HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR_Arborist_Report_210129_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: Satwant Singh
Skyline Properties, Inc.
1851 Central Place South, #116
Kent WA 98030
REFERENCE: Tree Inventory & Arborist Report, Cedar Ridge Short Plat
SITE ADDRESS: 13609 156th Ave SE, Renton WA
DATE: May 5, 2017
PREPARED BY: Favero Greenforest, ISA Certified Arborist # PN -0143A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #379
In preparation for re-development of the referenced site, you contracted my services as a
consulting arborist. My assignment is to inventory and assess the regulated trees on the site,
and document my findings in this report.
You provided me a Topographic Survey prepared by Pacific Engineering Design, LLC. I visited
the site 3/8/2017 and inspected the trees, which are the subject of this report.
SUMMARY:
Onsite Significant Trees 23
Onsite Landmark Trees 6
Onsite Dangerous Trees 9
TOTAL Significant & Landmark 29
Proposed Retained Trees 4
Percent Retained Trees 13%
Satwant Singh, Skyline Properties, Inc.
RE: Tree Inventory & Arborist Report, Cedar Ridge Short Plat
May 5, 2017
Page 2 of 13
Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist
The site has a slight southern aspect and includes two contiguous parcels (1463400045 &
1463400049) that total approximately 1.7 acres. There is minimal significant understory
landscaping (native or ornamental).
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.
TREE INSPECTION
I visually inspected each tree from the ground. I performed a Level 1 risk assessment.1 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.
On the other hand, 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.
1 Companion publication to the ANSI A300 Part 9: Tree Shrub and Other woody Plant Management – Standard
Practices, Tree Risk Assessment. 2011. ISA.
Satwant Singh, Skyline Properties, Inc.
RE: Tree Inventory & Arborist Report, Cedar Ridge Short Plat
May 5, 2017
Page 3 of 13
Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist
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.2 In addition to the on-site trees,
this report also includes trees within the street right-of-way, and trees on the parcel abutting
to the south.
The attached tree inventory contains the following information on each tree:
Retained Tree identifies and tallies the trees proposed for retention.
Retention Priority shows the results of an analysis of retained trees according to
priority of tree retention requirements specified in RMC §4-4-130H.1.b.
Proposed for Removal identifies trees proposed for removal, and the reason for the
necessary removal (diseased, or proposed site improvements- PSI).
Tree number as shown on the attached site plan.
DBH Stem (trunk) diameter in inches 4.5 feet from grade.
Tree Category as defined by municipal code. 3
TREE: A woody perennial usually having one dominant trunk, or, for certain
species, a multi-stemmed trunk system, with a potential minimum height of ten
feet (10') at maturity. Any trees listed on the Complete King County Weed List
shall not qualify as a tree.
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.
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.
2 Companion publication to the ANSI A300 Part 5: Tree Shrub and Other woody Plant Maintenance – Standard
Practices, Managing Trees During Construction. 2008. ISA.
3 Renton Municipal Code. §4-11-200 DEFINITIONS T: Tree.
Satwant Singh, Skyline Properties, Inc.
RE: Tree Inventory & Arborist Report, Cedar Ridge Short Plat
May 5, 2017
Page 4 of 13
Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist
Tree Species Common name.
Dripline Average branch extension in feet as radius from the trunk.
Health & Structure Ratings ‘1’ indicates no visible health-related problems or
structural defects; ‘2’ indicates minor visible problems or defects that may require
attention or maintenance if the tree is retained, and/or the tree should only
remain as a grove tree, and not stand alone; and ‘3’ indicates significant visible
problems or defects, the tree is considered dangerous by City code, and removal is
recommended.
Visible Defects Obvious structural defects or diseases visible at time of inspection,
including:
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.
Canker - Disease cankers are established on trunk/branches.
Deadwood – Large and/or multiple dead branches throughout canopy.
Decay – process of wood degradation by microorganisms resulting in weak and
defective structure.
Decline – visible loss of vitality/growth.
Diseased – foliage and trunk/stems are diseased.
Double leader – the tree has multiple stem attachments, which may require
maintenance or monitoring over time.
Multiple leaders - the tree has multiple stem attachments, which may lead to
tree failure and require maintenance or monitoring over time.
Previous failure – Tree trunk previously broken and defective.
Sapsucker – trunk injured by migratory woodpecker.
Stem Canker – disease canker on trunk/branches.
Sweep – tree leans away from adjacent trees. Characterized by a leaning lower
trunk and a top that is more upright.
Topped – the tree is previously topped and has poor structure and/or stem
decay.
Type indicates if tree is Deciduous (D), Coniferous (C) or Broadleaf evergreen (BLE).
Satwant Singh, Skyline Properties, Inc.
