HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR_Arborist_Report_190509_v1 Greenforest Incorporated
C o n s u l t i n g A r b o r i s t
4547 South Lucile Street, Seattle, WA 98118 Tel. 206-723-0656
TO: Tom Dalpay, Dalpay Properties
29709 174th Av SE
Kent WA 98042
REFERENCE: Arborist Report
SITE: TPN 0323059120 (148th & Nile, Renton WA)
DATE: May 9, 2019
PREPARED BY: Favero Greenforest, ISA Certified Arborist # PN -0143A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #379
INTRODUCTION
You contacted me and contracted my
services as a consulting arborist. My
assignment is to inspect trees at the
above referenced site. The purpose of
this report is to establish the condition of
the significant trees to satisfy City of
Renton permit submittal requirements.
I received a site plan from Goldsmith
Engineering. I visited the site 5/7/2019
and visually inspected the trees indicated
on the survey, which are the subject of
this report. These represent all regulated
trees on the parcel.
SUMMARY
Significant Trees on Site 2
Landmark Trees on Site 1
Weed Trees on Site 4
Total Subject Trees 3
Tom Dalpay, Dalpay Properties
RE: Arborist Report, TPN 0323059120 (148th & Nile, Renton WA)
May 9, 2019
Page 2 of 11
Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist
The site is vacant and covered mostly in grass and brambles. The subject trees stand mainly
at the perimeter. Four trees of regulated size are categorized as weeds, being listed on King
County Noxious Weed List.1 A grove of several young cherries stand long 148th Ave, all too
small to be regulated.
LIMITATIONS AND USE OF THIS REPORT
This tree report establishes, via the most practical means available, the existing conditions
of the trees on the subject property. Ratings for health and structure, as well as any
recommendations are valid only through the development and construction process. This
report is based solely on what is readily visible and observable, without any invasive means.
There are several conditions that can affect a tree’s condition that may be pre-existing and
unable to be ascertained with a visual-only analysis. No attempt was made to determine the
presence of hidden or concealed conditions which may contribute to the risk or failure
potential of trees on the site. These conditions include root and stem (trunk) rot, internal
cracks, structural defects or construction damage to roots, which may be hidden beneath
the soil. Additionally, construction and post-construction circumstances can cause a
relatively rapid deterioration of a tree’s condition.
IDENTIFICATION SCHEME
Each tree was marked with a 1” x 3.5” aluminum tag indicating tree number as listed on the
attached inventory, and as shown on the attached exhibit.
SPECIES AND SIZE OF EACH TREE
I measured the trunk diameter (54” from grade) of each tree, and identified each tree by
common name.
REASON(S) FOR ANY TREE REMOVAL
I rated the health, structure and form of each tree (see attached inventory). Trees with
significant visible problems or defects are indicated as Dangerous and are not viable for
retention. (In this case, 2 weed trees qualify as Dangerous because of their condition, but
are not regulated.)
Removal is recommended for 5 trees; for health/structural reasons, or because of proposed
site improvements.
1 https://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/animals-and-plants/noxious-weeds/laws/list.aspx
(accessed 5/7/2019)
Tom Dalpay, Dalpay Properties
RE: Arborist Report, TPN 0323059120 (148th & Nile, Renton WA)
May 9, 2019
Page 3 of 11
Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist
TREE INSPECTION METHOD – TREE HEALTH, CONDITION AND VIABILITY
I visually inspected each tree from the ground. I performed a Level 1 risk assessment.2 This
is the standard assessment for populations of trees near specified targets, conducted in
order to identify obvious defects or specified conditions such as a pre-development
inventory. This is a limited visual assessment focuses on identifying trees with imminent
and/or probable likelihood of failure, and/or other visible conditions that will affect tree
retention.
I recorded tree species and size (DBH). I estimated the average dripline of each tree. I rated
the condition of each tree, both health and structure. A tree’s structure is distinct from its
health. This inspection identifies what is visible with both.
High-risk trees can appear healthy in that they can have a dense, green canopy. This may
occur when there is sufficient sapwood or adventitious roots present to maintain tree
health, but inadequate strength for structural support.
