The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutD_Kampel 20221114 Tree Removal_Routine Vegetation Management Permit_20230111DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT D_Kampel 20221114 Tree Removal_Routine Vegetation Management Permit (002) PLANNING DIVISION ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT EVALUATION FORM & DECISION DATE OF DECISION: January 11, 2023 PROJECT NUMBER: LUA22-000406, RVMP PROJECT NAME: Kampel 20221114 Tree Removal PROJECT MANAGER: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner APPLICANT: Christine Leonard, Pacific Arboriculture 5101 s 372nd St, Auburn, WA 98001 OWNER: Ellen Kampel 4101 Williams Ave N, Renton, WA 98056 PROJECT LOCATION: 4101 Williams Ave N, Renton, WA 98056 (APN 0518500400) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of a Routine Vegetation Management Permit (RVMP) and Critical Area Exemption to allow for the removal of one (1) Red Maple. A Routing Vegetation Management Permit is required for the removal of any protected trees identified to be retained in compliance with a land development permit. The tree was a component of the approved Barbee Mill development application. The property is approximately 5,961 square feet in size. The property is located within the Residential 10 (R -10) zone. The applicant proposes to remove one (1) Red Maple. The tree is in the eastern portion of the property in the front yard. Per the Arborist Report (Attachment 1), the tree is planted too close to underground utilities, including communication lines, water, and irrigation. The arborist report indicates that the placement of the tree will inevitably interfere with the utilities. In addition, the report states that the tree root system is damaging and lifting the walkway onsite, which creates a tripping hazard. It is anticipated that if the tree is retained, it will cause further damage to the walkways and/or cause disruption to the utilities. The report’s TRAQ assessment form indicates the tree’s risk rating as “High.” CRITICAL AREA: Seismic Hazard Area: High; Regulated Shoreline: Shoreline Residential GENERAL REVIEW CRITERIA 4-9-195D4: YES 1. The lot shall comply with minimum tree credit requirements pursuant to RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. Staff Comments: The minimum tree credit requirement is 30 tree credits per net acre. The property is approximately 5,961 square feet (0.14 acre) and four (4) tree credits are DocuSign Envelope ID: A09E03B9-A0C5-42AA-B96C-6BE39B79FA0C City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Devel opment Routine Vegetation Management Permit Kampel 20221114 Tree Removal LUA22-000406, RVMP Permit Date: January 11, 2023 Page 2 of 4 D_Kampel 20221114 Tree Removal_Routine Vegetation Management Permit (002) required (0.14 acre x 30 tree credits = 4.2, rounded down to 4 tree credits) for compliance with tree credit requirements. There are a total of 2 additional trees on the project site which are proposed to be retained. A total of 8 tree credits are provided on site based on the number and caliper size of the trees to be retained. The lot complies with minimum tree credit requirements pursuant to RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. YES 2. The land clearing and tree removal shall be consistent with restrictions for critical areas, pursuant to RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations, and RMC 4-3- 050, Critical Areas Regulations. Staff Comments: Per COR Maps, the tree proposed for removal is within a Seismic Hazard Area: High classification. It is not anticipated that the proposed tree removal will have any impact on seismic hazards. YES 3. Removal of a landmark tree shall meet the review criteria for removal of a landmark tree, pursuant to RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. Staff Comments: Not applicable. A landmark tree is a tree with a caliper of 24 inches or greater. The Red Maple tree proposed for removal does not have a caliper of 24 inches or greater and therefore does not meet the definition of a landmark tree. YES 4. Street frontage and parking lot trees and landscaping shall be preserved, unless otherwise approved by the Administrator. Staff Comments: The tree is located along the street frontage. Its placement is a hazard to existing utilities and infrastructure. Removal of the tree is approved with a recommended condition of approval that a replacement tree be installed within six (6) months of permit issuance. See Criteria 5 for more information. Removal of the tree complies with this standard as removal has been approved by the Administrator. YES 5. The land clearing and tree removal shall not remove any landscaping or protected trees required as part of a land development permit. Staff Comments: A tree on the lot was required as part of the Barbee Mill subdivision approval. The applicant proposes to replace the tree with one (1) Kousa Dogwood tree. The proposal does not indicate the specific size of the tree proposed for replacement, or indicated when the tree will be installed. