The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2216 High Ave Tree Plan Report_2_25 Arborist Report 2216 High Ave NE Renton, WA February 25th, 2016 American Forest Management 2/25/2016 Table of Contents 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 2. Description ............................................................................................................... 1 3. Methodology ............................................................................................................ 1 4. Observations ........................................................................................................... 2 5. Discussion ............................................................................................................... 2 6. Tree Retention ......................................................................................................... 3 7. Tree Replacement .................................................................................................. .3 8. Tree Protection Measures…………………………………………………………………4 Appendix Site/Tree Photos – pages 5 - 9 Tree Summary Table - attached Tree Plan Map – attached 2216 High Ave NE Arborist Report Page 1 American Forest Management 2/25/2016 1. Introduction American Forest Management, Inc. was contacted by Hugh Stewart of Sandjay LLC, and was asked to compile an ‘Arborist Report’ for one parcels located within the City of Renton. The proposed home remodel encompasses the property at 2216 High Ave NE. Our assignment is to prepare a written report on present tree conditions, which is to be filed with the preliminary permit application. This report encompasses all of the criteria set forth under City of Renton code section 4-4-130. The tree retention requirement is 30% of significant trees. Date of Field Examination: February 18th, 2016 2. Description 22 significant trees were identified and assessed on the property. These are comprised of a mix of native species and planted ornamental species. According to City of Renton code, a significant tree is 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.” A numbered aluminum tag was placed on the lower trunks of the subject trees. These numbers were used for this assessment. Tree tag numbers correspond with the numbers on the Tree Summary Tables and copy of the attached site survey. There are two neighboring trees with a drip lines that extend over the property line. 3. Methodology Each tree in this report was visited. Tree diameters were measured by tape. The tree heights were measured using a Spiegel Relaskop. Each tree was visually examined for defects and vigor. The tree assessment procedure involves the examination of many factors:  The crown of the tree is examined for current vigor. This is comprised of inspecting the crown (foliage, buds and branches) for color, density, form, and annual shoot growth, limb dieback and disease. The percentage of live crown is estimated for coniferous species only and scored appropriately.  The bole or main stem of the tree is inspected for decay, which includes cavities, wounds, fruiting bodies of decay (conks or mushrooms), seams, insects, bleeding, callus development, broken or dead tops, structural defects and unnatural leans. Structural defects include crooks, forks with V-shaped crotches, multiple attachments, and excessive sweep.  The root collar and roots are inspected for the presence of decay, insects and/or damage, as well as if they have been injured, undermined or exposed, or original grade has been altered. Based on these factors a determination of condition is made. The four condition categories are described below based on the species traits assessed: Excellent – free of structural defects, no disease or pest problems, no root issues, excellent structure/form with uniform crown or canopy, foliage of normal color and density, above average vigor, it will be wind firm if isolated, suitable for its location Good – free of significant structural defects, no disease concerns, minor pest issues, no significant root issues, good structure/form with uniform crown or canopy, foliage of normal color and density, average or normal vigor, will be wind firm if isolated or left as part of a grouping or grove of trees, suitable for its location 2216 High Ave NE Arborist Report Page 2 American Forest Management 2/25/2016 Fair – minor structural defects not expected to contribute to a failure in near future, no disease concerns, moderate pest issues, no significant root issues, asymmetric or unbalanced crown or canopy, average or normal vigor, foliage of normal color, moderate foliage density, will be wind firm if left as part of a grouping or grove of trees, cannot be isolated, suitable for its location Poor – major structural defects expected to fail in near future, disease or significant pest concerns, decline due to old age, significant root issues, asymmetric or unbalanced crown or canopy, sparse or abnormally small foliage, poor vigor, not suitable for its location A ‘viable’ tree is “A significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in