HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_Whispering Pine Lane RVMP_finalDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Routine Vegetation Management Permit and Critical Areas Exemption
PLANNING DIVISON
ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PREMIT
AND CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM
CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS
EVALUATION FORM & DECISION
DATE OF DECISION: October 29, 2025
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA25-000351, RVMP, CAE
PROJECT NAME: Whispering Pine Lane Tree Removal
PROJECT MANAGER: Ian Harris, Associate Planner
APPLICANT/ CONTACT: Daniel Foster (on behalf of the Whispering Pine Lane HOA)
1813 NE 26th Pl, Renton, WA 98056
OWNER: Daniel Foster (on behalf of the Whispering Pine Lane HOA)
1813 NE 26th Pl, Renton, WA 98056
PROJECT LOCATION: Undeveloped parcel northeast of NE 26th Pl (APN 934760UINT)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Daniel Foster, on behalf of the Whispering Pine Lane Homeowners
Association (HOA), is requesting a Routine Vegetation Management Permit
(RVMP) and an exemption from critical areas regulations (CAE) to remove six (6)
trees located in the native growth protection area (NGPA) tract managed by the
Whispering Pine Lane HOA (APN 934760UINT). The 0.62-acre tract is situated
within the Residential-8 (R-8) zone and within the Kennydale Community
Planning Area. Per the City of Renton (COR) Maps, the project site is encumbered
with the following critical areas: Sensitive and Protected Slopes (>15% to
<=90%), an unclassified Wetland, and a Zone 1 Modified Wellhead Protection
Area (Well 5A).
In the Arborist Report prepared by Terrence J. Flatley, a certified arborist, dated
September 22, 2025 (Attachment A), six (6) black cottonwood (Populus
trichocarpa) trees are proposed for removal as they pose a moderate risk of
failure. The six (6) cottonwoods are considered “significant trees” as they have a
DBH of between eight inches (8”) and twenty-nine inches (29”). The trees also
constitute a total of 53 tree credits.
Docusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Whispering Pine Lane Tree Removal
Routine Vegetation Management Permit
LUA25-000351, RVMP, CAE
Permit Date: October 29, 2025 Page 2 of 5
ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA 4-9-195D.4:
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: In accordance with RMC 4-4-130H, compliance with tree credit
requirements necessitates a minimum of 30 tree credits per net acre. A tree retention and
credit worksheet was not provided as part of this application as the site is a well-
vegetated native growth protection area (NGPA). It is visually apparent that the site
exceeds the minimum tree credits. As a result, the site would continue to exceed the
minimum tree credit requirements and would maintain the minimum tree performance
standards following the removal of the six (6) black cottonwood trees.
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 the following critical areas
on the parcels: Sensitive and Protected Slopes (>15% to <=90%), an unclassified
Wetland, and a Zone 1 Modified Wellhead Protection Area (Well 5A). All six (6) black
cottonwood trees proposed for removal are likely located within at least one (1) of the
three (3) critical areas and associated buffers on-site. Removal of dangerous trees is an
exempt activity per Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-050C.3.c.iii. Refer to the Critical
Area Exemption Findings below for additional exemption information.
In September 2025, a large cottonwood tree failed and fell onto the NE 26th Pl
cul-de-sac, severely damaging several vehicles and a fence, prompting the HOA
to seek out a tree assessment. According to the report, the six (6) trees pose a
moderate risk of failure due to their substantial lean towards land, putting people
and property in danger of injury or damage.
CRITITCAL AREAS: Sensitive and Protected Slopes (>15% to <=90%), an unclassified Wetland, and
Well 5A Wellhead Protection Area Zone 1 Modified.
EXEMPTION JUSTIFICATION: Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations: RMC 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 deflned in chapter 4-11 RMC, which have been approved by
the City and certifled dangerous by a licensed landscape architect, or certifled
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.
Docusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Whispering Pine Lane Tree Removal
Routine Vegetation Management Permit
LUA25-000351, RVMP, CAE
Permit Date: October 29, 2025 Page 3 of 5
N/A 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. According to the arborist report, none of the six (6)
black cottonwood trees proposed for removal meet the threshold of a “landmark tree”
(≥30” DBH).
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 subject trees are not street frontage trees nor
parking lot trees. Neither street frontage nor parking landscape is proposed to be
removed.