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a minimum of one (1) replacement tree be planted within 6 months of permit issuance, or as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager, and shall have a minimum caliper size of two inches (2”). The applicant shall notify the Current Planning Project Manager following tree replacement installation, so an inspection can be completed. YES 6. The land clearing and tree removal shall maintain visual screening and buffering between land uses of differing intensity, consistent with applicable landscaping and setback provisions. Staff Comments: Not applicable. The tree is adjacent to a lot with a dwelling of an attached residence. This is a residential use of equal intensity. YES 7. The land clearing and tree removal shall not create or contribute to a hazardous DocuSign Envelope ID: A09E03B9-A0C5-42AA-B96C-6BE39B79FA0C City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Devel opment Routine Vegetation Management Permit Kampel 20221114 Tree Removal LUA22-000406, RVMP Permit Date: January 11, 2023 Page 3 of 4 D_Kampel 20221114 Tree Removal_Routine Vegetation Management Permit (002) condition, such as increased potential for blowdown, pest infestation, disease, or other problems that may result from selectively removing trees and other vegetation from a lot. Staff Comments: The RVMP is being requested due to the necessity to remove one (1) dangerous tree. The Arborist Report did not indicate that the removal of the tree would create or contribute to a hazardous condition, but instead indicated that it could cause greater damage in the future if retained. YES 8. The land clearing and tree removal shall be consistent with the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program, pursuant to RMC 4-3-090F1, Vegetation Conservation, and RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. Staff Comments: Per COR Maps, the tree proposed to be removed is within a Regulated Shoreline: Shoreline Residential classification. Shoreline regulations apply to all use and development activities within the shoreline. The vegetation conservation buffer within the Shoreline Single Family designation is 100 feet. The tree is approximately 40 feet beyond the boundary of the buffer. Removal of a tree does not meet the definition of development within shorelines. Removal of the Red Maple does not meet the applicability of development and therefore a shoreline exemption is not required. DECISION: The Kampel 20221114 Tree Removal, LUA22-000406, RVMP, is Approved and subject to the following conditions: *CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A minimum of one (1) replacement tree shall be planted within 6 months of permit issuance, or as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager, and shall have a minimum caliper size of two inches (2”). The applicant shall notify the Current Planning Project Manager following tree replacement installation, so an inspection can be completed. SIGNATURE & DATE OF DECISION: ________________________________________ ____________________________________ Vanessa Dolbee, Planning Director Date RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that the decision be reopened by the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the approval body finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will DocuSign Envelope ID: A09E03B9-A0C5-42AA-B96C-6BE39B79FA0C 1/11/2023 | 4:26 PM PST City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Devel opment Routine Vegetation Management Permit Kampel 20221114 Tree Removal LUA22-000406, RVMP Permit Date: January 11, 2023 Page 4 of 4 D_Kampel 20221114 Tree Removal_Routine Vegetation Management Permit (002) be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14-day appeal time frame. APPEALS: Appeals of permit issuance must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 25, 2023. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Appeals must be submitted electronically to the City Clerk at cityclerk@rentonwa.gov or delivered to City Hall 1st floor Lobby Hub Monday through Friday. The appeal fee, normally due at the time an appeal is submitted, will be collected at a future date if your appeal is submitted electronically. The appeal submitted in person may be paid on the first floor in our Finance Department. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City C lerk’s Office, cityclerk@rentonwa.gov. EXPIRATION: The Routine Vegetation Management Permit shall be valid for one year from the date of issuance. An extension may be granted by the Planning Division for a period of one year upon application by the property owner or manager. Application for such an extension must be made at least thirty (30) days in advance of the expiration of the original permit and shall include a statement of justification for the extension. Attachments: A) Arborist Report DocuSign Envelope ID: A09E03B9-A0C5-42AA-B96C-6BE39B79FA0C 1 Ellen Kampel Level 1 Tree Assessment Prepared For: Ellen Kampel 4101 Williams Ave N Renton, WA 98056 Prepared By: Ryan M. Seeley ISA Certified Arborist PN-8096AT ISA Certified Climber Specialist ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Date: November 14, 2022 Contents: Introduction Summary Findings and Recommendations Introduction As requested by Ellen Kampel, I visited the property of 4101 Williams Ave N Renton, WA 98056 on November 14, 2022, to report the measurements, health, and condition of a Red Maple, Acer rubrum, on her property that he wishes to remove. Summary I provided an assessment of the Red Maple, Acer rubrum, located on the property that was installed too close to the underground communication lines and has begun to lift the walkway in front of Mrs. Kampel’s house. Mrs. Kampel wishes to remove the tree to prevent further damage to the walkway and underground utilities. Findings and Recommendations There was 1 tree in question on the property of 4101 Williams Ave N Renton, WA 98056. The Red Maple, Acer rubrum, referred to in this report is causing damage to the concrete in front of the property and