good health, with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is wind firm if isolated or remains as part of a grove, and is a species that is suitable for its location.” Trees considered ‘non-viable’ are trees that are in poor condition due to disease, age related decline, have significant decay issues and/or cumulative structural defects, which exacerbate failure potential. The attached tree map indicates the ‘condition’ of the subject trees found at the site. 4. Observations The subject trees are comprised of a mix of native and planted species. The native tree species are primarily in along the north and east property lines. Specific tree information can be found on the attached tree table. The non-viable and neighboring trees are described below. Tree #102 is a flowering cherry west of the home. This tree has five co-dominant stems. Many of the main stems are dead. The subject tree has poor form and decay in the stems. This tree is in decline and is non-viable. Tree #108 is a young big leaf maple on the north property line. This tree has severe decay. One of the co- dominant stems is dead and the main trunk is over 50% decayed. This tree is in poor condition and is non- viable. Tree #116 is a red alder east of the current home. The lower trunk of this tree is covered in ivy. This tree has evidence of decay and a smaller than average crown. This tree is in poor condition and is non-viable. Tree #119 is a bitter cherry in the southeast corner of the property. This tree is almost entirely covered in English ivy. This tree has a 10% live crown. The subject tree is in poor condition and is non-viable. Tree #121 is a mature big leaf maple tree east of the current home. This tree has co-dominant stems that fork 1’ from the ground. One trunk is leaning west towards the home. There is decay in the stem leaning towards the home. There is reaction wood around the decay, evidence that the decay has been compartmentalized. The most concerning defect is the v-shaped attachment between the co-dominant stems and the seam between the branch attachments. This tree is in poor condition and is non-viable. Neighboring Trees Tree #201 and #202 are Douglas-fir trees north of the property line. Both trees have full crowns and no notable defects. The subject trees are in good condition and are viable. 5. Discussion The extent of drip-lines (farthest reaching branches) for the subject trees can be found on the tree summary tables at the back of this report. These have also been delineated on a copy of the site survey for viable/healthy trees proposed for retention. The information plotted on the attached survey plan may need to be transferred to a final tree retention/protection plan to meet City submittal requirements. The trees that are to be removed shall be shown “X’d” out on the final plan. 2216 High Ave NE Arborist Report Page 3 American Forest Management 2/25/2016 The Limits of Disturbance (LOD) measurements can also be found on the tree summary table. This is the recommended distance of the closest impact (soil excavation) to the trunk face. These should be referenced when determining tree retention feasibility. The LOD measurements are based on species, age, condition, drip- line, prior improvements, proposed impacts and the anticipated cumulative impacts to the entire root zone. Tree Protection fencing shall be located beyond the drip-line edge of retained trees, and only moved back to the LOD when work is authorized. The neighboring trees are two mature Douglas-fir trees and need to be protected with tree protection fencing. Tree #201 and #202 are on the north perimeter and with tree protection fencing, erected per the attached plan, no significant impacts are anticipated. 6. Tree Retention A total of 22 significant trees were identified on the subject property. Six of the significant trees are in poor condition. These six non-viable trees were not included in the tree calculation. Landmark trees and tree groves were prioritized when selecting trees for retention, per the City of Renton tree code 4-4-130. Tree Calculation based on 16, healthy, viable, significant trees Viable Trees proposed for removal – 12 (75%) Viable Trees proposed for retention – 4 (25%) 7. Tree Replacement Replacements trees may be required. Consult your city planner for tree replacement requirements. All replacement trees are to be planted on site. For planting and maintenance specifications, refer to Section 4-4- 130 of the Renton Tree Ordinances. Tree Type Removal Retained Total Landmark # 1 0 1 Landmark % 100% 0% 100% Significant # 11 4 15 Significant % 73% 27% 100% Total # 12 4 16 Total % 75% 25% 100% 2216 High Ave NE Arborist Report Page 4 American Forest Management 2/25/2016 8. Tree Protection Measures The following guidelines are recommended to ensure that the designated space set aside for the preserved trees are protected and construction impacts are kept to a minimum.  Tree protection barriers shall be initially erected at 5’ outside of the drip-line prior to moving any heavy equipment on site.  