YES, IF
CONDITIONS
ARE MET
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: The tree removal would not be removing landscaping trees required
as part of a land development permit. The trees proposed for removal constitute 53 tree
credits. Since the trees are in a native growth protection area (NGPA), they are protected
trees. The trees are recommended for removal because they meet two (2) of the three (3)
criteria for “high-risk” as defined in RMC 4-11-200, and their failure has a high likelihood
of striking homes, property, and people. Additionally, there is a history of recent tree
collapse in the NGPA which severely damaged property, as seen in Attachment A.
Since removing the trees is necessary, the impacts from removing the trees in the NGPA
shall be minimized. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval, that the
applicant use Best Management Practices for tree snagging in the native growth
protection area (NGPA) tract. The trees shall be reduced to a minimum ten-foot (10’) tall
wildlife snag and debris generated from the removal of the six (6) black cottonwood trees
shall be retained and scattered within the NGPA tract, where feasible. In addition, the
applicant shall keep heavy equipment and vehicles out of the NGPA to the maximum
extent possible.
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 removal would not impact visual screening nor be removing
applicable landscaping. The project site abuts parcels zoned Residential-8 (R-8). The
trees are located in heavily wooded areas and their removal would not significantly
impact the screening provided between the various residential densities.
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: The provided documentation did not indicate that the removal of the
trees would create or contribute to a hazardous condition.
N/A 8. The land clearing and tree removal shall be consistent with the requirements of the
Shoreline Master Program, pursuant to RMC 4-3-090F.1, Vegetation Conservation, and
RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations.
Docusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Whispering Pine Lane Tree Removal
Routine Vegetation Management Permit
LUA25-000351, RVMP, CAE
Permit Date: October 29, 2025 Page 4 of 5
Staff Comments: Not applicable. The property is not located within shoreline
jurisdiction.
CRITICAL AREA EXEMPTION FINDINGS:
The proposed development is consistent with the following flndings pursuant to RMC 4-3-050C.2.d:
YES 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 dangerous trees is not prohibited by any federal regulations
and it is an exempt activity in the City of Renton’s Critical Areas Regulations. Approval of
this exemption would act as written permission to allow the removal of the six (6) identified
trees.
YES ii. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specifled by industry
standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientiflc principles.
Staff Comments: The Best Management Practice recommended by the arborist is to
remove the six (6) black cottonwood trees. This would sufficiently mitigate the risk to
people and nearby housing while revegetation with native foliage would continue to offer
benefits within the native growth protection areas (NGPA).
YES, IF
CONDITIONS
ARE MET
iii. Impacts are minimized and, where applicable, disturbed areas are immediately restored.
Staff Comments: The tree removal process is aimed at minimizing potential damage to
people and structures. To minimize critical area impacts, no additional vegetation outside
of the six (6) identified trees would be removed. Impacts from the proposed tree removal
can be further mitigated through the replanting of three (3) five-gallon western hemlock
trees and three (3) five-gallon Douglas fir trees. In addition, once the replacement trees
have been installed on-site, the applicant shall notify the Current Planning Project
Manager to complete a final landscape inspection.
YES 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: Although all of the trees are within the buffer of an unclassified wetland,
no construction activity is taking place within the buffer zone. The six (6) black cottonwood
trees proposed for removal constitute 53 tree credits. Because the removal of the trees
within the wetland buffer constitutes a temporary disturbance activity, staff
recommended an additional condition that would require the planting of new native tree
species to replace the trees requested for removal at a one-to-one (1:1) ratio. See iii above
for tree restoration condition.
N/A v. If a hazardous material, activity, and/or facility that is exempt pursuant to this Section has
a signiflcant 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-speciflc data.
Staff Comments: Not applicable. The proposal does not include a significant or
substantial potential to degrade groundwater quality.
Docusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Whispering Pine Lane Tree Removal
Routine Vegetation Management Permit
LUA25-000351, RVMP, CAE
Permit Date: October 29, 2025 Page 5 of 5
DECISION: The Whispering Pine Lane HOA Tree Removal Routine Vegetation Management Permit and Critical
Areas Exemption, LUA25-000351, RVMP, CAE is Approved* and subject to the following conditions: .
*CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall use Best Management Practices for tree snagging in the native growth protection area
(NGPA) tract. The trees shall be reduced to a minimum ten-foot (10’) tall wildlife snag and debris
generated from the removal of the six (6) black cottonwood trees shall be retained and scattered within
the NGPA tract, where feasible. In addition, the applicant shall keep heavy equipment and vehicles out
of the NGPA to the maximum extent possible.