RE: Tree Inventory & Arborist Report, Cedar Ridge Short Plat
May 5, 2017
Page 5 of 13
Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE FOR RETAINED TREES
Limits of Disturbance (LOD) are calculated below for all 4 retained significant trees. They are
listed below as radii in feet from the trunk for the four cardinal sides of each tree. 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
further during the design and construction process. The following table lists the LOD of each
retained tree.
Table No. 1 - Limits Of Disturbance In Feet As Radius From Tree Trunk.
Tree No. DBH Species DL
Limits of Disturbance
North East South West
34 8” Douglas-fir 12’ DL DL DL DL
39 56” Western red-cedar 20’ DL 28’ PL PL
40 9” Pine 10’ DL DL PL DL
41 7” Chestnut 14’ DL DL PL DL
(PL=property line, DL = dripline.)
IMPACT OF NECESSARY TREE REMOVAL TO THE REMAINING TREES
Trees 34, 39-41 stand along the south site boundary, and the proposed removal of trees
elsewhere on the project will have no impact on them as they are accustomed to the
prevailing winds.
SUPPLEMENTAL TREES
The proposed percentage of retained trees is 13%, below the minimum required of 30%.
Supplemental tree quantities and placement will be provided under separate cover.
AN ANALYSIS OF TREE RETENTION PRIORITY REQUIREMENTS8
Retention priority for each proposed retained tree is provided in the attached tree inventory.
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.
8 RMC. §4-4-130H.1.b
Satwant Singh, Skyline Properties, Inc.
RE: Tree Inventory & Arborist Report, Cedar Ridge Short Plat
May 5, 2017
Page 6 of 13
Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist
TREE PROTECTION MEASURES DURING CONSTRUCTION9
Protective fencing and required signage shall be installed prior to any site clearing and/or
demolition. Fencing may be temporarily adjusted during the removal of trees adjacent to
those retained. For development applications, protection measures must be in accordance
with the tree protection standards as outlined in RMC 4-4-130.H.9, (and as excerpted below):
§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 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
9 RMC. Excerpted from §4-4-130H9.
Satwant Singh, Skyline Properties, Inc.
RE: Tree Inventory & Arborist Report, Cedar Ridge Short Plat
May 5, 2017
Page 7 of 13
Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist
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.
Attachments:
1. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
2. Certificate of Performance
3. Significant Tree Inventory
4. Preliminary Grading and Tree Retention Plan
Satwant Singh, Skyline Properties, Inc.
RE: Tree Inventory & Arborist Report, Cedar Ridge Short Plat
May 5, 2017
Page 8 of 13
Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist
Attachment No. 1 - Assumptions & Limiting Conditions
1) A field examination of the site was made 3/8/2014. 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) 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.
4) 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.
5) 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.
6) Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.
7) Unless required by law otherwise, possession of this report or a copy thereof does not
imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is
addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser.
8) Construction activities can impact trees in unpredictable ways. All retained trees
should be inspected at the completion of construction, and regularly thereafter as part of
ongoing maintenance.
9) The consultant does not assume any liability for the subject tree and does not
represent the transfer of such for any risks associated with the tree from the landowner to the
consultant. Risk management is solely the responsibility of the landowner.
Satwant Singh, Skyline Properties, Inc.
RE: Tree Inventory & Arborist Report, Cedar Ridge Short Plat
May 5, 2017
Page 9 of 13
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 5, 2017
Satwant Singh, Skyline Properties, Inc.
RE: Tree Inventory & Arborist Report, Cedar Ridge Short Plat
May 5, 2017
Page 10 of 13
Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist
Attachment No. 3 – Significant Tree Inventory Retained Tree Priority Proposed for Removal Tree No. DBH Category Species Dripline Health Structure Visible Defects Type PSI 1 56” Landmark Western red-cedar 18’ 1 1 C
Diseased
(ROW) 2 15” Dangerous Purpleleaf plum 8’ 3 3
Diseased, decline, branch failure,
asymmetric D
PSI 3 25” Significant Douglas-fir 16’ 1 1 C
PSI 4 22” Significant Pine 12’ 1 1 C
Diseased 5 12” Dangerous Purpleleaf plum 10’ 3 3 Decay, decline, branch failure D
Diseased 6 15” Dangerous Pear 12’ 3 3
Decay, diseased, sapsucker injury,
deadwood D
PSI 7
7,7,15
,22” Significant Chestnut 22’ 1 2 Topped for power lines, deadwood D
PSI 8 28” Significant Douglas-fir 16’ 1 1 C
PSI 9 6,6,7” Significant Holly 10’ 1 2 Multiple leaders BLE
PSI 10 25” Significant Douglas-fir 16’ 1 1 C
PSI 11 27” Significant Black locust 16’ 1 2 Double leaders D
PSI 12 26” Significant Douglas-fir 16’ 1 1 C
PSI 13 26” Significant Western red-cedar 12’ 1 2 Double leaders C
PSI 14 23” Significant Douglas-fir 18’ 1 2 Asymmetric C
PSI 15 28” Significant Douglas-fir 18’ 1 2 Asymmetric C
PSI 16 30” Landmark Douglas-fir 18’ 1 2 Asymmetric C
PSI 17 26” Significant Western red-cedar 20’ 1 1 C
PSI 18 44” Landmark Western red-cedar 25’ 1 2 Double leaders C
PSI 19 7” Significant Black locust 12’ 1 1 D
Satwant Singh, Skyline Properties, Inc.