will continue to worsen in the coming years. There are 2 other significant trees on the property being retained. In my professional opinion the Red Maple, Acer rubrum, should be removed before it continues to cause further damage or disruptions to utilities. DocuSign Envelope ID: A09E03B9-A0C5-42AA-B96C-6BE39B79FA0C 2 Figure 1. Location of the trees referred to in this report. DocuSign Envelope ID: A09E03B9-A0C5-42AA-B96C-6BE39B79FA0C 3 Figure 2. The Red Maple, Acer rubrum, Referred to in this report. DocuSign Envelope ID: A09E03B9-A0C5-42AA-B96C-6BE39B79FA0C 4 Figure 3. The root system is beginning to lift the walkway becoming a tripping hazard that will only worsen and lead to costly repairs to remedy. DocuSign Envelope ID: A09E03B9-A0C5-42AA-B96C-6BE39B79FA0C 5 Figure 4. The Red Maple, Acer rubrum, was also planted too close to underground utilities such as communication lines as well as water and irrigation. This poor placement will inevitably interfere with the utilities DocuSign Envelope ID: A09E03B9-A0C5-42AA-B96C-6BE39B79FA0C Ellen Kampel Revegetation Plan Prepared For: Ellen Kampel 4101 Williams Ave N Renton, WA 98056 Prepared By: Ryan M. Seeley ISA Certified Arborist PN-8096AT ISA Certified Climber Specialist ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Date: November 14, 2022 Contents: Introduction Summary Plan of Action and Revegetation Introduction I was contacted by Mrs. Kampel to report the measurements, health, and condition of the Red Maple, Acer rubrum, and discuss the option of removing the tree that has out grown its limited area on the property and replace with a smaller species that will be more manageable for the small area. Summary Mrs. Kampel is requesting to remove the Red Maple, Acer rubrum, on her property that has out grown the limited area and wishes to replace with a species better suited for the area. Plan of Action and Revegetation Remove the Red Maple, Acer rubrum, and replace on a 1:1 ratio with a Kousa Dogwood, Cornus Kousa, of <2” DBH. Ellen Kampel - 4101 Williams Ave N -Removal- Tree # Botanical Name Common Name DBH Vigor Structure Comments/Action Item 1 Acer rubrum Red Maple 12” Good Good Tree has out grown the limited planting area and is now damaging the walkway and planted too close to underground utilities. Remove and replace. DocuSign Envelope ID: A09E03B9-A0C5-42AA-B96C-6BE39B79FA0C 7 Findings and Recommendations There are 3 significant trees on the property of 4101 Williams Ave N Renton, WA 98056. 1 Red Maple, Acer rubrum 1 Palm Tree, Arecaceae Var. 1 Hinoki Cypress, Chamaecyparis obtusa Ellen Kampel - 4101 Williams Ave N DATE 11/14/2022 Tree # Botanical Name Common Name DBH Vigor Structure Comments/Action Item 1 Acer rubrum Red Maple 12” Good Good Causing damage to sidewalks underground utilities. Remove. 2 Arecaceae Var. Palm Tree 9” Good Good Retain and monitor. 3 Chamaecyparis obtusa Hinoki Cypress 8” Good Good Retain and monitor DocuSign Envelope ID: A09E03B9-A0C5-42AA-B96C-6BE39B79FA0C The trees listed below was selected for its beauty, low maintenance, and ability to thrive in the given location with such a limited area. The tree is a non-invasive species. Ellen Kampel - 4101 Williams Ave N -Revegetation- Quantity Botanical Name Common Name Size Comments/Action Item 1 Cornus kousa Kousa Dogwood <2” DBH Species is low maintenance, will thrive in the area of installation and if maintained properly will not interfere with structures for such a limited space. DocuSign Envelope ID: A09E03B9-A0C5-42AA-B96C-6BE39B79FA0C — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ____% overall Max. dia. ______ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ______ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ___________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant __________________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments ___________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _______________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ________________________ Response growth Collar buried/Not visible  Depth________ Stem girdling  Dead  Decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Ooze  Cavity  _____% circ. Cracks  Cut/Damaged roots Distance from trunk _______ Root plate lifting  Soil weakness  Response growth Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Dead/Missing bark  Abnormal bark texture/color  Codominant stems  Included bark  Cracks  Sapwood damage/decay  Cankers/Galls/Burls Sap ooze  Lightning damage  Heartwood decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper  Lean _____° Corrected? ________________________________ Response growth Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Time frame_____________ Tools used______________________________ Target Assessment Target numberTarget description Practical to move target? Restriction practical?1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing  Changed soil hydrology  Root cuts  Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume  Saturated  Shallow  Compacted  Pavement over roots  ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction ______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice  Snow  Heavy rain  Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests _____________________________________________________ Abiotic ________________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches  Trunk  Roots  Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected  Partial  Full  Wind funneling  ________________________ Relative crown size Small  Medium  Large  Crown density Sparse  Normal  Dense  Interior branches Few  Normal  Dense  Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or planned change in load factors _________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate 1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Likelihood of failureLikelihood of failure Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Target within drip line Target within 1x Ht. Target within 1.5x Ht.Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Ellen Kampel 11/14/2022 10.00 4101 Williams Ave N Renton, WA 98056 1 1 2 Red Maple, Acer rubrum 12"45'15' Ryan M. Seeley PN-0896AT 5 Years Basic Level 1 Assessment None Typical Species Failure Typical PNW Weather NO NO n 4 4 n n Walkway 4 Underground utilities and water 4 None n n E n n n n None n Through street n n None NO 80 Common NO None n None dripline Lifting walkway and major utilities within n n DocuSign Envelope ID: A09E03B9-A0C5-42AA-B96C-6BE39B79FA0C 1 2 3 4 Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impacting Target Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely UnlikelyCondition numberPart sizeFall distanceTarget protection Conditions of concern Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood ImprobableImminentPossibleVery lowUnlikelyNegligibleMediumLikelySignificantProbableLowSomewhatMinorHighVery likelySevereConsequences Risk rating of part (from Matrix 2)Tree part Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure N e g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions Mitigation options _____________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ Overall tree risk rating Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Work priority 1  2  3  4  Overall residual risk Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists – 2013 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Target number 2 None HighRoots1NoneLifting walkway and future damage to utilities High The root system is lifting the walkway and posing as a tripping hazard for the residence and the community. This will only worsen and inevitably interfere with underground utilities such as communication and water. Remove tree. N/ARemove tree n n n n None. n DocuSign Envelope ID: A09E03B9-A0C5-42AA-B96C-6BE39B79FA0C 6 Glossary Arborist: A person possessing the technical competence through experience and related training to provide for or supervise the management of trees or other woody plants in a landscape setting. Basic Level 2 Risk Assessment: A detailed visual inspection of a tree and its surrounding site and a synthesis of the information collected. Canopy/crown: Upper part of a tree bearing foliage, limbs, and branches, measured from the lowest branch including all branches and foliage. Co-dominant Stem: A structurally unstable branch union often associated with a high risk of failure. A term used to describe two or more main stems (or "leaders") that are about the same diameter and emerge from the same location on the main trunk. Crown Cleaning: In pruning, the selective removal of dead, dying, diseased and broken branches from the tree crown. Diameter at Breast Height: A standard measurement of a tree most often taken at 4.5 feet from the base of the tree; however, this can vary depending if the tree has multiple trunks or is growing on a slope. Hazard Tree: A tree that meets all the following criteria: a. Has a combination of structural defects and/or disease which makes it subject to a high probability of failure; b. Is in proximity to moderate to high frequency targets (persons or property that can be damaged by tree failure); and c. The hazard condition of the tree cannot be lessened with reasonable and proper arboricultural practices nor can the target be removed. Live Crown Ratio: The ratio of the size of a tree's live crown to its total height. Used in estimating a tree’s health and its level of competition with neighboring trees. Mechanical Damage: Trees are often wounded by careless use of yard equipment like mowers, weed whackers, and other trimming equipment. These injuries cut through important vascular tissue just inside the bark that can lead to decay and ultimately death of the tree. A ring of natural mulch or arborist wood chips around the tree eliminates the need to trim or mow close to the tree's base. Extreme care should be taken when digging up or tilling the soil under a tree. Many large and small roots will be cut by such digging, especially if it occurs close to the trunk. DocuSign Envelope ID: A09E03B9-A0C5-42AA-B96C-6BE39B79FA0C 7 Monitor: It is important to monitor mature trees on a regular schedule, at least once a year. Monitoring would include a Visual Tree Assessment to look for changes in habit and structure, and to document signs of weakness or decline in health and integrity of the trees. Options for Mitigation of Risk Trees: • Remove the risk altogether, if possible, by cutting off one or more branches, removing dead wood, or possibly removing the entire tree. Extreme risk situations should be closed off until the risk is abated. • Modify the risk of failure probability. In some cases, it may be possible to reduce the probability of failure by adding mechanical support in the form of cables braces or props. • Modify the risk rating by moving the target. Risk ratings can sometimes be lowered by moving the target so that there is a much lower probability of the defective part striking anything. Moving the target should generally be seen as an interim measure. • Retain and monitor. This approach is used where some defects have been noted but they