11 No Yes No Retain337Prunus domesticaCommon plum 7.9 Fair Fair 11 No Yes No Retain338Malus domesticaCommon apple 7.6 Fair Fair 9 No Yes No Remove339Malus domesticaCommon apple 16.8 Good Good 19 No Yes No Retain340Prunus domesticaCommon plum 6.6 Poor Poor 11 No No No NonviableNot on survey341Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 13.0 7,10.9 Fair Fair 23 No Yes No Remove Growing at base of 342, phototropic342Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.8 Good Good 14 No Yes No Remove Large girdling root343Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.9 11.5, 11 Good Good 30 No Yes No Remove Phototropic344Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.6 Good Good 30 No Yes No Remove Phototropic, one dead trunk345Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.4 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove Sprouting346Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.4 Good Good 19 No Yes No Remove Lower dead parts, shaded347Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.6 Good Good 28 No Yes No Remove Lower dead parts, shaded348Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 18.4 Good Good 26 No Yes No Remove349Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.4 Fair Fair 24 No Yes No Remove Crown dieback, suppressed350Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.8 Fair Fair 21 No Yes No Remove Crown dieback, suppressed351Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.5 Fair Fair 27 No Yes No Remove Broken top, one sided crown 352Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.3 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove Kink at base353Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir6.7 Good Good 9 No Yes No Remove Young tree ‐ not on survey354Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 17.0 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove355Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir9.0 Good Good 10 No Yes No Remove Kink at 25', high live crown ratio356Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir17.7 Good Good 19 No Yes No Remove High live crown ratio357Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.5 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove High live crown ratio358Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.8 Good Good 24 No Yes No Remove Large elbow branch structure359Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir13.4 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove High live crown ratio, shared crown with firs360Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir20.3 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove High live crown ratio, shared crown with firs361Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir23.8 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove High live crown ratio, shared crown with firs362Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir10.8 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove High live crown ratio, shared crown with firs, suppressed363Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.7 Good Good 14 No Yes No Remove High live crown ratio, shared crown with firs364Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 7.5 Fair Fair 12 No Yes No Remove Dead parts365Alnus rubraRed alder 9.9 Fair Fair 15 No Yes No Remove Phototropic, thin crown366Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 16.6 Good Good 24 No Yes No Remove Broken trunk, suppressed, measured at narrowest point below union367Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.5 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove368Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.7 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove High live crown ratioTree Solutions, Inc.2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, WA 98109Page 6 of 18www.treesolutions.net206‐528‐4670
Table of TreesForest Ridge Project, tax parcel 0423059142Renton, WA 98059Date of Inventory: July 2016 Table Prepared: 07.27.2016Updated: 12.15.2017Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name DSH (inches)Multistem DSH (inches)Health ConditionStructural Condition Drip Line Radius (feet)Landmark (Y/N)Viable (Y/N)ROW Trees (Y/N)Proposed Action Notes369Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.0 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove370Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 18.0 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove371Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 21.6 12.1, 12, 11, 7.4Good Good 21 No Yes No Remove Codominant at base372Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.7 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove Crossing trunks373Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 16.7 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove Slight dieback374Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.9 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove375Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.6 Good Good 19 No Yes No Remove Codominant union with included bark376Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.3 Fair Fair 25 No Yes No Remove Thin crown, small leaf size, chlorotic377Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.2 Good Good 13 No Yes No Remove378Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.9 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove379Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.4 Fair Fair 15 No Yes No Remove One side of crown dead380Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 16.7 Good Good 24 No Yes No Remove381Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.2 Good Good 23 No Yes No Remove382Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.3 Fair Fair 17 No Yes No Remove383Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.3 9.0, 8.4Fair Fair 20 No Yes No Remove384Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 18.7 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove385Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.2 Fair Fair 15 No Yes No Remove Thin crown386Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.7 Poor Poor 6 No No No Nonviable Broken top, sprouting387Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.6 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove388Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.3 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove Dead parts389Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.6 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove390Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.8 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove391Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.9 Fair Fair 10 No Yes No Remove Thin crown, suppressed392Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.7 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove393Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.1 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove One sided crown 394Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.5 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove395Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.7 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove396Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.5 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove High live crown ratio397Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.2 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove Swept base398Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.7 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove399Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.9 Fair Fair 20 No Yes No Remove Growing under fallen maple400Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.4 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove401Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.2 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove Crossing trunks402Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 18.7 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove403Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.2 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove Large rib of response wood up trunk, phototropic to north404Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.1 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove Crown suppressed, crown one sided to north405Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.0 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove406Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.4 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove Kink in trunk407Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.2 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove Crown one sided408Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 16.7 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove409Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.8 Poor Poor 2 No No No Nonviable Broken top, barely alive410Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.6 Fair Fair 15 No Yes No Remove Broken top with new reiteration 411Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.8 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove412Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.1 Fair Fair 23 No Yes No Remove Broken top413Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir10.4 Fair Fair 10 No Yes No Remove Broken top, dieback414Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.2 Fair Fair 11 No Yes No Remove Thin crown415Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.7 12.4, 7.9 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove416Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 19.7 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove417Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 18.4 15.9, 9.2 Good Good 24 No Yes No Remove Broken parts throughout, phototropic to west418Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.9 7.9, 4.1 Good Good 10 No Yes No Remove419Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 21.0 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove Large codominant union with included bark 420Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir12.3 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove421Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.5 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove422Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.4 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove423Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.0 Fair Fair 10 No Yes No Remove One sided crown, suppressed424Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.4 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove425Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.1 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove426Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 19.4 13.8, 13.6Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove Large ivy on trunk427Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir6.8 Good Good 8 No Yes No Remove Suppressed, not on survey428Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.5 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove429Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.9 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove430Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir25.5 Good Good 19 No Yes No Remove431Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.7 Fair Fair 13 No Yes No Remove Thin crown 432Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir13.8 Good Good 13 No Yes No Remove433Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.1 Fair Fair 18 No Yes No RemoveNot on survey434Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 13.4 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove435Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.9 Good Good 15 No Yes No RemoveTree Solutions, Inc.2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, WA 98109Page 7 of 18www.treesolutions.net206‐528‐4670
