HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_Baoping_Liu_Bigleaf_Removal_RVMP_and_CAE_FinalDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
D_Baoping_Liu_Bigleaf_Removal_RVMP_and_CAE_Final
PLANNING DIVISION
ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT
AND CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM CRITICAL
AREA REGULATIONS
EVALUATION FORM & DECISION
DATE OF DECISION: April 17, 2024
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA24-000114, RVMP and CAE
PROJECT NAME: Baoping Liu Bigleaf Removal RVMP and CAE
PROJECT MANAGER: Mariah Kerrihard, Assistant Planner
APPLICANT/CONTACT: David Bigelow
2323 Lincoln St, Everett, WA 98203
OWNER: Baoping Liu
27810 SE 26th Way, Sammamish, WA 98075
PROJECT LOCATION: 8825 S 132nd St Renton, WA 98057 (APN 2144800876)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a Routine Vegetation Management Permit (RVMP) and an
exemption from critical areas regulations (CAE) to remove one (1) Bigleaf Maple tree
(Acer macrophyllum) located at 8825 S 132nd St (APN 2144800876) within the
Residential-10 (R-10) zone and within the West Hill community planning area. The
subject property is approximately 14,959 square feet (0.34 acres). According to the
arborist, the proposed tree for removal is a Bigleaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum) has a
diameter at breast height (dbh) of 25" and a height of 65 feet. The arborist included in
the Arborist Report that the tree is situated on a slope estimated to be 40% and is
approximately 7.5 feet from the foundation of the house. Additionally, the arborist
contends that the tree's exposure to prevailing winds from the southwest to northeast
significantly increases the risk of the tree failing and impacting the residence.
According to City of Renton (COR) maps, there are >40% & <=90% protected slopes, a
classified Type Ns - Non-Fish Seasonal - Stream, erosion and landslide hazards areas
mapped on the property.
An Arborist Report, prepared by from David Bigelow dated February 9, 2024, was
included with application (Attachment A). The Report proposes the removal of the
Bigleaf Maple tree. A large wound from a previous failure was also noted on the tree.
As claimed by the arborist, the prior ivy growth has likely had a detrimental effect on
this tree and increased risk of failure. The combination of factors classifies this tree as
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE34DB8F-DE38-4BD3-8E0E-706273B5F928
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development RVMP and Certificate of Exemption From Critical Areas Regulations
Baoping Liu Bigleaf Removal RVMP and CAE LUA24-000114, RVMP and CAE
Permit Date: April 17, 2024 Page 2 of 6
D_Baoping_Liu_Bigleaf_Removal_RVMP_and_CAE_Final
a high risk, as outlined in the ISA Tree Risk rating matrix (Attachment C). Therefore, the
arborist does not believe there is any alternative method for pruning or pruning
techniques as acceptable alternatives. The recommendation was made by the arborist
to leave the tree as a habitat snag at eight to ten feet tall so that it can continue to
shoot new growth and support its root system.
The arborist assessed the tree and evaluated with guidelines established by the
International Society of Arboriculture’s Tree Hazard Evaluation Form. The health
assessments were performed without excavation or internal examination such as
coring or drilling.
CRITICAL AREAS: Sensitive and Protected Slopes, High Erosion Hazard Areas, High Landslide Hazard
Areas, and a classified Type Ns - Non-Fish Seasonal – Stream.
EXEMPTION JUSTIFICATION: Renton Municipal Code, Section 4-3-050C.3.c.iii Dangerous Trees: Removal of
non-native invasive ground cover or weeds listed by King County Noxious Weed Board or other government agency
or dangerous trees, as defined in Chapter 4-11 RMC which have been approved by the City and certified dangerous
by a licensed landscape architect, or certified arborist, selection of whom to be approved by the City based on the
type of information required. Limited to cutting of dangerous trees; such hazardous trees shall be retained as large
woody debris in critical areas and/or associated buffers, where feasible.