2. All disturbed areas shall be restored, and three (3) five-gallon western hemlock trees and three (3) five-
gallon Douglas fir trees shall be planted within 60 days following the completion of tree removal activities.
Once the replacement trees have been installed on-site, the applicant shall notify the Current Planning
Project Manager to complete a final landscape inspection.
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 to
the original decision is found or if he flnds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration
request, if the approval body flnds 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 flle a formal appeal within the 14-day
appeal time frame.
APPEALS: This administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing
Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on November 12, 2025. 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 fioor 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 flrst fioor 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: Two (2) years from the date of decision (date signed).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Arborist Report for the property, prepared by Terrence J. Flatley, dated September 22, 2025
Attachment B: ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Forms for the trees proposed to be removed.
Docusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
10/29/2025 | 9:14 AM PDT
ARBORIST REPORT
Prepared By:
Terrence J. Flatley
Certified Arborist
TRAQ
Sep t ember 22, 20 25
WHISPERING PINES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
C/O Daniel Foster, 1813 NE 26 Place, Renton, WA 98056
RECEIVED
September 30, 2025
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
ARBORIST REPORT
Whispering Pines Homeowners Associa3on
C/O Dan Foster, President
1813 NE 26 Place, Renton, Washington 98055
Parcel Iden3fica3on Number PID 934760T100
INTRODUCTION
The Whispering Pines Homeowners Associa3on is located in the NE Quarter Sec3on 5, Township
23 North, Range 5 East, City of Renton, King County Washington. Geographically, it is in the
northern part of Renton and near the Kennydale Neighborhood. There is a cul-de-sac at the east
end of Northeast 26 Place where it terminates at a wooded tract of land owned by the HOA.
The tract is further iden3fied as parcel 934760T100. The tract is approximately 0.58 acre in size
(26,189. square feet).
The tract contains a predominantly stand of black co]onwood trees with lesser amounts of red
alder and bigleaf maple. The western por3on of the tract consists of rela3vely steep slopes
while the eastern half contains wetland-type areas of gentle slopes to level ground. Himalayan
blackberry and ivy are the predominant ground covers.
In early September of 2025 a large co]onwood tree failed and fell into the NE 26 Place cul-de-
sac damaging several vehicles and a fence. From aerial photographs and speaking with the HOA,
the tree had a severe lean into the street and sidewalk. The trunk of the tree broke about
twelve feet from the ground at a point where the trunk and crown redirected towards the west,
the pivot point of failure.
The HOA requested a tree assessment of the parcel in order to iden3fy poten3al risks to the
street, sidewalk, vehicles, fences, yards, houses and people.
METHOD
The tract was located on aerial photographs and the approximate boundaries iden3fied on the
ground. Each tree was inspected from ground level and data collected about species, size,
condi3on, risk ra3ng and more. Trees were iden3fied by risk category and any defects noted.
All trees were assigned a unique number and iden3fied on the maps in this report. However,
only “Moderate” risk trees with obvious defects had yellow ribbons placed on tree trunks with a
number on the ribbon. The “Basic Tree Risk Assessment Forms” were completed for each tree.
These forms are used to determine risk ra3ngs for each tree; they can be found at the end of
this report.
Shown on COR Maps as: 934760UINT
RECEIVED
September 30, 2025
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
Each tree was sounded using a mallet to determine obvious internal defects. Most trees in the
tract sounded solid up to 8 feet on the trunk. An inventory spreadsheet table summarizes the
informa3on collected on the “Basic Tree Risk Assessment Forms.” Individual photographs were
taken on some of the trees where condi3ons allowed.
Whispering Pines HOA Page of 2 8
Map 1. Whispering Pines HOA Neighborhood Loca3on Map
Map 2. Preliminary Tree and Tract Loca3on
RECEIVED
September 30, 2025
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
TREE INVENTORY AND RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY TABLE
Tree
No.
Species DBH
(In.)
Height
(Ft.)
Crown
Spread
(Ft.)