Conversely, trees in poor health may or may not be structurally stable. For example, tree
decline due to root disease is likely to cause the tree to be structurally unstable, while
decline due to drought or insect attack may not.
One way that tree health and structure are linked is that healthy trees are more capable of
compensating for structural defects. A healthy tree can develop adaptive growth that adds
strength to parts weakened by decay, cracks, and wounds.
This report identifies unhealthy trees based on existing health conditions and tree structure,
and specifies which trees are most suitable for preservation.3
No invasive procedures were performed on any trees. The results of this inspection are
based on what was visible at the time of the inspection.
The attached inventory summarizes my inspection results and provides the following
information for each tree:
Proposed Action – Indicates if tree is to be removed or retained.
Tree Category as defined by municipal code. (TREE: A woody perennial usually
having one dominant trunk, or, for certain species, a multi-stemmed trunk system,
2 Companion publication to the ANSI A300 Part 9: Tree Shrub and Other woody Plant Management – Standard
Practices, Tree Risk Assessment. 2011. ISA. 3 Companion publication to the ANSI A300 Part 5: Tree Shrub and Other woody Plant Maintenance – Standard
Practices, Managing Trees During Construction. 2008. ISA.
Tom Dalpay, Dalpay Properties
RE: Arborist Report, TPN 0323059120 (148th & Nile, Renton WA)
May 9, 2019
Page 4 of 11
Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist
with a potential minimum height of ten feet (10') at maturity.
Dangerous: Any tree that has been certified, in a written report, as dead,
terminally diseased, damaged, or otherwise dangerous to persons or property
by a licensed landscape architect, or certified arborist.
Landmark: A tree with a caliper of thirty inches (30") or greater. (Average
multiple stems and report single integer)
Significant: A tree with a caliper of at least six inches (6"), or an alder or
cottonwood tree with a caliper of at least eight inches (8"). Trees qualified as
dangerous shall not be considered significant. Trees planted within the most
recent ten (10) years shall qualify as significant trees, regardless of the actual
caliper.
Weed: Any trees listed on the Complete King County Weed List shall not qualify
as a tree.)
Reason for Removal includes weed trees (4) and one tree conflicting with proposed
improvements.
Retention Priority indicates priority number based on municipal code.
Tree number as shown on tag in the field, and on attached exhibit.
DBH Stem diameter in inches measured 4.5 feet from the ground.
Tree Species Common name.
Dripline Average branch extension from the trunk as radius in feet.
Health and Structure/Form ratings ‘1’ indicates good to excellent condition; no
visible health-related problems or structural defects, ‘2’ indicates fair condition;
minor visible problems or defects that may require attention if the tree is
retained, and ‘3’ indicates poor condition; significant visible problems or defects
and tree removal is recommended.
Visible defects Obvious structural defects or diseases visible at time of inspection,
which includes:
Asymmetric canopy– the tree has an asymmetric canopy from space and light
competition from adjacent trees.
Branch dieback - Mature branches in canopy are dying/dead.
Chlorosis – Yellowing or off-color foliage.
Crack – separation of wood fibers and predisposed to failure.
Deadwood – Large and/or multiple dead branches throughout canopy.
Decay – process of wood degradation by microorganisms resulting in weak
and defective structure.
Tom Dalpay, Dalpay Properties
RE: Arborist Report, TPN 0323059120 (148th & Nile, Renton WA)
May 9, 2019
Page 5 of 11
Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist
Diseased – foliage and trunk/stems are diseased.
Included bark - Bark inclusion at attachment of multiple leaders and is
preventing a wood-to-wood attachment
Previous failure – Tree trunk previously broken and defective.
Viability - a determination by the arborist whether the tree is viable for retention.
Type indicates if tree is Deciduous (D) or Evergreen (E).