RMC 4-3-050.C.3.c.iii EXEMPT, PROHIBITED AND NONCONFORMING ACTIVITIES: Activities taking place in critical
areas and their associated buffers and listed in the "Exempt Activities – Permitted Within Critical Areas and
Associated Buffers" table are exempt from the applicable provisions of Section 4-3-050, provided this letter of
exemption has been issued.
ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA 4-9-195D.4:
YES 1. The lot shall comply with minimum tree density requirements pursuant to RMC 4-4-130,
Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations.
Staff Comments: In accordance with RMC 4-4-130.H, compliance with tree credit
requirements necessitates a minimum rate of 30 tree credits per net acre. The tree risk
assessment area, which covers 14,959 square feet (0.34 acres), was located on the subject
property with APN 2144800876. As specified by the ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
(Attachment C), the tree proposed for removal has a diameter at breast height of 25 inches
which would result in a deficit of 10 credits. Considering the total site’s total area of
approximately 0.34 net acres and applying the rate of 30 credits per acre (30 credits x 0.34
acres = 10.2 credits), there is a requirement of 10 tree credits on the subject property, the
site would comply with the tree credit requirement of the code (Attachment B). Additionally,
in line with the Arborist’s recommendations, the 38 tree credits proposed for retention within the
parcel exceed the minimum tree credit requirements. This compliance is subject to the
removal of the one (1) tree, and the retention of the preserved trees on the property.
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE34DB8F-DE38-4BD3-8E0E-706273B5F928
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development RVMP and Certificate of Exemption From Critical Areas Regulations
Baoping Liu Bigleaf Removal RVMP and CAE LUA24-000114, RVMP and CAE
Permit Date: April 17, 2024 Page 3 of 6
D_Baoping_Liu_Bigleaf_Removal_RVMP_and_CAE_Final
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: City of Renton (COR) maps has identified sensitive and protected slopes,
high erosion hazard areas, high landslide hazard areas, and a Type Ns stream onsite. A
critical areas exemption certificate is a component of this decision. According to the
Arborist Report (Attachment A), prepared by David Bigelow, ISA Certified Arborist, the
Bigleaf Maple tree is exhibiting various health concerns, including a large wound from a
previous failure and it appears to have been a co-dominate tree at one time. The trees are
located in a vegetative buffer covered in English Ivy. To mitigate the risk of the entire tree
failing towards the existing development to the north, tree maintenance work is necessary.
A Type Ns – non-fish seasonal stream is located onsite, through the southern half of the
property. A Routine Vegetation Management Permit is necessary for tree maintenance
within the vegetation conservation buffer if the work is not part of another land use
permitting process. Refer to the Critical Area Exemption Findings below for additional
exemption information. Maintenance of the trees aligns with the restrictions for critical
areas, as outlined in RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations and RMC
4-3-050, Critical Area Regulations.
YES 3. Removal of a landmark tree shall meet the review criteria for removal off landmark tree,
pursuant to RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations.
I. The tree is determined to be a high-risk tree; or
II. The tree is causing obvious physical damage to buildings (over 200 square feet),
driveways, parking lots, or utilities, and it can be demonstrated to the
Administrator’s satisfaction that no reasonable alternative to tree removal exist,
including tree root pruning, tree root barriers, tree cabling, or preventative
maintenance, such as cleaning leaf debris, deadwood removal, or
directional/clearance pruning; or
III. Removal of tree(s) to provide solar access to buildings incorporating active solar
devices. Windows are solar devices only when they are south facing and include
special storage elements to distribute heat energy; or
IV. The Administrator determines the removal is necessary to achieve a specific and
articulable purpose or goal of this Title.