Tree protection fencing shall only be moved where necessary to install improvements, but only as close as the Limits of Disturbance, as indicated on the attached plan.  Excavation limits should be laid out in paint on the ground to avoid over excavating.  Excavations within the drip-lines shall be monitored by a qualified tree professional so necessary precautions can be taken to decrease impacts to tree parts. A qualified tree professional shall monitor excavations when work is required and allowed up to the “Limits of Disturbance”.  To establish sub grade for foundations, curbs and pavement sections near the trees, soil should be removed parallel to the roots and not at 90 degree angles to avoid breaking and tearing roots that lead back to the trunk within the drip-line. Any roots damaged during these excavations should be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly with a saw. Cutting tools should be sterilized with alcohol.  Areas excavated within the drip-line of retained trees should be thoroughly irrigated weekly during dry periods.  Preparations for final landscaping shall be accomplished by hand within the drip-lines of retained trees. Plantings within the drip lines shall be limited. Large equipment shall be kept outside of the tree protection zones. There is no warranty suggested for any of the trees subject to this report. Weather, latent tree conditions, and future man-caused activities could cause physiologic changes and deteriorating tree condition. Over time, deteriorating tree conditions may appear and there may be conditions, which are not now visible which, could cause tree failure. This report or the verbal comments made at the site in no way warrant the structural stability or long term condition of any tree, but represent my opinion based on the observations made. Nearly all trees in any condition standing within reach of improvements or human use areas represent hazards that could lead to damage or injury. Please call if you have any questions or I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Kelly Wilkinson ISA Certified Arborist #PN-7673A ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified 2216 High Ave NE Arborist Report Page 5 American Forest Management 2/25/2016 Photos Tree #103, #102 and #101 – planted ornamental trees Tree #103 – Magnolia with co-dominant stems 2216 High Ave NE Arborist Report Page 6 American Forest Management 2/25/2016 Tree #104 – Austrian black pine leaning south Tree #108 – big leaf maple with severe trunk decay 2216 High Ave NE Arborist Report Page 7 American Forest Management 2/25/2016 Tree #109 – lodgepole pine with a flat side on the lower trunk Tree #114 – western red cedar with co-dominant stems 2216 High Ave NE Arborist Report Page 8 American Forest Management 2/25/2016 South east corner of the property Tree #121 – big leaf maple in decline 2216 High Ave NE Arborist Report Page 9 American Forest Management 2/25/2016 Tree #122 – flowering cherry with decay in main stems Tree Summary Table American Forest Management, Inc. For:2216 High Ave NE Date:2/19/2016 City of Renton Inspector:Wilkinson Tree/DBH Height Tag #Species (inches)(feet)Condition Viability Comments Proposal N S E W 101 Amur maple 2, 6, 7, 4, 3 21 13 113 11 10 fair viable decay in stems remove 102 flowering cherry 8, 8, 13, 9, 5 14 12 14 14 21 poor non-viable dead stems, decay, poor form remove 103 Magnolia 10, 7 26 12 16 17 9 fair viable forks at base and reconnects at 5'remove 104 Austrian pine 15 32 2 24 10 7 fair viable leans south remove 105 Sitka spruce 15 57 10 10 12 9 good viable remove 106 western red cedar 30 86 16 12 14 12 good viable landmark tree remove 107 big leaf maple 12 68 16 8 fair viable remove 108 big leaf maple 10 64 poor non-viable severe decay, dead co-dominant stemremove 109 lodgepole pine 16 69 16 6 8 fair viable flat side remove 110 Douglas-fir 28 95 14 good viable ivy covering trunk remove 111 Austrian pine 11 62 7 8 7 fair viable ivy covering trunk remove 112 big leaf maple 15, 14, 14 64 21 21 9 18 fair viable ivy remove 113 big leaf maple 8, 16 42 10 14 4 fair viable ivy remove 114 western red cedar 24, 7 60 12 11 11 11 good viable remove 115 bitter cherry 9, 12, 11 49 16 / 12 14 / 12 15 / 12 12 / 12 fair viable ivy retain 116 red alder 14 43 15 7 18 9 poor non-viable severe trunk decay remove 117 bitter cherry 6, 7 54 15 / 10 16 / 10 7 / 10 11 / 10 fair viable forks at base, some dead stems retain 118 black cottonwood 18, 14 75 19 / 14 23 / 14 15 / 14 9 / 14 fair viable retain 119 bitter cherry 6, 10 23 poor non-viable ivy covering trunk, 10% live crown remove 120 black cottonwood 26 68 13 / 14 12 / 14 9 / 14 fair viable ivy retain 121 big leaf maple 23, 28 89 22 8 18 21 poor non-viable decay, black on lower trunk remove 122 flowering cherry 7, 10, 10, 10 26 11 22 15 15 poor non-viable decay remove 201 Douglas-fir 27 92 10 / 8 good viable 202 Douglas-fir 29 99 12 / 10 good viable Drip-Line and Limits of Disturbance measurements from face of trunk Drip-Line/Limits of Disturbance (feet) Trees on neighboring properties - Drip-line and Limits of Disturbance measurements from property lines Neighboring Trees