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
Limits of Disturbance (LOD) are calculated for all the retained significant trees (and for trees
on adjoining parcels with overhanging driplines). They are listed below as radii in feet from
the trunk for the side of the tree to be impacted by construction. They are determined using
rootplate 4 and trunk diameter,5,6 and ISA Best Management Practices.7 These are the
minimum distances from the trees for any soil disturbance, and represent the area to be
protected during construction. These LOD are malleable and may be adjusted during the
design and construction process. The following table lists the limits of disturbance of each
tree.
Limits of Disturbance in feet as radius from tree trunk.
Limits of Disturbance
Tree No. DBH Tree Species DL North East South West
1 64” Bigleaf maple 29’ PL DL DL DL
6 13” Douglas-fir 15’ PL DL DL DL
(PL=property line, DL = dripline)
IMPACT OF NECESSARY TREE REMOVAL
Removal of the 5 indicated trees shall have no impact on the 2 retained trees.
SUPPLEMENTAL TREES
No supplemental trees are required as a result of the proposed tree removal.
4 Coder, Kim D. 2005. Tree Biomechanics Series. University of Georgia School of Forest Resources. 5 Smiley, E. Thomas, Ph. D. Assessing the Failure Potential of Tree Roots, Shade Tree Technical Report. Bartlett
Tree Research Laboratories. 6 Fite, Kelby and E. Thomas Smiley. 2009. Managing Trees During construction; Part Two. Arborist News. ISA. 7 Companion publication to the ANSI A300 Series, Part 5: Managing Trees During Construction. 2008. ISA.
Tom Dalpay, Dalpay Properties
RE: Arborist Report, TPN 0323059120 (148th & Nile, Renton WA)
May 9, 2019
Page 6 of 11
Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist
TREE RETENTION PRIORITY CRITERIA
Priority criteria is provided below from RMC §4-4-130H.1.b. and indicated for each regulated
tree in the attached inventory.
Priority
One
i. Landmark trees;
ii. Significant trees that form a continuous canopy;
iii. Significant trees on slopes greater than twenty percent (20%);
iv. Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated
buffers; and
v. Significant trees over sixty feet (60') in height or greater than
eighteen inches (18") caliper.
Priority
Two
i. Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be
preserved;
ii. Other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and
iii. Other significant non-native trees.
Priority
Three
Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees
have been evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained,
unless the alders and/or cottonwoods are used as part of an
approved enhancement project within a critical area or its buffer.
TREE RETENTION AND LAND CLEARING REGULATIONS
The following pertains to the protection and preservation of 2 retained trees:
4.4.130 §H.9. Protection Measures During Construction: Protection measures in this
subsection shall apply for all trees that are to be retained. All of the following tree protection
measures shall apply:
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 (1.25') 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
Tom Dalpay, Dalpay Properties
RE: Arborist Report, TPN 0323059120 (148th & Nile, Renton WA)
May 9, 2019
Page 7 of 11
Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist
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)
Attachments:
1. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
2. Certification of Performance
3. Significant Tree Inventory
4. Tree Retention Plan
5. Planting and Maintenance Specifications
Tom Dalpay, Dalpay Properties
RE: Arborist Report, TPN 0323059120 (148th & Nile, Renton WA)
May 9, 2019
Page 8 of 11
Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist
Attachment No. 1 - Assumptions & Limiting Conditions
1. A field examination of the site was made 5/7/2019. My observations and
conclusions are as of that date.
2. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has
been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/arborist can neither
guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others.
3. I am not a qualified land surveyor. Reasonable care was used to match the trees
indicated on the sheets with those growing in the field.
4. Construction activities can significantly affect the condition of retained trees. All
retained trees should be inspected after construction is completed, and then
inspected regularly as part of routine maintenance.
5. Unless stated other wise: 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, or coring. There is no warranty or
guarantee, expressed or implied that problems or deficiencies of the subject tree
may not arise in the future.
6. All trees possess the risk of failure. Trees can fail at any time, with or without
obvious defects, and with or without applied stress. A complete evaluation of the
potential for this (a) tree to fail requires excavation and examination of the base of
the subject tree. Permission of the current property owner must be obtained before
this work can be undertaken and the hazard evaluation completed.
7. The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court
by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made.