Table of TreesForest Ridge Project, tax parcel 0423059142Renton, WA 98059Date of Inventory: July 2016 Table Prepared: 07.27.2016Updated: 12.15.2017Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name DSH (inches)Multistem DSH (inches)Health ConditionStructural Condition Drip Line Radius (feet)Landmark (Y/N)Viable (Y/N)ROW Trees (Y/N)Proposed Action Notes436Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.0 Good Good 13 No Yes No Remove Slightly suppressed437Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir12.5 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove438Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 18.4 Good Good 24 No Yes No Remove439Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.0 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove440Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.5 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove441Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir11.9 Good Good 11 No Yes No Remove442Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.4 Good Good 13 No Yes No Remove443Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir12.0 Good Good 10 No Yes No Remove444Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.2 Good Good 14 No Yes No Remove445Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.3 Good Good 13 No Yes No Remove446Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 19.0 11.2, 14.7, 4.5Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove Codominant at base447Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.8 Good Good 11 No Yes No Remove Slightly suppressed448Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.5 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove449Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.4 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove450Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.7 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove451Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 13.9 10.1, 7.8, 5.5 Good Good 23 No Yes No Remove Codominant at base452Alnus rubraRed alder 12.0 Fair Fair 15 No Yes No Remove Broken top453Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir10.0 Good Good 8 No Yes No Remove454Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir22.0 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove455Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.4 Fair Fair 8 No Yes No Remove Crown dieback456Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.2 Good Good 28 No Yes No Remove Phototropic north457Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 17.3 Good Good 27 No Yes No Remove458Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.7 Fair Fair 11 No Yes No Remove Broken top459Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 21.1 13.1, 9, 8, 11.4Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove Codominant at base460Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.4 9.2, 6.7 Fair Fair 18 No Yes No Remove Dead trunk with dieback461Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.4 Good Good 24 No Yes No Remove462Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.1 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove463Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.6 Fair Fair 18 No Yes No Remove Dieback464Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.7 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove Dieback465Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.4 Good Good 28 No Yes No Remove466Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.0 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove467Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.2 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove Phototropic468Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.6 Good Good 13 No Yes No Remove469Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 19.5 Good Good 30 No Yes No Remove Dieback470Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.4 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove471Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir25.5 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove472Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.3 Fair Fair 16 No Yes No Remove Codominant with nose of tissue, healing wound473Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.1 10.6, 10.7 Fair Fair 18 No Yes No Remove474Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.8 Fair Fair 16 No Yes No Remove475Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 16.3 11.2, 11.8Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove Codominant at base476Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.5 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove Phototropic to southwest, not on survey477Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 37.5 Fair Fair 26 Yes Yes No Remove Large tearout, kretzschmaria, visible decay478Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 28.5 Good Good 40 No Yes No Remove Codominant trunk failure, phototropic to northwest479Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 29.1 25.9, 11, 5.2, 5.3 Fair Fair 40 No Yes No Remove Large decay cavity at base, dieback480Thuja plicataWestern redcedar 25.2 Fair Fair 10 No Yes No Remove Dieback at top, dead top481Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 16.0 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove482Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 18.0 Good Good 24 No Yes No Remove Crown somewhat sparse, included bark483Thuja plicataWestern redcedar 8.5 Fair Fair 6 No Yes No Remove Dead top, not on survey484Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir7.5 Fair Fair 7 No Yes No Remove Epicormic growth, dead top485Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.0 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove Top damaged with reiterations486Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 13.8 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove487Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.9 Good Good 19 No Yes No Remove Kink in trunk488Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.0 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove489Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.8 Good Good 21 No Yes No Remove490Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.6 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove491Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.0 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove492Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.4 Fair Fair 15 No Yes No Remove Phototropic lean to north493Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir20.7 Good Good 14 No Yes No Remove494Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.5 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove495Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.9 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove Kink in stem at 40', potential nest in canopy496Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.0 Good Good 10 No Yes No Remove497Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.5 Good Good 10 No Yes No Remove498Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.5 Good Good 13 No Yes No Remove499Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.5 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove500Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 23.4 14.9, 18 Good Good 42 No Yes No Remove Codominant, many unions in upper canopy501Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.1 Fair Fair 12 No Yes No Remove Broken parts, chloroticTree Solutions, Inc.2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, WA 98109Page 8 of 18www.treesolutions.net206‐528‐4670
Table of TreesForest Ridge Project, tax parcel 0423059142Renton, WA 98059Date of Inventory: July 2016 Table Prepared: 07.27.2016Updated: 12.15.2017Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name DSH (inches)Multistem DSH (inches)Health ConditionStructural Condition Drip Line Radius (feet)Landmark (Y/N)Viable (Y/N)ROW Trees (Y/N)Proposed Action Notes502Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.4 Good Good 24 No Yes No Remove503Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.2 Fair Fair 5 No Yes No Remove Dead top, not on survey504Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 23.1 16.6, 16 Good Good 28 No Yes No Remove Codominant at base505Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 29.3 19.4, 22 Good Good 40 No Yes No Remove Codominant at base506Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.3 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove Tearout at base507Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 17.0 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove508Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.8 Good Good 10 No Yes No Remove Broken top509Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.3 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove510Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.9 Good Good 10 No Yes No Remove Swept base511Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.5 Fair Fair 10 No Yes No Remove512Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 24.3 15.7, 13, 13.3 Good Good 38 No Yes No Remove Codominant at base, many dead branches, phototropic513Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.3 Good Good 30 No Yes No Remove514Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.6 Poor Poor 6 No No No Nonviable Very sparse foliage, poor growth515Crataegus monogynaCommon hawthorne7.4 5.9, 4.5 Good Good 10 No Yes No Remove516Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.5 Poor Poor 20 No No No Nonviable Very sparse canopy, dead codominant trunk, little growth517Alnus rubraRed alder 12.2 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove518Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 23.8 16.8, 16.8Good Good 27 No Yes No Remove Codominant stems519Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.3 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove Sap flow around base520Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir20.9 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove Surface roots521Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 19.1 13.9, 13.1 Good Good 28 No Yes No Remove Codominant stems522Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 18.2 13.3, 12.4Fair Fair 21 No Yes No Remove Codominant stems, 3rd stem removed523Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.1 Poor Poor 16 No No No Nonviable