Staff Comments: Criterion i has been met. The applicant is requesting the removal of one
(1) significant tree—a Bigleaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum). The tree has a 25-inch (25”)
DBH (Attachment C). A Routine Vegetation Management Permit is mandatory for the
removal of a landmark tree, not associated with a land development permit. A certified
arborist's written report identified evidence of uncorrected lean against slope due to
previous failure and decline due to ivy which has added weight and wind drag. As stated
by the arborist, the prior ivy growth likely had a detrimental effect on this tree leading to
an increased risk of failure. Within the Arborist Report there had been identified evidence
of large deadwood and serious decline. As stated by the arborist, the tree poses multiple
risks, including houses and occupants within the target zone, meeting the criteria for
removal. The arborist assessing the tree identified it as posing a high risk and recommends
its removal. Mitigation options include reducing the trees to a safe height and left as
environmental habitat snags. In accordance with the arborist’s recommendation, the tree
shall be left at 8-10 feet tall, so that it can continue to shoot new growth and support its
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE34DB8F-DE38-4BD3-8E0E-706273B5F928
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development RVMP and Certificate of Exemption From Critical Areas Regulations
Baoping Liu Bigleaf Removal RVMP and CAE LUA24-000114, RVMP and CAE
Permit Date: April 17, 2024 Page 4 of 6
D_Baoping_Liu_Bigleaf_Removal_RVMP_and_CAE_Final
root system.
N/A 4. Street frontage and parking lot trees and landscaping shall be preserved unless otherwise
approved by the Administrator.
Staff Comments: Not Applicable. The trees are not a part of street frontage, parking lot or
landscaping trees.
N/A 5. The land clearing and tree removal shall not remove any landscaping or protected trees
required as part of a land development permit.
Staff Comments: Not Applicable. The trees were not required as part of a land
development permit for landscaping or tree requirements. Neither street frontage nor
parking landscaping is proposed to be removed.
YES 6. The land clearing and tree removal shall maintain visual screening and buffering between
land uses of differing intensity, consistent with applicable landscaping and setback
provisions.
Staff Comments: The tree is adjacent to lots with detached dwellings and is a use of equal
intensity. Removal of the trees would not remove required visual screening and buffering
between land uses of differing intensity.
YES 7. The land clearing and tree removal shall not create or contribute to a hazardous condition,
such as increased potential for blowdown, pest infestation, disease, or other problems that
may result from selectively removing trees and other vegetation from a lot.
Staff Comments: Provided documentation did not indicate that the removal of the tree
would create or contribute to a hazardous condition.
N/A 8. The land clearing and tree removal shall be consistent with the requirement 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: Not applicable. The property is not located within shoreline jurisdiction.
CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION FINDINGS: The proposed development is consistent with the following findings
pursuant to RMC section 4-3-050C.2.d:
i. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other provision of the Renton Municipal Code or
State or Federal law or regulation;
Staff Comments: Removal of the trees is not prohibited by this or any other provision of the
Renton Municipal Code or State or Federal law or regulations. Approval of this exemption would
act as written permission to allow the removal of the one (1) bigleaf maple tree on parcel no.
2144800876.
ii. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry
standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles;
Staff Comments: According to the Arborist Report, it is recommended that the high-risk tree be
removed to prevent future damage.
iii. Impacts are minimized and, where applicable, disturbed areas are immediately restored;
Staff Comments: The removal process is aimed at minimizing impacts on neighboring
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE34DB8F-DE38-4BD3-8E0E-706273B5F928
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development RVMP and Certificate of Exemption From Critical Areas Regulations
Baoping Liu Bigleaf Removal RVMP and CAE LUA24-000114, RVMP and CAE
Permit Date: April 17, 2024 Page 5 of 6
D_Baoping_Liu_Bigleaf_Removal_RVMP_and_CAE_Final
structures and residents, with a specific focus on tree removal. In accordance with
recommendations from the Arborist Report and City requirements, it is proposed as a condition
of approval that the applicant preserve a habitat snag so that it can continue to shoot new
growth and support its root system. No additional vegetation removal is proposed.
iv. Where water body or buffer disturbance has occurred in accordance with an exemption during
construction or other activities, revegetation with native vegetation shall be required;
Staff Comments: No additional vegetation besides the one (1) tree that is proposed for removal.