RE: Tree Inventory & Arborist Report, Cedar Ridge Short Plat
May 5, 2017
Page 11 of 13
Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist
Retained Tree Priority Proposed for Removal Tree No. DBH Category Species Dripline Health Structure Visible Defects Type PSI 20 17” Significant Douglas-fir 16’ 1 1 C
PSI 21 19” Significant Douglas-fir 16’ 1 1 C
PSI 22 19,23” Significant Douglas-fir 16’ 1 2 Double leaders C
PSI 23 25” Significant Douglas-fir 18’ 1 2 Double leaders C
PSI 24 22” Significant Douglas-fir 18’ 1 2 C
PSI 25 23” Significant Douglas-fir 18’ 1 2 C
PSI 26 8” Significant Red alder 14’ 1 2 Asymmetric D
Diseased 27 16” Dangerous Red alder 14’ 1 3 Asymmetric, dieback, stem cankers D
Diseased 28 15” Dangerous Red alder 14’ 1 3 Asymmetric, dieback, stem cankers D
Diseased 29 11” Dangerous Red alder 14’ 1 3 Asymmetric, dieback, stem cankers D
Diseased 30 9” Dangerous Red alder 14’ 1 3 Asymmetric, dieback, stem cankers D
Diseased 31 8” Dangerous Red alder 14’ 1 3 Asymmetric, dieback, stem cankers D
Diseased 32 14” Dangerous Red alder 14’ 1 3 Asymmetric, dieback, stem cankers D
Diseased 33 14” Dangerous Red alder 16’ 3 3 Decay, decline, branch failure D
RETAIN 2.ii 34 8” Significant Douglas-fir 12’ 1 2 Topped, multiple leaders C
PSI 35 22,22” Significant Western red-cedar 14’ 1 2 Sweep C
PSI 36 38” Landmark Douglas-fir 20’ 1 2 Asymmetric, growth obstruction C
PSI 37 50” Landmark Western red-cedar 18’ 2 1 Top of canopy in decline C
PSI 38 43” Landmark Western red-cedar 20’ 1 2 Multiple leaders C
RETAIN 1.i 39 56” Landmark Western red-cedar 20’ 1 1 C
RETAIN 2.iii 40 9” Significant Pine 10’ 1 1 C
RETAIN 2.iii 41 7” Significant Chestnut 14’ 1 1 D
Satwant Singh, Skyline Properties, Inc.
RE: Tree Inventory & Arborist Report, Cedar Ridge Short Plat
May 5, 2017
Page 12 of 13
Greenforest Registered Consulting Arborist
Retained Tree Priority Proposed for Removal Tree No. DBH Category Species Dripline Health Structure Visible Defects Type OFFSITE TREES
42 14” Significant Douglas-fir 16’ 1 2 Asymmetric C
43 24” Significant Douglas-fir 16’ 1 2 Asymmetric C
44 26” Significant Douglas-fir 16’ 1 2 Asymmetric C
45 16” Significant Douglas-fir 16’ 1 2 Asymmetric C
46 10” Significant Douglas-fir 16’ 1 2 Asymmetric C
47 26” Significant Douglas-fir 16’ 1 2 Asymmetric C
48 27” Significant Douglas-fir 16’ 1 1 C
49 29” Significant Douglas-fir 16’ 1 1 C
50 11” Significant Douglas-fir 16’ 1 2 Asymmetric C
51 15” Significant Douglas-fir 16’ 1 2 Asymmetric C
52 10” Significant Douglas-fir 16’ 1 2 Asymmetric C
53 20” Significant Douglas-fir 16’ 1 2 Asymmetric C
54 20” Significant Douglas-fir 16’ 1 2 Asymmetric C
55 22” Significant Douglas-fir 16' 1 2 Asymmetric C
C- coniferous, D – deciduous, BLE – broadleaf evergreen, PSI – proposed site improvements, ROW – right-of-way.