Swept base, wound, dieback in canopy524Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir26.6 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove525Alnus rubraRed alder 11.0 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove526Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 20.4 Good Good 30 No Yes No Remove527Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir11.7 Good Good 14 No Yes No Remove528Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.1 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove Phototropic to south529Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.0 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove530Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 18.0 Good Good 27 No Yes No Remove Phototropic to south, codominant at 25531Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 16.4 Good Good 27 No Yes No Remove532Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 17.6 12.3, 10.2, 7.4Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove 3 dead stems533Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.5 Fair Fair 24 No Yes No Remove Codominant at 25'534Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 17.0 Good Good 26 No Yes No Remove535Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.4 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove536Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.9 Fair Fair 20 No Yes No Remove537Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.2 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove538Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.7 6.7, 6.9, 6.7 Fair Fair 30 No Yes No Remove Stump sprout, 3 dead stems539Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 13.1 12.2, 4.7 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove 2 dead stems, stump sprout540Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 17.0 Good Good 32 No Yes No Remove541Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.0 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove Wounding on stem542Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.8 6, 5, 4 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove Stump sprout, 3 live stems543Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 13.5 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove Codominant at 15'544Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.8 Good Good 19 No Yes No Remove Dead stem adjacent545Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 21.0 10.5, 10.7, 10.5, 10.2Good Good 29 No Yes No Remove Codominant at base546Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 13.7 9.7, 9.7 Good Good 26 No Yes No Remove Phototropic to south, narrowly attached stems547Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.8 8.8, 6.2 Fair Fair 14 No Yes No Remove Codominant at 2'548Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.6 Good Good 21 No Yes No Remove 5 dead stems, codominant at base549Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.7 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove Dead subdominant stem550Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.1 Fair Fair 18 No Yes No Remove Dead codominant stems, decay cavities551Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.6 Good Good 21 No Yes No Remove Measured at narrowest point below union552Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.1 9.4, 8.7, 6 Fair Fair 22 No Yes No Remove Stump sprout, 2 dead stems, visible decay553Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 18.1 10.4. 11.3. 9.5Good Good 26 No Yes No Remove554Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 17.7 8.2, 6.3, 6.1, 7.8, 10.4Fair Fair 28 No Yes No Remove Lots of decay555Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.3 Poor Poor 32 No No No Nonviable Stump sprout556Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 21.2 Good Good 28 No Yes No Remove Large cavity at base, dead codominant stem, measured at narrowest point below union557Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.1 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove Garlic mustard at base, kink in stem558Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 16.4 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove Large canker559Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 13.6 Fair Fair 26 No Yes No Remove Thin canopy560Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 18.6 14.8, 11.2 Fair Fair 23 No Yes No Remove Codominant at base, column of decay561Thuja plicataWestern redcedar 20.6 Good Good 11 No Yes No Remove562Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.2 Poor Poor 17 No No No Nonviable Lots of wounding at base, kretzschmaria563Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 25.8 13.5, 15.3, 15.8Good Good 33 No Yes No Remove Codominant at base, wound with decay, garlic mustard564Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.8 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove565Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.5 Good Good 29 No Yes No Remove Occluded woundTree Solutions, Inc.2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, WA 98109Page 9 of 18www.treesolutions.net206‐528‐4670
Table of TreesForest Ridge Project, tax parcel 0423059142Renton, WA 98059Date of Inventory: July 2016 Table Prepared: 07.27.2016Updated: 12.15.2017Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name DSH (inches)Multistem DSH (inches)Health ConditionStructural Condition Drip Line Radius (feet)Landmark (Y/N)Viable (Y/N)ROW Trees (Y/N)Proposed Action Notes566Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.0 Good Good 27 No Yes No Remove567Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 20.5 13.5, 15.4Good Good 28 No Yes No Remove Codominant at base, garlic mustard in area568Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir20.6 Good Good No Yes No Remove Lost top569Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10, 9 Fair Fair 27 Yes Yes No Remove Codominant stems, 1 dead570Malus domesticaCommon apple 13.4 7, 9.2, 6.7 Fair Fair 12 No Yes No Remove Apple scab571Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.2 9.4, 12 Fair Fair 23 No Yes No Remove Kretzschmaria, narrow attachment 572Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.9 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove573Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.0 Fair Fair 13 No Yes No Remove Wound at base, decay visible574Alnus rubraRed alder 17.3 Good Good 21 No Yes No RemoveNot on survey575Alnus rubraRed alder 9.3 Good Good 10 No Yes No RemoveNot on survey576Alnus rubraRed alder 12.7 Fair Fair 10 No Yes No Remove Large wound, not on survey577Alnus rubraRed alder 18.0 Good Good 19 No Yes No RemoveNot on survey578Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir7.0 Good Good 9 No Yes No RemoveNot on survey579Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.9 Poor Poor 8 No No No Nonviable Dead codominant stem580Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.2 8.4, 12.7 Good Good 30 No Yes No Remove Codominant at base, wide attachment581Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir11.9 Fair Fair 16 No Yes No Remove Lost top at 15', 2 reiterations582Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 29.8 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove Codominant stems at 10', large wound with response growth583Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.6 Good Good 19 No Yes No Remove Slightly swept base, garlic mustard in area584Alnus rubraRed alder 12.0 Poor Poor 13 No No No Nonviable Significant decay, poor canopy structure585Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir13.0 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove Lost top, 3 new leaders586Alnus rubraRed alder 27.3 Good Good 24 No Yes No Remove587Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 31.4 Poor Poor 31 Yes No No Nonviable Significant dieback in canopy, kretzschmaria588Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.3 6.7, 5, 6 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove Stump sprout589Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.0 Good Good 23 No Yes No Remove Dead subdominant stem590Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 16.6 10.4, 8, 10.2 Good Good 21 No Yes No Remove Codominant at base591Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.8 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove Some dieback592Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.6 Fair Fair 35 No Yes No Remove 2 dead stems, canopy all to north593Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.1 Good Good 23 No Yes No Remove594Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.5 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove595Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.9 Fair Fair 11 No Yes No Remove596Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.6 Fair Fair 14 No Yes No Remove Lacking foliage, epicormic growth, canopy to north597Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 16.8 10.7, 12.9 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove 2 stems at base, 1 dead subdominant598Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.4 10.3, 10Good Good 30 No Yes No Remove Codominant at base599Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.7 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove600Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.8 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove601Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir19.6 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove602Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.4 Fair Fair 23 No Yes No Remove603Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.8 Good Good 8 No Yes No Remove604Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 27.7 7.6, 9.2, 25 Good Good 35 No Yes No Remove Codominant at base, some decay605Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 21.5 18, 11.7 Good Good 32 No Yes No Remove Stilted roots, one big stem of dieback606Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 16.5 Fair Fair 27 No Yes No Remove Narrowly attached, measured at narrowest point below union, stems fusing607Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.9 Fair Fair 15 No Yes No Remove608Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.9 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove609Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.9 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove610Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.6 Good Good 26 No Yes No Remove611Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir10.0 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove612Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 16.8 12.3, 10.1, 2, 4, 3 Fair Fair 21 No Yes No Remove Thin canopy613Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.2 Good Good No Yes No Remove614Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.0 Fair Fair 17 No Yes No Remove615Alnus rubraRed alder 9.4 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove616Alnus rubraRed alder 22.9 Good Good 32 No Yes No Remove Bulge at base, garlic mustard established in area617Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir9.0 Fair Fair 12 No Yes No Remove Suppressed, lost top618Alnus rubraRed alder 14.2 Fair Fair 18 No Yes No Remove619Alnus rubraRed alder 23.0 Fair Fair 24 No Yes No Remove620Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir31.3 Good Good 22 Yes Yes No Remove621Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.1 6.8, 2 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove Subdominant stem622Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.8 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove623Alnus rubraRed alder 12.8 Good Good 28 No Yes No Remove Fence grown into tree, leaning on 622624Alnus rubraRed alder 16.5 11.8, 11.5 Good Good 28 No Yes No Remove Codominant at base625Alnus rubraRed alder 12.1 Fair Fair 14 No Yes No Remove626Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.4 Good Good 19 No Yes No Remove627Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.4 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove Dead tree leaning on trunk628Alnus rubraRed alder 11.1 Good Good 30 No Yes No Remove Phototropic to northwest, small canopyTree Solutions, Inc.2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, WA 98109Page 10 of 18www.treesolutions.net206‐528‐4670