Approximately 8 to 10 feet of the big leaf maple tree would be retained as a habitat snag. See
Critical Area Exemption Criteria iii for additional information.
v. If a hazardous material, activity, and/or facility that is exempt pursuant to this Section has a
significant or substantial potential to degrade groundwater quality, then the Administrator
may require compliance with the Wellhead Protection Area requirements of this Section
otherwise relevant to that hazardous material, activity, and/or facility. Such determinations
will be based upon site and/or chemical-specific data.
Staff Comments: Not applicable. A hazardous material, activity and/or facility is not a part of
the project.
DECISION: The Baoping Liu Bigleaf RVMP and CAE, LUA24-000114, RVMP and CAE is
Approved with Conditions* and subject to the following condition:
*CONDITION OF APPROVAL:
1. As recommended in the Arborist Report, the applicant shall reduce the height of the one (1) bigleaf maple
tree within the subject property to a safe height (approximately 8 to 10 feet tall) and the tree shall be left
as an environmental habitat snag as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager.
SIGNATURE & DATE OF DECISION:
________________________________________ ____________________________________
Matthew Herrera, Planning Director Date
RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that the decision be reopened by
the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior
the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration
request, if the approval body finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further
extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14-
day appeal time frame.
APPEALS: Appeals of permit issuance must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on May 1, 2024. 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE34DB8F-DE38-4BD3-8E0E-706273B5F928
4/17/2024 | 4:41 PM PDT
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development RVMP and Certificate of Exemption From Critical Areas Regulations
Baoping Liu Bigleaf Removal RVMP and CAE LUA24-000114, RVMP and CAE
Permit Date: April 17, 2024 Page 6 of 6
D_Baoping_Liu_Bigleaf_Removal_RVMP_and_CAE_Final
floor in our Finance Department. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and additional
information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office, cityclerk@rentonwa.gov.
EXPIRATION: Five (5) years from the date of decision (date signed).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Arborist Report, prepared by David Bigelow dated February 9, 2024
Attachment B: Tree Retention and Tree Credit Worksheet
Attachment C: ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form dated February 9, 2024
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE34DB8F-DE38-4BD3-8E0E-706273B5F928
Arborist Report
pg. 1
February 9, 2024
Prepared by:
David Bigelow
ISA Certified Arborist
Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
PN-9725A
Customer and Location:
Baoping Liu
8825 S 132nd St
Renton, WA 98057
Arborist’s Report
On February 9th, 2024, the trees and tree groups around the property at 8825 S 132 nd St were
evaluated by myself to determine their health and potential for risk. The homeowner contacted
me earlier in the week with strong concerns and had mentioned a tree overhanging the home at
8825. Notwithstanding the recommendations and conclusions made in this report, it must be
realized that trees are living organisms and their health and vigor constantly change over time.
They are not immune to changes in site conditions or seasonal variations in the weather.
Scope of Work
This report provides a general assessment of one tree located at 8825. According to King County
GIS information, the property is in proximity of a slope and stream buffer.
The tree has been viewed and measured from the property at 8825. Trees are considered a
‘group’ where several of the same species are growing closely together. Shrubs and hedges are
not included in the assessment.
Summary
The tree that was evaluated is a Bigleaf maple, Acer macrophyllum. NATIVE. This and the other
maples on this site appear to be naturally occurring. The maple of concern is located to the
south of the home, and is subject to the normally occurring prevailing winds, which blow from
the SW to NE. This wind pattern puts the house (and any occupants) at risk, as shown in photo 1.