CondiGon
(%)
Risk
RaGng
Treatment Status
1 Black Co]onwood 35 122 69 90 Moderate Prune Retain
2 Black Co*onwood 14 60 18 60 Moderate Remove Remove
3 Bigleaf maple 9 32 27 70 Low Monitor Retain
4 Black Co]onwood 8 26 18 60 Low Monitor Retain
5 Black Co*onwood 21 80 27 60 Moderate Remove Remove
6 Black Co]onwood 29 125 40 90 Low Monitor Retain
7 Black Co*onwood 22 96 42 50 Moderate Remove Remove
8 Black Co]onwood 38 117 40 0 Low Monitor Retain
9 Black Co]onwood 8 49 12 50 Low Monitor Retain
10 Black Co]onwood 27 124 30 60 Low Monitor Retain
11 Black Co]onwood 19 128 60 60 Low Monitor Retain
12 Black Co*onwood 29 112 60 50 Moderate Remove Remove
13 Black Co]onwood 15 80 22 60 Low Monitor Retain
14 Black Co*onwood 28 112 47 50 Moderate Remove Remove
15 Red Alder 15 50 25 80 Low Monitor Retain
16 Red Alder 12 50 20 80 Low Monitor Retain
17 Red Alder 14 50 21 80 Low Monitor Retain
18 Red Alder 16 50 21 80 Low Monitor Retain
19 Red Alder 13 50 21 80 Low Monitor Retain
20 Red Alder 15 50 21 50 Low Monitor Retain
21 Red Alder 12 50 21 90 Low Monitor Retain
22 Red Alder 10 50 21 90 Low Monitor Retain
23 Bigleaf Maple 12 50 54 60 Low Monitor Retain
24 Bigleaf Maple 10 50 54 50 Low Monitor Retain
25 Bigleaf Maple 12 50 54 50 Low Monitor Retain
26 Bigleaf Maple 13 50 54 70 Low Monitor Retain
Tree
No.
Whispering Pines HOA Page of 3 8
RECEIVED
September 30, 2025
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
DISCUSSION
The tract contains the 37 trees shown in the Tree Inventory and Assessment Summary Table.
Trees 8 and 20 were the only trees that sounded hollow and decayed; the remaining trees all
had solid-sounding lower trunks. Where Status in the table is shown “Remove,” these are
co]onwood trees with substan3al lean towards people and property.
CONCLUSION
Tree Tract: In my professional opinion, the likelihood of Tree Numbers 2, 5, 7, 12,
14, and Tree 33 failing, striking property and people and causing severe injury and
damage poses a moderate risk.
The information in this report uses a basic level of risk assessment from ground
level and considers tree condition under normal weather conditions typical of the
27 Bigleaf Maple 11 50 54 50 Low Monitor Retain
28 Bigleaf Maple 12 50 54 70 Low Monitor Retain
29 Red Alder 21 72 31 90 Low Monitor Retain
30 Red Alder 20 71 33 90 Low Monitor Retain
31 Bigleaf Maple 7 50 32 90 Low Monitor Retain
32 Bigleaf Maple 12 50 32 8p Low Monitor Retain
33 Black Co*onwood 22 112 30 60 Moderate Remove Remove
34 Black Co]onwood 31 112 30 70 Low Monitor Retain
35 Bigleaf Maple 36 118 60 90 Low Monitor Retain
36 Red Alder 22 80 42 90 Low Monitor Retain
37 Black Co]onwood 21 112 60 90 Moderate Monitor Retain
Species DBH
(In.)
Height
(Ft.)
Crown
Spread
(Ft.)
CondiGon
(%)
Risk
RaGng
Treatment StatusTree
No.
DBH is Diameter Breast Height or 54” from ground measured in inches.
Height and Crown Diameter are es3mates.
Condi3on ra3ng assigned in 10% increments with 0% describing a dead tree and 100% as a tree in excellent
health.
Risk Ra3ng categories are low, medium, high and extreme.
Treatment describes ac3ons to pursue.
Status is informa3on the City might require during permifng.
Whispering Pines HOA Page of 4 8
RECEIVED
September 30, 2025
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
Puget Sound Region. Periodic inspections should be considered as site
conditions may change over time.
Property owners should consider the facts presented in this report and decide
what actions to pursue. Because no one person can predict when trees will fail,
there is no warranty or guarantee that trees in this report will not fail.
For further information please contact Terry Flatley, 425-891-2625,
tjflyfishing@me.com
TREE PHOTOGRAPHS
Whispering Pines HOA Page of 5 8
Tree 1. Metal fence post
impeded in lower trunks
Co]onwood recently fell across street in early
September
RECEIVED
September 30, 2025
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
Whispering Pines HOA Page of 6 8
Tree 33 leaning towards house Tree 14 with codominant trunks and
leaning west trunk (right)
Tree 2 with sever sweeping trunk
Tree 5 and other “leaners”
RECEIVED
September 30, 2025
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
Whispering Pines HOA Page of 7 8
Map 3. Mapped wetland area
Map4. Mapped steep lopes
RECEIVED
September 30, 2025
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
Whispering Pines HOA Page of 8 8
RECEIVED
September 30, 2025
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
— 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
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________
Target Assessment
T
a
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description Target protection
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
?