Table of TreesForest Ridge Project, tax parcel 0423059142Renton, WA 98059Date of Inventory: July 2016 Table Prepared: 07.27.2016Updated: 12.15.2017Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name DSH (inches)Multistem DSH (inches)Health ConditionStructural Condition Drip Line Radius (feet)Landmark (Y/N)Viable (Y/N)ROW Trees (Y/N)Proposed Action Notes629Alnus rubraRed alder 12.0 Good Good 30 No Yes No Remove Birds nesting on trunk630Alnus rubraRed alder 15.6 Good Good 36 No Yes No Remove Phototropic to northwest, small canopy631Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.2 Good Good 14 No Yes No Remove632Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir7.2 Fair Fair 8 No Yes No Remove Suppressed, lost top633Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.7 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove Kink in stem, canopy to north634Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir11.0 5.4, 9.6 Fair Fair 15 No Yes No Remove Codominant635Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.4 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove636Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 17.8 Good Good 24 No Yes No Remove637Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir23.8 Good Good 21 No Yes No Remove638Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 13.8 Good Good 23 No Yes No Remove Codominant at 25'639Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 13.6 Good Good 26 No Yes No Remove Adjacent to 640640Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.3 Good Good 32 No Yes No Remove641Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.3 Good Good 30 No Yes No Remove Canopy to north642Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.2 Good Good 28 No Yes No Remove Suppressed, canopy top north, not on survey643Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.3 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove Fence growing into bark644Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.3 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove645Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir23.9 Good Good 24 No Yes No Remove646Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 34.8 Fair Fair 35 Yes Yes Yes Remove for ROW Lost stem at base, ganoderma conk, kretzschmaria647Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir7.4 Poor Poor 6 No No Yes Remove for ROW Suppressed648Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir19.7 Good Good 21 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Kinks in stem649Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.0 Good Good 23 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW650Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir13.8 Good Good 18 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Lost top651Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir22.5 Good Good 20 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW652Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir13.7 Fair Fair 12 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Codominant at 20'653Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir26.5 Good Good 30 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW654Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir23.7 Good Good 26 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW655Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir27.0 Good Good 32 No Yes No Remove Bulge at base, measured below bulge, garlic mustard656Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.3 Good Good 26 No Yes No Remove Phototropic to northwest657Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 17.2 Good Good 28 No Yes No Remove Adjacent to 656658Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 28.0 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove Measured at narrowest point below union659Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 21.6 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove Dead subdominant660Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 26.0 13.6, 22, 18.5 Fair Fair 26 No Yes No Remove 3 stems at 3 feet661Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 33.3 Good Good 28 Yes Yes No Remove Surface roots662Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir26.3 Good Good 19 No Yes No Remove663Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir30.4 Good Good 18 Yes Yes No Remove Bulge at base664Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir 26.0 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove Not tagged, estimated from afar (surrounded by blackberry), edge tree665Alnus rubraRed alder 25.5 11.7, 9, 14.5, 13, 7.2Good Good 23 No Yes No Remove 1 dead stem, not on survey666Alnus rubraRed alder 23.7 11.7, 9.8, 9.8, 10.5, 11Good Good 35 No Yes No Remove 2 dead stems, dieback in canopy, not on survey667Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.0 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove Lost top668Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir 31.8 Good Good 21 Yes Yes No Remove Measured at narrowest point below union, codominant at 3, narrowly attached669Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.4 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove670Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.4 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove671Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir12.7 Fair Fair 13 No Yes No Remove Sparse canopy672Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.2 Good Good 19 No Yes No Remove Lost top673Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.6 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove Lost top674Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir22.3 Good Good 20 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Dead tree leaning on trunk675Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir 28.1 Good Good 26 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Measured at narrowest point below union, codominant at 4'676Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.6 Good Good 16 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW 2 leaders at 30'677Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.7 Good Good 15 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW678Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir9.7 Fair Fair 9 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Suppressed679Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir19.9 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove680Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.1 Good Good 23 No Yes No Remove681Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir32.8 23.5, 21.8, 6.9Good Good 28 Yes Yes No Remove 2 codominant stems, 1 subdominant stem682Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir26.0 Good Good 26 No Yes No Remove683Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 42.8 20.2, 12.6, 18.7, 30.2Good Good 31 Yes Yes No Remove Some decay, stilted roots684Alnus rubraRed alder 12.2 Poor Poor 14 No No No Nonviable Dead tree leaning on trunk685Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.0 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove686Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir 13.0 12.6, 3 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove Small subdominant stem687Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir6.2 Fair Fair 15 No Yes No Remove Suppressed, not on survey688Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.4 6.3, 14.1 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove Narrowly attached subdominant stem689Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir26.3 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove Lost topTree Solutions, Inc.2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, WA 98109Page 11 of 18www.treesolutions.net206‐528‐4670
Table of TreesForest Ridge Project, tax parcel 0423059142Renton, WA 98059Date of Inventory: July 2016 Table Prepared: 07.27.2016Updated: 12.15.2017Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name DSH (inches)Multistem DSH (inches)Health ConditionStructural Condition Drip Line Radius (feet)Landmark (Y/N)Viable (Y/N)ROW Trees (Y/N)Proposed Action Notes690Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir22.2 Good Good 23 No Yes No Remove691Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir20.7 Fair Fair 27 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Lost top692Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir27.7 Good Good 28 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW693Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir23.6 Good Good 28 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW694Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir17.0 Good Good 22 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW695Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.3 Good Good 21 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW696Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir6.4 Poor Poor 10 No No Yes Nonviable697Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 21.5 18.7, 10.6Good Good 30 No Yes No Remove Wide attachment698Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.1 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove699Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.7 Good Good 27 No Yes No Remove700Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir11.4 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove701Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir12.3 Fair Fair 14 No Yes No Remove Lost top, high live crown ratio, not on survey702Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir20.0 Good Good 19 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW703Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.8 Good Good 17 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Kink in stem704Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.6 Good Good 21 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW705Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir9.0 Good Good 11 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW706Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir19.0 Good Good 