ATTACHMENT A
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE34DB8F-DE38-4BD3-8E0E-706273B5F928
Arborist Report
pg. 2
The tree of concern (maple) is located 7.5 feet from the foundation of the home (photo 4) and is
on a 40% (approximate, photo 5) slope. Also of note is the large wound from a previous failure
(as shown in photo 2 and 3). This appears to be a co-dominate tree at one time, and the wound
is from the other stem.
The prior ivy growth has most likely had a detrimental effect on this tree as well, leading to an
increased risk of failure. The combination of these factors classifies this tree as a high risk, as
outlined in the ISA Tree Risk rating matrix.
Methodology
Trees were evaluated with guidelines established by the International Society of Arboriculture’s
Tree Hazard Evaluation Form. The health assessments were performed without excavation or
internal examination such as coring or drilling. No aerial inspection of the upper canopy was
performed.
Recommendations
It is my recommendation that the tree be removed. I do not believe any pruning/pruning
techniques to be an acceptable alternative. The maple should be left at 8-10 feet tall, so that it
can continue to shoot new growth and support its root system.
Comments
Please see attached ISA Tree Risk Assessment form.
Limits
Unless expressed otherwise (1) information contained in this report covers only those items that
were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection, and (2) the
inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without further dissection,
excavation, probing, or coring.
Loss or alteration of any part of a report invalidates the entire report. There is no warranty or
guarantee expressed or implied that problems or deficiencies of the trees in question may not
arise in the future.
PLANNING DIVISION
03/20/2024
mkerrihard
RECEIVED
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE34DB8F-DE38-4BD3-8E0E-706273B5F928
Arborist Report
pg. 3
Respectfully submitted,
David Bigelow
2323 Lincoln St
Everett WA, 98203
(206) 504-0355
dvdbigelow@gmail.com
ISA Certified Arborist #PN9725A
Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE34DB8F-DE38-4BD3-8E0E-706273B5F928
Arborist Report
pg. 4
Site map
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE34DB8F-DE38-4BD3-8E0E-706273B5F928
Arborist Report
pg. 5
Photo 1
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE34DB8F-DE38-4BD3-8E0E-706273B5F928
Arborist Report
pg. 6
Photo 2
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE34DB8F-DE38-4BD3-8E0E-706273B5F928
Arborist Report
pg. 7
Photo 3
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE34DB8F-DE38-4BD3-8E0E-706273B5F928
Arborist Report
pg. 8
Photo 4
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE34DB8F-DE38-4BD3-8E0E-706273B5F928
Arborist Report
pg. 9
Photo 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE34DB8F-DE38-4BD3-8E0E-706273B5F928
rentonwa.gov/permitcenter | planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov | 425-430-7294 10/6/2022 Page 1 of 3
CITY OF RENTON Ι PERMIT CENTER
TREE RETENTION AND CREDIT WORKSHEET
TREE RETENTION REQUIREMENTS
A minimum retention of thirty percent (30%) of all significant trees (as defined in RMC 4-11-200) is required on site.
Please complete the form below to verify compliance with minimum tree retention requirements.
• Identify total number of trees 6-inch caliper or greater (or alder or
cottonwood trees 8-inch caliper or greater) on site: Trees
Trees
Trees
Trees
Trees
Trees Required
Trees Proposed
•Deductions – Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation:
o Trees that are high-risk, as defined in RMC 4-11-200:
o Trees within existing and proposed public right-of-way:
o Trees within wetlands, streams, very high landslide hazards,
protected slopes, and associated buffers:
•Total remaining trees after deductions:
•Required tree retention (30%):
•Identify number of trees proposed for retention:
•Identify number of trees requested for replacement in lieu of retention
(skip page 3 if no tree replacement is requested):Trees
TREE CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
Tree credit requirements apply at a minimum rate of thirty (30) credits per net acre. Complete the form below to
determine minimum tree credit requirements.