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
x
H
t
.
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
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/Biotic_________________________________________________ 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 expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Page 1 of 2
Site Factors
Target zone
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
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
Condition(s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance
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
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m.
Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 2 1 2
Black Cottonwood 14”60’18’
T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 2 years
Fence None ✔✔4 No No
Vehicles None ✔✔2 Yes No
People None ✔✔2 No No
Large leaning cottonwood trunk recently failed causing damage to several vehicles ■30 E
■
■■
SW ■■Typical Pacific Northwest Region
■90
■■Sudden limb and trunk drop.
■■
■■
Tree leans toward street at about 12’ at a sharp angle
■80
■1 <7”
14”60’60’
■
■
30 Yes
Lower trunk thickened on downhill side.
Potential trunk failure at 12’ from ground.
11”50’
■
■
■
ATTACHMENT B
RECEIVED
September 30, 2025
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating
(from
Matrix 2)
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
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
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
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Ne 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
1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme
Overall residual risk None Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Mitigation options
Fence Whole tree
Lean and defect at 12’
●●●●Low
Vehicles ●●●●Moderate
People ●●●●Moderate
Trunk exits soil at a steep angle easterly then at 12’ a defect corrects the trunk toward street.
Shallow rooted and no visible roots at ground level
Yellow tagged.
Sounded solid with mallet
Remove tree 0
■
■1 year
■■
■■
RECEIVED
September 30, 2025
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
— 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
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________
Target Assessment
T
a
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description Target protection
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
?
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
x
H
t
.
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
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/Biotic_________________________________________________ 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 expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Page 1 of 2
Site Factors
Target zone
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
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
Condition(s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance
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
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m.
Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 5 1 2
Black Cottonwood 21”80’27’
T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 1 year
Fence None ✔✔✔4 No No
Vehicles None ✔✔✔2 Yes No
People None ✔✔✔2 No No
Nearby cottonwood tree failed at trunk 10’ from ground damaging fence and vehicles.■30 E
■
■■
SW ■■Typical Pacific Northwest Region
■60
■■Sudden limb and trunk drop.
■■
■■
■60
■10 <1”
■
■
Large downhill structural root
Sudden limb drop
12”80’80’
■■
■■
3 No
Thickened lower trunk
Sudden trunk failure
21”80’
■
■
Large downhill structural root
RECEIVED
September 30, 2025
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating
(from
Matrix 2)
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
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
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
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Ne 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
1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme
Overall residual risk None Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Mitigation options
Fence Whole tree
Sudden trunk/limb failure
●●●●Low
Vehicles ●●●●Moderate
People ●●●●Moderate
Very large structural root on downhill side (east) of tree
At 10’ upper trunk leans heavily toward street and lean increases with height
Lower trunk sounded solid
Yellow tagged
Tree removal 0
■
■1 year
■■
■
RECEIVED
September 30, 2025
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
— 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
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________
Target Assessment
T
a
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description Target protection
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
?
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
x
H
t
.
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
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/Biotic_________________________________________________ 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 expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Page 1 of 2
Site Factors
Target zone
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
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
Condition(s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance
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
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m.
Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 7 1 2
Black Cottonwood 22”96’42’
T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 1 year
Vehicles None ✔✔✔2 Yes No
People None ✔✔✔2 No No
Nearby cottonwood tree failed at trunk 10’ from ground damaging fence and vehicles.■10 E
■
■■
SW ■■Typical Pacific Northwest Region
■50
■■Sudden limb and trunk drop.
■■
■■
Leans toward street
■50
■10 <2”
■
Root crown at ground level
10”60’60’
■
■
45 No
Thickened trunk below 10’
Whole tree failure
22”96’
■
■
■
■
Root crown at ground level
Structural root failure
22”96’
■
■
RECEIVED
September 30, 2025
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating
(from
Matrix 2)
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
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
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
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Ne 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
1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme
Overall residual risk None Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Mitigation options
Vehicles Whole tree
Leaning trunk
●●●●Moderate
People ●●●●Moderate
Lean increases with height
Yellow tagged
Lower trunk sounded solid
Tree removal 0
■
■1 year
■■
■
RECEIVED
September 30, 2025
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
— 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
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________
Target Assessment
T
a
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description Target protection
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
?