13 No Yes No Remove707Alnus rubraRed alder 14.3 Poor Poor 11 No No No Nonviable Dead codominant, lots of dieback, not on survey708Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.7 Good Good 17 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Thin canopy709Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 18.0 Good Good 28 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW710Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir13.5 Fair Fair 16 No Yes No Remove Thin canopy, high live crown ratio711Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 11.6 Good Good 26 No Yes No Remove712Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.0 Good Good 27 No Yes No Remove713Alnus rubraRed alder 8.9 Good Good 13 No Yes No Remove714Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 13.9 Good Good 30 No Yes No Remove715Alnus rubraRed alder 11.7 6.1, 10 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove Codominant, narrow attachment716Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir20.4 13.3, 15.5 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove Codominant, narrow attachment717Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir9.3 Good Good 13 No Yes No Remove Kink at bottom718Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir11.5 Fair Fair 11 No Yes No Remove Kink at bottom719Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir25.3 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove720Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir17.4 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove721Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir7.4 Fair Fair 12 No Yes No Remove Leaning, suppressed722Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.6 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove Suppressed723Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.8 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove724Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.4 Good Good 24 No Yes No Remove725Populus trichocarpaBlack cottonwood 18.3 Good Good 23 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Adjacent to 726, phototropic, canopy to east726Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir25.8 Good Good 26 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW727Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.6 Good Good 16 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW728Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir12.4 Good Good 14 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW729Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.0 Good Good 22 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW730Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir20.4 Good Good 18 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW731Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.3 Good Good 20 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Phototropic corrected732Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir22.3 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove Directly adjacent to 731733Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir13.5 Fair Fair 11 No Yes No Remove Thin canopy, high live crown ratio734Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir25.6 17.3, 18.9 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove Codominant, good attachment735Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir22.4 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove736Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.0 Good Good 24 No Yes No Remove737Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir20.0 Good Good 21 No Yes No Remove738Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir10.9 Poor Poor 8 No No No Nonviable Nearly dead, wound in trunk739Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir7.7 Poor Poor 12 No No No Nonviable Suppressed, nearly dead740Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir9.1 Poor Poor 15 No No No Nonviable Suppressed, nearly dead, lost top741Populus trichocarpaBlack cottonwood 18.5 Good Good 19 No Yes No Remove742Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir9.7 Good Good 9 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW743Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.0 Good Good 23 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW744Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.6 Good Good 14 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Lost top745Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir25.7 17.4, 18.9 Good Good 24 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Codominant, good attachment746Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.9 Good Good 20 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Heavy ivy coverage747Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.7 Good Good 19 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW748Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir20.4 Good Good 19 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW749Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir17.0 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove 750Alnus rubraRed alder 8.8 Good Good 14 No Yes No Remove Kink in stem751Alnus rubraRed alder 11.8 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove 752Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir22.8 Good Good 21 No Yes No Remove 753Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir24.3 Good Good 22 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW754Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.0 Good Good 20 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW755Alnus rubraRed alder 9.1 Fair Fair 17 No Yes No Remove 2 dead stems756Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir13.0 Good Good 14 No Yes No RemoveTree Solutions, Inc.2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, WA 98109Page 12 of 18www.treesolutions.net206‐528‐4670
Table of TreesForest Ridge Project, tax parcel 0423059142Renton, WA 98059Date of Inventory: July 2016 Table Prepared: 07.27.2016Updated: 12.15.2017Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name DSH (inches)Multistem DSH (inches)Health ConditionStructural Condition Drip Line Radius (feet)Landmark (Y/N)Viable (Y/N)ROW Trees (Y/N)Proposed Action Notes757Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir19.6 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove758Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.2 Fair Fair 17 No Yes No Remove Lost top759Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir10.8 Good Good 14 No Yes No Remove Kinks in stem760Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir7.3 Poor Poor 9 No No No Nonviable Nearly dead761Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.6 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove762Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.1 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove763Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.4 Good Good 9 No Yes No Remove764Populus trichocarpaBlack cottonwood 13.8 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove Dead tree leaning on trunk765Populus trichocarpaBlack cottonwood 26.9 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove Kink in stem766Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.6 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove767Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir9.6 Fair Fair 14 No Yes No Remove Suppressed768Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.9 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove769Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 16.9 Good Good 29 No Yes No Remove770Alnus rubraRed alder 10.5 Fair Fair 25 No Yes No Remove Visible decay on stem771Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.3 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove772Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 17.2 Good Good 33 No Yes No Remove773Alnus rubraRed alder 12.4 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove Phototropic lean774Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 18.6 Good Good 27 No Yes No Remove775Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir13.0 Good Good 14 No Yes No Remove776Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir10.9 Fair Fair 9 No Yes No Remove Thin canopy777Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.0 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove Dead tree adjacent778Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.2 Good Good 32 No Yes No Remove779Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.4 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove780Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.0 Good Good 15 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW781Alnus rubraRed alder 18.9 10.3, 9, 13.1 Good Good 27 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW782Alnus rubraRed alder 11.4 Good Good 17 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW783Alnus rubraRed alder 8.6 Fair Fair 15 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Wounds on stem, visible decay, not on survey784Alnus rubraRed alder 12.0 Poor Poor 10 No No Yes Nonviable Nearly dead785Alnus rubraRed alder 9.3 Fair Fair 18 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Phototropic, partial failure786Alnus rubraRed alder 9.7 Fair Fair 15 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Lost top787Alnus rubraRed alder 8.8 Good Good 9 No Yes No Remove788Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 16.5 Good Good 24 No Yes No Remove789Alnus rubraRed alder 13.8 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove790Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.9 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove791Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.6 Good Good 26 No Yes No Remove792Alnus rubraRed alder 15.1 Fair Fair 22 No Yes No Retain793Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.4 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove794Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 16.3 Good Good 28 No Yes No Remove795Alnus rubraRed alder 13.7 Good Good 35 No Yes No Remove796Alnus rubraRed alder 10.4 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove797Alnus rubraRed alder 14.5 Fair Fair 16 No Yes No Remove Dieback in canopy798Alnus rubraRed alder 15.9 10, 12.4Good Good 24 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Phototropic lean799Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir17.5 Good Good 22 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW800Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir20.2 Good Good 25 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW801Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.8 Good Good 18 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW802Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir9.2 Good Good 10 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Suppressed803Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir11.6 Good Good 12 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW804Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.9 Good Good 11 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW805Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir10.7 Good Good 12 