•Gross area of property in square feet: Square Feet
•Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from tree credit calculation:
o Existing and proposed public right-of-way: Square Feet
o Wetlands, streams, very high landslide hazards, protected slopes,
and associated buffers: Square Feet
•Total excluded area:Square Feet
•Net land area (after deductions) in square feet:Square Feet
•Net land area (after deductions) in acres:Acres
•Required tree credits:Tree Credits Required
ATTACHMENT B
6
1
0
5
0
0
5
-5
14959
14959
14959
0
0.00
0
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE34DB8F-DE38-4BD3-8E0E-706273B5F928
rentonwa.gov/permitcenter | planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov | 425-430-7294 10/6/2022 Page 2 of 3
TREE RETENTION AND CREDIT WORKSHEET
PROPOSED TREE CREDITS
Please complete the table below to calculate the total tree credits proposed for your project. Identify the quantity of trees
for each tree category, after deducting trees within excluded areas, as shown in the previous section.
TREE SIZE TREE CREDITS TREE QUANTITY TOTAL TREE CREDITS
RETAINED TREES
Preserved tree 6 – 9” caliper 4
Preserved tree 10 – 12” caliper 5
Preserved tree 12 – 15” caliper 6
Preserved tree 16 – 18” caliper 7
Preserved tree 19 – 21” caliper 8
Preserved tree 22 – 24” caliper 9
Preserved tree 25 – 28” caliper 10
Preserved tree 29 – 32” caliper 11
Preserved tree 33 – 36” caliper 12
Preserved tree 37” caliper and greater 13
NEW TREES
New small species tree (30' or less at maturity) 0.25
New medium species tree (30' to 50' at maturity)
1
New large species tree (50' or more at maturity) 2
TREE CREDITS PROPOSED:
1
1
2
1
38
0
0
6
7
16
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE34DB8F-DE38-4BD3-8E0E-706273B5F928
rentonwa.gov/permitcenter | planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov | 425-430-7294 10/6/2022 Page 3 of 3
TREE RETENTION AND CREDIT WORKSHEET
TREE REPLACEMENT JUSTIFICATION
Replacement may be authorized as an alternative to 30% retention provided the removal is the minimum necessary to
accomplish the desired purpose and provided the proposal meets one of the following options:
a. There are special circumstances related to the size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings of the subject
property; or
b. The strict application of the code would prevent reasonable use of property; or
c. The strict application of the code would prevent compliance with minimum density requirements of the zone; or
d. The project is a short plat with four (4) or fewer lots.
Please attach a written justification demonstrating compliance with the requirements and criteria as descripted above.
TREE REPLACEMENT QUANTITY
Tree replacement quantity is determined based on the credit value of the trees proposed for removal. Larger, higher
priority trees shall be used for calculation of tree replacement. Identify the quantity of each tree requested to be removed
in lieu of 30% retention, based on tree size. List the identification number of each tree, as indicated in the arborist report.
TREE SIZE TREE CREDITS TREE QUANTITY TREE INDENTIFICATION # TOTAL TREE CREDITS
Tree 37” caliper + 13
Tree 33 – 36” caliper 12
Tree 29 – 32” caliper 11
Tree 25 – 28” caliper 10
Tree 22 – 24” caliper 9
Tree 19 – 21” caliper 8
Tree 16 – 18” caliper 7
Tree 12 – 15” caliper 6
Tree 10 – 12” caliper 5
Tree 6 – 9” caliper 4
REPLACEMENT CREDITS REQUIRED:
TREE REPLACEMENT PLANTING
Identify the quantity of proposed new replacement trees (minimum size of 2-inch caliper). The total replacement credits
proposed should be equal to or greater than the replacement credits required, as shown in the previous section.