Tom Dalpay, Dalpay Properties
RE: Arborist Report, TPN 0323059120 (148th & Nile, Renton WA)
May 9, 2019
Page 9 of 11
Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist
Attachment No. 2 - Certification of Performance
I, Favero Greenforest, certify that:
• I have personally inspected the trees and the property referred to in this report and
have stated my findings accurately.
• I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the
subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties
involved.
• The analysis, opinion, and conclusions stated herein are my own and are based on
current scientific procedures and facts.
• My analysis, opinion, and conclusions were developed and this report has been
prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices.
• No one provided significant professional assistance to me, except as indicated within
the report.
• My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined
conclusion that favors the cause of the client of any other party nor upon the results
of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any
subsequent events.
I further certify that I am a member in good standing of International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA), and the ISA PNW Chapter, I am an ISA Certified Arborist (#PN-0143A) and
am Tree Risk Assessment Qualified, and am a Registered Consulting Arborist® (#379) with
American Society of Consulting Arborists. I have worked as an independent consulting
arborist since 1989.
Signed:
GREENFOREST, Inc.
By Favero Greenforest, M. S.
Date: May 9, 2019
Tom Dalpay, Dalpay Properties
RE: Arborist Report, TPN 0323059120 (148th & Nile, Renton WA)
May 9, 2019
Page 10 of 11
Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist
Attachment No. 3 – Tree Inventory Proposed Action Category Reason for Removal Retention Priority Tag No. DBH Species Dripline Radius Health Structure/ Form Comments on Condition Viable Tree Type Retain Landmark 1.i, iv & v 1 64” Bigleaf maple 29’ 2 2 Stunted, decline, trunk
decay, dead limbs Yes D
REMOVE Weed Weed;
not
viable
None 2 46” Black locust 25’ 2 3
Declined, decay, branch
dieback, double leaders
w included bark and split
at attachment
NO D
REMOVE Weed None 3 8.8” Black locust 15’ 2 3 Suppressed, asymmetric
canopy NO D
REMOVE Significant Prop.
Imp. 3 4 10.5” Black cottonwood 14’ 1 1 Yes D
REMOVE Weed Weed None 5 7.6” English hawthorn 10’ 2 2 Diseased, root suckers Yes D
Retain Significant 2.ii 6 13” Douglas-fir 15’ 1 1 Yes E
REMOVE Weed
Weed;
not
viable
None 7 6.5” Cherry, sweet 14’ 2 2 Chlorotic, rootplate
heave NO D
5314210,348 SF15,013 SF10,925 SF7,883 SF13,157 SF9,534 SF13,451 SFTRACT B(STORM DETENTION)TRACT A(CRITICAL AREA)21'21'21'21'30'30'30'30'30'30'N16°29'58"W 433.63N5
6
°
37
'2
3
"E
3
0
0
.
2
6
N1°25'23"E 236.194721.5'21.5'12'12'21
.
5
'
R
IGH
T
-O
F
-WA
Y
D
ED
IC
AT
ION
12' RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATIONGREENES CREEK9,1
7
7
SF17,744 SFROW55'
50'15'SDSD SD SD SD SDGG
G
GGGG
GGG
G
GGGG G G G G G G G G G GGE
E
EEEEE
E
E E E E E E E E E
ET
T
T
TTT
T
TTTTTTT T T T T T T T T T T
T T T T T T T
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXW W SSSSG G G
WGG G
GGGGG
SSTTSS1234567L:\2018\18067\3 DEVELOPMENT\CAD\HOST DRAWINGS\PLANNING EXHIBITS\18067E02-TREE DATA-2019-05-09.DWG2019/05/09 13:58
SE 1/4, SE 1/4 SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONPRELIMINARY LOT LAYOUTDALPAY SHORT PLAT01801203060SCALE: 1" = 60'JOB NO. 18067MAY 10, 2019NE SUNSET
BOULEVARD
(RENTON
ISSAQUAH
RD
SE
)
MT. BAKER
PLACE NE
NILE AVENUE NE
(148TH AVENUE SE)