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW806Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.6 Good Good 23 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Curve in stem807Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir17.6 Good Good 25 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Swept base808Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.8 Fair Fair 11 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Suppressed, lost top809Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir7.3 Fair Fair 10 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Suppressed810Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.2 Good Good 26 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW811Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.9 Good Good 20 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW812Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir11.1 Good Good 11 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW813Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir7.6 Fair Fair 8 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW814Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.7 Good Good 16 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW815Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.7 Good Good 17 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW816Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir13.2 Good Good 14 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Lost top, slightly suppressed817Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.8 Good Good 27 No Yes No RetainAssess grading impacts818Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir11.8 Fair Fair 11 No Yes No Retain819Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir7.4 Fair Fair 11 No Yes No Retain Ivy on stem820Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir27.1 Good Good 29 No Yes No Retain Ivy on stem, lost top821Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.2 Good Good 16 No Yes No Retain822Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir25.6 Good Good 25 No Yes No RetainMislabeled as 833 on survey823Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir25.2 18.2, 17.5 Good Good 27 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Codominant, wide attachmentTree Solutions, Inc.2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, WA 98109Page 13 of 18www.treesolutions.net206‐528‐4670
Table of TreesForest Ridge Project, tax parcel 0423059142Renton, WA 98059Date of Inventory: July 2016 Table Prepared: 07.27.2016Updated: 12.15.2017Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name DSH (inches)Multistem DSH (inches)Health ConditionStructural Condition Drip Line Radius (feet)Landmark (Y/N)Viable (Y/N)ROW Trees (Y/N)Proposed Action Notes824Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.1 Good Good No Yes No Remove825Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir12.2 Poor Poor 18 No No No Nonviable Leaning on 825826Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir13.6 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove Lost top827Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.1 Good Good 16 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Dead subdominant828Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.1 Good Good 23 No Yes No Remove829Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir17.2 Good Good 21 No Yes No Remove830Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir6.2 Fair Fair 6 No Yes No Remove Suppressed831Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir20.4 Good Good 23 No Yes No Remove832Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.3 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove Dead subdominant833Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.0 Good Good 19 No Yes No Remove Kink in stem834Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.3 Fair Fair 9 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW835Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir10.5 Good Good 17 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Large tearout836Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir6.7 Fair Fair 8 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Lost top837Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir22.3 11.7, 19 Good Good 27 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Codominant838Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir11.7 Good Good 17 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW839Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir10.8 Good Good 14 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Dead subdominant stem840Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.5 Good Good 18 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW841Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.7 Good Good 14 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW842Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir19.3 Good Good 18 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW843Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.8 Good Good 10 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Lost top844Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.2 Good Good 11 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW845Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir11.2 Good Good 10 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW846Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir6.5 Fair Fair 3 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Suppressed847Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.6 13.3, 13 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove Wide attachment848Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir6.6 Fair Fair 6 No Yes No Remove Dead codominant stem, wounds with decay849Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir19.8 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove850Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir22.0 Good Good 19 No Yes No Remove851Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir13.0 Good Good 20 No Yes No RemoveNot on survey852Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir7.3 Poor Poor 4 No No No Nonviable Nearly dead853Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.4 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove854Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir25.3 17.8, 18 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove Codominant, narrow attachment855Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.3 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove856Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir12.3 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove857Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir7.2 Good Good 13 No Yes No Remove858Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir30.6 Good Good 26 Yes Yes No Remove859Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.6 Good Good 11 No Yes No Remove860Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 8.4 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove861Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir17.8 Good Good 18 No Yes No RemoveNot on survey 862Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.7 Good Good 10 No Yes No Remove863Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir10.8 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove864Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.9 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove865Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.0 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove866Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir13.4 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove867Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir20.0 Good Good 19 No Yes No RemoveNot on survey868Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.2 Good Good 23 No Yes No Remove869Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.6 Good Good 13 No Yes No Remove870Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.4 Good Good 14 No Yes No Remove871Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.4 Good Good 8 No Yes No Remove872Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.0 Good Good 14 No Yes No Remove Young ivy on trunk873Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir20.6 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove874Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.6 Fair Fair 3 No Yes No Remove875Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.9 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove876Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.7 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove Kink in stem877Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir13.2 Fair Fair 19 No Yes No Remove Lost top878Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir24.6 Good Good 27 No Yes No Remove879Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 7.7 Good Good 11 No Yes No Remove880Populus trichocarpaBlack cottonwood 43.3 Good Good 35 Yes Yes No Remove Swept base881Alnus rubraRed alder 8.0 Good Good 7 No Yes No Remove882Alnus rubraRed alder 15.7 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove883Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir11.6 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove884Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.5 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove885Alnus rubraRed alder 9.2 Good Good 13 No Yes No RemoveNot on survey886Rhamnus purshianaCascara 6.5 Good Good 10 No Yes No Remove Some dieback887Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir22.6 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove888Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.4 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove889Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.8 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove890Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir23.9 Good Good 26 No Yes No RemoveTree Solutions, Inc.2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, WA 98109Page 14 of 18www.treesolutions.net206‐528‐4670