TREE SIZE TREE CREDITS TREE QUANTITY TOTAL TREE CREDITS
New small species tree (30' or less at maturity) 0.25
New medium species tree (30' to 50' at maturity)
1
New large species tree (50' or more at maturity) 2
REPLACEMENT CREDITS PROPOSED:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE34DB8F-DE38-4BD3-8E0E-706273B5F928
— Trunk —
— Crown and Branches —
— Roots and Root Collar —
Unbalanced crown LCR ______%
Dead twigs/branches ____% overall Max. dia. ______
Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ______
Over-extended branches
Pruning history
Crown cleaned
Reduced
Flush cuts
Thinned
Topped
Other
Raised
Lion-tailed
Cracks ___________________________________ Lightning damage
Codominant __________________________________ Included bark
Weak attachments ___________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ.
Previous branch failures _______________ Similar branches present
Dead/Missing bark Cankers/Galls/Burls Sapwood damage/decay
Conks Heartwood decay ________________________
Response growth
Collar buried/Not visible Depth________ Stem girdling
Dead Decay Conks/Mushrooms
Ooze Cavity _____% circ.
Cracks Cut/Damaged roots Distance from trunk _______
Root plate lifting Soil weakness
Response growth
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Dead/Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/color
Codominant stems Included bark Cracks
Sapwood damage/decay Cankers/Galls/Burls Sap ooze
Lightning damage Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms
Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper
Lean _____° Corrected? ________________________________
Response growth
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Time frame_____________ Tools used______________________________
Target Assessment
Ta
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
t
o
m
o
v
e
t
a
r
g
e
t
?
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
?
1
2
3
4
History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____
Site changes None Grade change Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________
Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________
Prevailing wind direction ______ Common weather Strong winds Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low Normal High Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____%
Pests _____________________________________________________ Abiotic ________________________________________________________
Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large
Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss _____________________
Recent or planned change in load factors _________________________________________________________________________________________
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy 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
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
wi
t
h
i
n
1
x
H
t
.
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
Main concern(s)
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Improbable Possible Probable Imminent Improbable Possible Probable Imminent ATTACHMENT C
Baoping Liu 2/9/24 12pm
8825 S 132nd St. Renton, WA 98057 1 1 2
Bigleaf Maple 25 inches aprx.65 feet 30 feet
David Bigelow ISA-9725A 1 year
??
house foundation
n n4
n n n
House 3
Yes. See arborist report for pictures.
n
n n 30
NE
n n ?
tree is covered in IVY
coming up slope
n n
n
?
??
?
?
north40
?
Can not be viewed due to being covered in ivy. High ivy weight on compromised host wood.
n
n Will become imminent without mitigation.
n n
n
n n
n
10 no
not visible
previous failure at base. uncorrected lean
not visible
leverage at base due to slope and wind
n n
n n
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE34DB8F-DE38-4BD3-8E0E-706273B5F928
1
2
3
4
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impacting Target
Very low Low Medium High
Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely
Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely
Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely
Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
n
u
m
b
e
r
Pa
r
t
s
i
z
e
Fa
l
l
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
Target
protection
Conditions
of concern
Failure Impact Failure & Impact
(from Matrix 1)
Likelihood
Im
p
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
Im
m
i
n
e
n
t
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Ve
r
y
l
o
w
Un
l
i
k
e
l
y
Ne
g
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
Me
d
i
u
m
Li
k
e
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Pr
o
b
a
b
l
e
Lo
w
So
m
e
w
h
a
t
Mi
n
o
r
Hi
g
h
Ve
r
y
l
i
k
e
l
y
Se
v
e
r
e
Consequences
Risk
rating
of part
(from
Matrix 2)Tree part
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
N e g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe
Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme
Likely Low Moderate High High
Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate
Unlikely Low Low Low Low
Data Final Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________
Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________
Notes, explanations, descriptions
Mitigation options _____________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme Work priority 1 2 3 4
Overall residual risk Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists – 2013
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Ta
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
HighCrown
60'1
1 none60'Decline due to ivy
Added weight and
wind drag
Trunk Previous failure
Uncorrected lean
against slope
25"none Mod
See arborist report for site map
zeroRemoval to 8-10 feet above ground level
n
n n
n
n n
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE34DB8F-DE38-4BD3-8E0E-706273B5F928