are not yet serious and the present risk level is only moderate. • Convert those trees slated for removal into Wildlife Habitat Snags. Reduce the overall height of the tree using natural fracture pruning techniques to heights relative to the targets. Pruning: Selective removal of woody plant parts of any size, using saws, pruners, clippers, or other pruning tools. The reason for tree pruning may include, but is not limited to, reducing risk, managing tree health and structure and/or improving aesthetics or achieving other specific objectives. Pruning objectives should include pruning out all dead, diseased, weak and/or broken branches in all tree canopies, and crown cleaning. Snag or Habitat Snag: A standing, dead or dying tree, often missing a top or most of the smaller branches important for wildlife in both natural and landscaped settings, occurring as a result of disease, lightning, fire, animal damage, too much shade, drought, root competition, or old age. May also be a component in slope stability and ongoing vegetation management practices. Threshold for Risk: Each individual is entitled to and can determine her or the own threshold for risk. Threshold for risk is subjective, and can be influenced by a person’s view, taste or opinion. Topping: Topping is the indiscriminate cutting of tree branches to stubs or to lateral branches that are not large enough to assume the terminal role. Other names for topping include “heading,” “tipping,” “hat-racking,” and “rounding over.” Topping is not a viable method of height reduction and does not reduce future risk. In fact, topping will increase risk in the long term. Topping is not considered an acceptable arboriculture practice. DocuSign Envelope ID: A09E03B9-A0C5-42AA-B96C-6BE39B79FA0C 8 Urban Forestry: Management of naturally occurring and planted trees in urban areas. Vigor: Overall health; the capacity to grow and resist physiological stress. • Good: Shoot growth, leaf size and leaf color are typical of the tree age and species. • Fair: Shoot growth, leaf size, and leaf color are below average for the tree age and species. Some deadwood is evident in the crown. Treatment may be required to foster improved future growth. • Poor: Shoot growth, leaf size, and leaf color are highly stunted, and there is a significant amount of dead twigs and branches in the crown. DocuSign Envelope ID: A09E03B9-A0C5-42AA-B96C-6BE39B79FA0C 9 Waiver of Liability There are many conditions affecting a tree’s health and stability which may be present but cannot be ascertained such as root rot, previous or unexposed construction damage, internal cracks, stem rot and more. Changes in circumstances and conditions can also cause a rapid deterioration of a tree’s health and stability. Adverse weather conditions can dramatically affect the health and safety of a tree in a very short amount of time. While I have used every reasonable means to examine this plant, this evaluation represents my opinion of the tree health at this point in time. These findings do not guarantee future safety nor are they predictions of future events. The tree evaluation consists of an external visual inspection of an individual tree’s root flare, trunk, and canopy from the ground only, unless otherwise specified. The inspection may also consist of taking trunk or root soundings for sound comparisons to aid the evaluator in determining the possible extent of decay within a tree. Soundings are only an aid to the evaluation process and do not replace the use of other more sophisticated diagnostic tools for determining the extent of decay within a tree. As conditions change, it is the responsibility of the property owners to schedule additional site visits by the ISA Certified Arborist. It is the responsibility of the property owner to obtain all required permits from city, county, state, or federal agencies. It is the responsibility of the property owner to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and permit conditions. If there is a homeowner’s association, it is the responsibility of the property owner to comply with all Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R’s) that apply to tree pruning and tree removal. This tree evaluation is to be used to inform and guide the client in the management of their trees. This in no way implies that the evaluator is responsible for performing recommended actions or using other methods or tools to further determine the extent of internal tree problems without written authorization from the client. Furthermore, the evaluator in no way holds that the opinions and recommendations are the only actions required to ensure that the tree will not fail. A second opinion is recommended. The client shall hold the evaluator harmless for any and all injuries or damages incurred if the evaluator’s recommendations are not followed or for acts of nature beyond the evaluator’s reasonable expectations, such as severe winds, excessive rains, heavy snow loads, etc. This report and all attachments, enclosures, and references are confidential and are for the use of the client concerned. They may not be reproduced, used in any way, or disseminated in any form without the prior consent of the client concerned and ISA Certified Arborist Ryan Seeley. Thank you for allowing me to be of service. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Ryan Seeley (253)-266-5665 ISA Certified Arborist PN-8096AT ISA Certified Tree Worker Climber Specialist ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified DocuSign Envelope ID: A09E03B9-A0C5-42AA-B96C-6BE39B79FA0C