Table of TreesForest Ridge Project, tax parcel 0423059142Renton, WA 98059Date of Inventory: July 2016 Table Prepared: 07.27.2016Updated: 12.15.2017Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name DSH (inches)Multistem DSH (inches)Health ConditionStructural Condition Drip Line Radius (feet)Landmark (Y/N)Viable (Y/N)ROW Trees (Y/N)Proposed Action Notes891Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir19.0 Good Good 30 No Yes No Remove892Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.0 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove893Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir17.9 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove894Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.1 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove895Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir22.8 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove896Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.6 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove Directly adjacent to 897897Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.9 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove898Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir24.4 Good Good 21 No Yes No Remove899Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.7 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove900Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.9 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove Possibly shared901Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.3 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove902Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir12.1 Good Good 14 No Yes No Remove903Populus trichocarpaBlack cottonwood 21.9 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove904Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.1 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove905Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.4 11.2, 14.6Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove906Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.6 Good Good 23 No Yes No Remove907Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.3 Good Good 19 No Yes No Remove908Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.7 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove909Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir20.8 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove910Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.2 Good Good 19 No Yes No Remove911Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.0 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove912Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir11.2 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove High live crown ratio913Alnus rubraRed alder 17.0 Fair Fair 13 No Yes No Remove 2 dead stems914Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir20.3 Good Good 23 No Yes No Remove915Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.6 Good Good 24 No Yes No Remove916Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.6 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove Wound on side917Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.0 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove918Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir22.1 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove919Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir17.3 Good Good 14 No Yes No Remove Subdominant leader at 50'920Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.7 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove921Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir19.9 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove922Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir28.4 Good Good 26 No Yes No Remove923Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir7.7 Fair Fair 8 No Yes No Retain924Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir20.1 Good Good 21 No Yes No Retain925Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir28.2 Good Good 30 No Yes No Retain Young ivy on trunk, assess grading impacts926Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir25.1 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove927Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir10.2 Good Good 10 No Yes No Remove Lost top928Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.0 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove Bulge at base, dead codominant stem929Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir20.2 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove930Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.8 Good Good 8 No Yes No Remove931Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir15.2 Good Good 12 No Yes No Remove932Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir22.1 Good Good 25 No Yes No Remove Crack on west side933Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 24.1 13.3, 18.3, 8.3 Good Good 31 No Yes No Remove Recovered from early failure, included bark934Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.6 Fair Fair 15 No Yes No Remove935Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 18.8 Good Good 33 No Yes No Remove936Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir24.2 Good Good 23 No Yes No Remove Lost top937Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.1 Good Good 34 No Yes No Remove938Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.1 Fair Fair 30 No Yes No Remove Lost top, not on survey ‐ confirm location, retention may be feasible939Alnus rubraRed alder 8.8 Good Good 12 No Yes No Retain940Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir19.2 Good Good 18 No Yes No Retain941Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir13.8 Good Good 18 No Yes No Retain Lost top942Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir9.5 Good Good 14 No Yes No Retain943Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir24.3 Good Good 23 No Yes No Remove944Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.0 Good Good 21 No Yes No Retain945Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.1 Good Good 21 No Yes No Retain946Populus trichocarpaBlack cottonwood 10.6 Good Good 16 No Yes No Retain947Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.1 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove Ivy on trunk, dead tree leaning on stem948Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 38.9 27.5, 27.5 Good Good 45 Yes Yes No Remove Old tearout, wounds, kretzschmaria, decay949Alnus rubraRed alder 11.3 Fair Fair 10 No Yes No Remove Dead codominant stem950Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.9 Good Good 18 No Yes No RemoveNot on survey951Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 12.1 Good Good 23 No Yes No Remove952Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 13.5 Good Good 15 No Yes No Remove953Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 13.5 Good Good 21 No Yes No Remove954Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.0 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove955Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 35.7 Fair Fair 33 Yes Yes No Remove Measured at narrowest point below union, decay at base956Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 29.4 Good Good 40 No Yes No RemoveTree Solutions, Inc.2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, WA 98109Page 15 of 18www.treesolutions.net206‐528‐4670
Table of TreesForest Ridge Project, tax parcel 0423059142Renton, WA 98059Date of Inventory: July 2016 Table Prepared: 07.27.2016Updated: 12.15.2017Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name DSH (inches)Multistem DSH (inches)Health ConditionStructural Condition Drip Line Radius (feet)Landmark (Y/N)Viable (Y/N)ROW Trees (Y/N)Proposed Action Notes957Alnus rubraRed alder 17.0 Poor Poor 15 No No No Nonviable Ivy in canopy, 2 dead stems958Alnus rubraRed alder 16.9 12.5, 11.3 Poor Poor 17 No No No Nonviable 1 dead stem959Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.7 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove960Populus trichocarpaBlack cottonwood 33.9 Fair Fair 40 Yes Yes No Remove Large wound in trunk961Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir17.7 Good Good 18 No Yes No Remove962Populus trichocarpaBlack cottonwood 32.5 Good Good 24 Yes Yes No Remove963Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 37.0 Good Good 34 Yes Yes No Remove 5 stems, measured at narrowest point below union964Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 6.5 Fair Fair 15 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW965Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 11.6 Good Good 15 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW966Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.5 Good Good 17 No Yes No Remove Swept base, lost top,not on survey967Alnus rubraRed alder 13.3 Poor Poor 12 No No No Nonviable Lots of dieback968Alnus rubraRed alder 6.0 Fair Fair 10 No Yes No Remove969Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 7.3 Poor Poor 8 No No No Nonviable970Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.6 Good Good 13 No Yes No Remove Dead codominant stem, decay at base971Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.5 Good Good 9 No Yes No Remove972Crataegus monogynaCommon hawthorne7.4 Good Good 14 No Yes No Remove973Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 17.0 Good Good 32 No Yes No Remove974Alnus rubraRed alder 22.0 16.1, 15 Fair Fair 20 No Yes No Remove Visible decay, lots of dieback975Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 12.8 Fair Fair 16 No Yes No Remove Dead codominant stem 976Frangula purshianaCascara 12.6 Fair Fair 15 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Failed leader977Alnus rubraRed alder 10.6 Poor Poor 11 No No No NonviableNot on survey978Alnus rubraRed alder 19.5 11, 11, 11 Fair Fair 27 No Yes No Remove979Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir8.3 Fair Fair 13 No Yes No Remove980Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.2 Good Good 20 No Yes No Remove981Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.5 Good Good 21 No Yes No Remove982Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir27.3 Good Good 33 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Subdominant stem983Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir21.5 Good Good 28 No Yes No Remove984Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.3 Good Good 16 No Yes No Remove985Alnus rubraRed alder 25.0 17, 17, 7 Fair Fair 10 No Yes No Remove 2 dead stems986Alnus rubraRed alder 21.2 15, 15 Fair Fair 19 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Visible decay987Alnus rubraRed alder 15.0 Good Good 27 No Yes No Remove988Alnus rubraRed alder 9.5 Good Good 13 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW989Alnus rubraRed alder 10.3 7.6, 7 Fair Fair 14 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Visible decay990Alnus rubraRed alder 13.5 Fair Fair 15 No Yes Yes Remove for ROW991Alnus rubraRed alder 17.2, 16.5 Fair Fair 23 Yes Yes Yes Remove for ROW992Alnus rubraRed alder 13.2 Good Good 22 No Yes No Remove993Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.0 Good Good 16 No Yes No RemoveTree Solutions, Inc.2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, WA 98109Page 16 of 18www.treesolutions.net206‐528‐4670