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
x
H
t
.
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
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/Biotic_________________________________________________ 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 expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Page 1 of 2
Site Factors
Target zone
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
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
Condition(s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance
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
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m.
Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 12 1 2
Black Cottonwood 29”112’60’
T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 1 year
Vehicles/driveway None ✔✔✔2 No No
House Partial ✔4 No No
Nearby cottonwood tree failed at trunk 10’ from ground damaging fence and vehicles.■2 E
■
■■
SW ■■Typical Pacific Northwest Region
■60
■■Sudden limb and trunk drop.
■■
■■
■60
■5 <2”
■
Sudden branch drop
10”
■
■
6 No
Large structural root on uphill side of tree
Lack of support roots and lean to driveway
29”112’
■
■
■
■
RECEIVED
September 30, 2025
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating
(from
Matrix 2)
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
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
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
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Ne 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
1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme
Overall residual risk None Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Mitigation options
Vehicles Whole tree
Lean and weak root attachment
●●●●Moderate
House ●●●●Moderate
Trunk sounded solid
One of 3 stump sprouts
Large structural root on uphill side of tree
Yellow tagged
Tree removal 0
■
■1 year
■■
■
RECEIVED
September 30, 2025
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
— 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
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________
Target Assessment
T
a
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description Target protection
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
?
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
x
H
t
.
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
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/Biotic_________________________________________________ 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 expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Page 1 of 2
Site Factors
Target zone
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
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
Condition(s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance
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
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m.
Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 14 1 2
Black Cottonwood 28” (22, 18)112’47’
T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 1 year
Vehicles/driveway None ✔✔✔2 No No
People None ✔✔✔2 No No
Nearby cottonwood tree failed at trunk 10’ from ground damaging fence and vehicles.■40 E
■
■■
SW ■■Typical Pacific Northwest Region
■60
Co-dominant trunks
■■Sudden limb and trunk drop.
■■
■■
West stem leans toward driveway; east stem straight with no lean
■60
■1 <2”
■
■
■■
45 West stem no
Thickened included bark seam (closed)
Leaning west stem
22”112’
■
■
■
RECEIVED
September 30, 2025
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating
(from
Matrix 2)
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
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
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
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Ne 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
1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme
Overall residual risk None Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Mitigation options
Vehicles West stem
Included bark and severe lean
●●●●Moderate
People ●●●●Moderate
Trunk sounded solid
Yellow tagged
Remove both stems 0
■
■1 year
■■
■
RECEIVED
September 30, 2025
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
— 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
Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________
Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____
Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________
Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________
Target Assessment
T
a
r
g
e
t
nu
m
b
e
r
Target description Target protection
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
?
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
x
H
t
.
Ta
r
g
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
1.
5
x
H
t
.
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/Biotic_________________________________________________ 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 expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Page 1 of 2
Site Factors
Target zone
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
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
Condition(s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance
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
Condition(s) of concern
Load on defect N/A Minor Moderate Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Imminent
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m.
Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 33 1 2
Black Cottonwood 22”112’30
T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years
Fence None ✔✔✔4 No No
House/yard None ✔✔4 No No
People None ✔✔✔2 No No
Nearby cottonwood tree failed at trunk 10’ from ground damaging fence and vehicles.■45 E
■
■■
SW ■■Typical Pacific Northwest Region
■75
Ivy
■■Branch and trunk drop
■■
■■■Ivy
■75
■1 <2”
30 No
Whole tree failure
22”112’
■
■
■
RECEIVED
September 30, 2025
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F
Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating
(from
Matrix 2)
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
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
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
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Ne 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
1.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
2.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
3.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
4.__________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________
Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate High Extreme
Overall residual risk None Low Moderate High Extreme Recommended inspection interval __________________
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017
North
Page 2 of 2
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Risk Categorization
Mitigation options
Fence Whole tree
Severe lean towards house
●●●●Low
House ●●●●Moderate
People ●●●●Moderate
Trunk sounded solid
Roots not visible
Yellow tagged
Tree removal 0
■
■1 year
■■
■
RECEIVED
September 30, 2025
PLANNING DIVISIONDocusign Envelope ID: 19E6ED80-14E3-406D-A506-792B467AAF6F