Table of TreesForest Ridge Project, tax parcel 0423059142Renton, WA 98059Date of Inventory: July 2016 Table Prepared: 07.27.2016Updated: 12.15.2017Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name DSH (inches)Multistem DSH (inches)Health ConditionStructural Condition Drip Line Radius (feet)Landmark (Y/N)Viable (Y/N)ROW Trees (Y/N)Proposed Action Notes994Alnus rubraRed alder 35.5 14, 15, 16, 16, 18 Good Good 30 Yes Yes No Remove Visible decay995Alnus rubraRed alder 38.9 24, 16, 18, 19 Good Good 32 Yes Yes No Remove996Frangula purshianaCascara 7.8 Good Good 18 No Yes No RemoveNot on survey ‐ confirm location to determine if in ROW997Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 36.5 25, 11, 11, 8, 20Good Good 36 Yes Yes Yes Remove for ROW Large failure998Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 45.0 Good Good 40 Yes Yes No Remove Narrowly attached, measured at narrowest point below union999Alnus rubraRed alder 12.8 Fair Fair 17 No Yes No Retain1000Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 7.2 Good Good 18 No Yes No Retain1001Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.8 Good Good 14 No Yes No Retain1002Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 8.8 6.9, 5.5 Good Good 11 No Yes Confirm location; consider retentionNot on survey ‐ may be in tree preservation area1003Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 9.5 Good Good 15 No Yes Confirm location; consider retentionNot on survey ‐ may be in tree preservation area1004Prunus emarginataBitter cherry 7.1 Fair Fair 10 No Yes Confirm location; consider retentionLost top, not on survey ‐ may be in tree preservation area1005Crataegus monogynaCommon hawthorne 8.2 Good Good 8 No Yes Confirm location; consider retentionMeasured at narrowest point below union, not on survey ‐ may be in tree preservation area10519Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir 6.0No Yes No Retain Not tagged, identified by surveyor, was likely less than 6 inches diameter at time of tree inventory10522Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir 6.0No Yes No Retain Not tagged, identified by surveyor, was likely less than 6 inches diameter at time of tree inventory10626Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.0No Yes No Remove Not tagged, identified by surveyor10745Alnus rubraRed alder 12.0No Yes No Retain Not tagged, identified by surveyor20080Populus trichocarpaBlack cottonwood 12.5 6, 8, 5, 4, 4 No Yes No Remove Not tagged, identified by surveyor20186Populus trichocarpaBlack cottonwood 8.0No Yes No Remove Not tagged, identified by surveyor20235Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 24.1 18, 16 No Yes No Remove Not tagged, identified by surveyor20265Alnus rubraRed alder 10.0No Yes No Remove Not tagged, identified by surveyor20337Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.0No Yes No Remove Not tagged, identified by surveyor20449Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.0No Yes No Remove Not tagged, identified by surveyor20482Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.0No Yes No Remove Not tagged, identified by surveyor20490Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.0No Yes No Remove Not tagged, identified by surveyor20492Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.0No Yes No Remove Not tagged, identified by surveyor20506Populus trichocarpaBlack cottonwood 6.0No Yes No Remove Not tagged, identified by surveyor20560Alnus rubraRed alder 23.8 12, 12, 12, 8, 6, 6 No Yes No Remove Not tagged, identified by surveyor20561Alnus rubraRed alder 21.1 10, 10, 10, 12 No Yes No Remove Not tagged, identified by surveyor20563Alnus rubraRed alder 13.4 12, 6 No Yes No Remove Not tagged, identified by surveyor20601Alnus rubraRed alder 12.0No Yes No Remove Not tagged, identified by surveyor20722Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir14.0No Yes Yes Remove for ROW Not tagged, identified by surveyor20889Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.0No Yes No Remove Not tagged, identified by surveyor20902Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.0No Yes No Remove Not tagged, identified by surveyor20944Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir18.0No Yes No Remove Not tagged, identified by surveyor20992Alnus rubraRed alder 18.4 14, 12 No Yes No Remove Not tagged, identified by surveyor20994Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir6.0No Yes No Remove Not tagged, identified by surveyor21071Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir16.0Yes No Remove Not tagged, identified by surveyor21203Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 6.0No Yes No Retain Not tagged, identified by surveyor, likely less than 6 inches at time of tree inventory21486Malus domesticaCommon apple 19.0 8, 10, 14No Yes No Remove Not tagged, identified by surveyorTotal Caliper Inches 15141.8Trees not on surveyTotal Trees 8471024Trees required for retention (30%)25433Retained Trees 11913888639Replacement trees 811847Proposed Landscape Trees 25711950% landscape tree allowance129728Total replacement trees required682Total Viable Retained TreesTotal Removed TreesTree Retention TableTotal Site TreesTotal Landmark TreesROW TreesTrees requiring replacement135Replacement Tree TableTotal site trees exlcuding ROW treesPotential nonviable treesTotal Viable TreesTree Solutions, Inc.2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, WA 98109Page 17 of 18www.treesolutions.net206‐528‐4670
Table of TreesForest Ridge Project, tax parcel 0423059142Renton, WA 98059Date of Inventory: July 2016 Table Prepared: 07.27.2016Updated: 12.15.2017Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name DSH (inches)Multistem DSH (inches)Health ConditionStructural Condition Drip Line Radius (feet)Landmark (Y/N)Viable (Y/N)ROW Trees (Y/N)Proposed Action Notes217Alnus rubraRed alder 12.0 Good Good 21 No Yes No Retain270Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.0 Good Good 16 No Yes No Retain Lost top, on property line271Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 13.0 9.6, 8.7 Good Good 18 No Yes No Retain On property line, codominant272Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 8.5 Fair Fair No Yes No Retain Removed girdling wire, suppressed with dieback present274Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 24.5 Good Good 32 No Yes No Retain On property line, excellent Douglas‐fir to south, to be retained323Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 22.4 21.3, 6.9 Good Good 27 No Yes No Retain Wounds healed over, small subdominant stem324Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 28.1 Fair Fair 24 No Yes No Retain Codominant, little bit of ivy on stem, large dead trunk 15' with crack326Acer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 13.2 3,3,6,5.5,6,7,2 Good Good No Yes No Retain Stump sproutAAcer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 24.0 Good Good 28 No Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #269, codominant stem of about 24", 12' into propertyBAcer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 20.0 Good Good 18 No Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #269, 18' into propertyCAcer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 23.0 20, 8, 8 Good Good 28 No Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #269, 2 trees w shared canopy, 20 inches on one w two 8 inch stems, 14 ft into propDAcer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 23.0 Good Good 25 No Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #274, 12' over property lineEPseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐firGood Good 23 No Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #322, 14' into propertyFPseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir32.0 Good Good 31 Yes Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #327, 19' over property lineGPseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir19.2 Good Good 23 No Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #327, 20' over property lineHAcer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.0 Good Good 22 No Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #327, 20' over property lineIAcer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 9.0 Good Good 21 No Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #327, 20' over property lineJAcer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 10.0 Good Good 24 No Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #327, 22' over property lineKAcer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 14.0 Good Good 26 No Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #327, 20' over property lineLAcer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 19.0 Good Good 24 No Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #327, 20' over property lineMPseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir 35.0 Good Good 19 Yes Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #328, 5' over property line, kink in trunk 20'NAcer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 15.0 Good Good 26 No Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #328, 10' over property lineOAcer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 28.3 20, 20 Good Good 25 No Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #613, straddles property linePThuja plicataWestern redcedar 10.0 Good Good 10 No Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #613, straddles property lineQAcer macrophyllumBigleaf maple 16.0 Fair Fair 20 No Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #613, canopy overhangs by 15'RPseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir Good Good 10 No Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #861, grouping of Douglas‐firs, overhangs property by 5‐10'SPseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir Good Good 15 No Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #903, cluster of Douglas‐firs overhangs by 15'TThuja plicata, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Acer macrophyllumWestern redcedar, Douglas‐fir, Bigleaf maple11, 8, 22 Good Good 15‐20 No Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #904, cluster of trees overhanging site by 15‐20' UPseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir17.0 Good Good 15 No Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #922, 15' from property lineVPseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir 30.0 Good Good 19 Yes Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #937, "Posted no trespassing" sign, canopy overhangs property lineWThuja plicataWestern redcedar Good Good 10 No Yes No Retain Adjacent to tree #951, ~25 Western redcedars along property line, crosses by 8‐10'XPseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas‐fir28.0 Good Good 6 No Yes No Retain Overhangs property lineAdditional notes: DSH (Diameter at Standard Height) is measured 4.5 feet above grade. Multi‐stem trees are noted, and a single stem equivalent is calculated using the method defined in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th EdDrip line is measured from the center of the tree to the outermost extent of the canopyAdjacent Site Trees with Overhanging CanopiesTree Solutions, Inc.2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, WA 98109Page 18 of 18www.treesolutions.net206‐528‐4670
Tab 7.0
18396.003.TIR.doc
7.0 OTHER PERMITS
The City of Renton will be the governing body for the storm drainage. A building permit and
grading permit will be required from the City of Renton for the development of the on-site
drainage and roadway facilities.
These permits and all other permit applications required will be provided during final engineering.
Tab 8.0
18396.003.TIR.doc
8.0 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
This section will be completed during final engineering.
Tab 9.0
18396.003.TIR.doc
9.0 BOND QUANTITIES AND FACILITY SUMMARIES
This section will be completed during final engineering.
Tab 10.0
18396.003.TIR.doc
10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
The drainage facilities on this project will be public facilities owned and maintained by the City of
Renton. Storm drainage is collected in catch basins in the roadways and conveyed first to either a
detention vault or detention tank for flow control, then to a StormFilter for water quality, before
discharging to an existing catch basin, which eventually empties into May Creek. An Operations
and Maintenance Manual will be provided during final engineering.