Loading...
UFR2017-00004 UFR2O17 - 00004 GREENSWARD SOUTH - URBAN FORESTRY PLAN MOD NOTICE OF TYPE I DECISION URBAN FORESTRY REVIEW UFR2017-00004 MODIFICATION OF URBAN FORESTRY PLAN FOR GREENSWARD SOUTH T I GARD 120 DAYS = March 16, 2018 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: Greensward South—Urban Forestry Plan Modification CASE NO.: Urban Forestry Review(UFR) UFR2017-00004 PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to modify the Urban Forestry Plan approved under the Greensward South Subdivision (Case No. SUB2014-00010). Specifically, the applicant proposes to remove a 23-inch bigleaf maple on Lot 1 that was originally planned for preservation, and to modify the species of trees proposed for planting on Lots 9 and 10. APPLICANT: LWD,LLC Attn: Alan DeHarpport 5740 SW Arrow Wood Lane Portland,OR 97225 OWNER: Four D Construction Attn: Alan DeHarpport P.O. Box 1577 Beaverton,OR 97075 LOCATIONS: 8928 SW Inez Street, 14405 SW 90th Avenue,and 14412 SW 90th Avenue WCTM 2S111AA,Tax Lots 10700, 11500,and 11600 ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.790 SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above request. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV. UFR2017-00004 Greensward South—Urban Forestry Plan Modification 1 THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Information: The subject properties are Lots 1, 9, and 10 of the Greensward South Subdivision (Case No. SUB2014- 00010), which was approved by the City of Tigard Planning Division in May 2015. This approval was for a 15-lot subdivision, located north of SW Sattler Street, south of SW Greensward Lane, east of SW 97th Avenue, and west of SW Hall Boulevard. The site is zoned R-4.5 (Low-Density Residential), as are adjacent properties. The applicant proposes to modify the Urban Forestry Plan originally approved under Case No. SUB2014-00010. Specifically, the applicant proposes to remove a 23-inch bigleaf maple on Lot 1 that was originally planned for preservation, and to modify the species of trees proposed for planting on Lots 9 and 10. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Chapter 18.790 Urban Forestry Plan: 18.790.030 Urban Forestry Plan Requirements A. Urban forestry plan requirements.An urban forestry plan shall: 1. Be coordinated and approved by a landscape architect (the project landscape architect) or a person that is both a certified arborist and tree risk assessor (the project arborist), except for minor land partitions that can demonstrate compliance with effective tree canopy cover and soil volume requirements by planting street trees in open soil volumes only; A revised Urban Forestry Plan that was coordinated and approved by a certified arborist and tree risk assessor (the project arborist) has been submitted. This standard is met. 2. Meet the tree preservation and removal site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual; A revised tree preservation and removal site plan that meets the standards set forth in the Urban Forestry Manual has been submitted.This standard is met. 3. Meet the tree canopy site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual; and A revised tree canopy site plan that meets the standards set forth in the Urban Forestry Manual has been submitted. In addition, the project arborist has included a signature of approval and statement attesting that the revised tree canopy site plan meets all of the requirements in Section 10,Part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual. This standard is met. 4. Meet the supplemental report standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. A revised supplemental report was prepared and submitted by the project arborist, Morgan Holen & Associates, LLC. This report includes the required inventory data for existing open grown trees, as outlined in Section 10, Part 3, Subsection D of the Urban Forestry Manual. The site is zoned R-4.5; accordingly, the minimum required effective tree canopy for the entire site is 40 percent,and 15 percent per lot (Section 10, Part 3, Subsections N and 0 of the Urban Forestry Manual). Through the revised UFR2017-00004 Greensward South—Urban Forestry Plan Modification 2 supplemental report, the project arborist demonstrates how the effective tree canopy for the entire site is 40.3 percent, as well as 22 percent for Lot 1, 65 percent for Lot 9, and 56 percent for Lot 10. This standard is met. 18.790.070 Modification to the Urban Forestry Plan Component of an Approved Land Use Permit C. Application procedures. Modifications to the urban forestry plan component of an approved land use permit that are not exempted by subsection B of this section shall be processed as a Type I procedure, using approval criteria contained in subsection D of this section. The applicant proposes to modify the Urban Forestry Plan originally approved under Case No. SUB2014-00010. Specifically, the applicant proposes to remove a 23-inch bigleaf maple on Lot 1 that was originally planned for preservation, and to modify the species of trees proposed for planting on Lots 9 and 10. The modifications on Lots 9 and 10 are exempt from the Type I Urban Forestry Plan Modification ('1'DC 18.790.070.B.2),but the proposed removal of a tree located on Lot 1 is not exempt. The applicant has requested that city staff review the modifications on all three lots concurrently, through this Type I land use application. However, the modifications on Lots 9 and 10 are not subject to the approval criteria outlined below. D. Approval criteria. The director shall approve the modification to the urban forestry plan component of an approved land use permit upon determining: 1. The project arborist or landscape architect has provided a report and statement certifying that the previously approved urban forestry plan did not account for the circumstances that lead to the proposed modification; The project arborist has provided a report and statement (dated November 10, 2017) certifying that the previously approved Urban Forestry Plan did not account for the circumstances that led to the proposed modification. The applicant requests to remove a 23-inch bigleaf maple on Lot 1 that was originally planned for preservation. The project arborist states: "While the tree has been well protected during construction, it is not desirable for the woman that recently purchased this lot who is purportedly allergic to maple trees and has a strong preference for the tree to be removed from her property. Furthermore, the condition and preservation ratings of 2 originally assigned to the tree are arguably high because the tree is severely infested with invasive English ivy (Hedera helix) which is contributing to the decline of the tree" Based on the project arborist's statement outlined above, staff finds this criterion is met. 2. The project arborist or landscape architect has provided a report and statement certifying that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed modification; and The project arborist has provided a report and statement certifying that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed modification: "The new property owner alleges that she cannot have this tree on her lot because she is allergic to maples and therefore there is no practicable alternative to the proposed modification. Although pollen spores from maples are in the air throughout Oregon,it would be especially difficult for someone with legitimate maple allergies to care for and maintain a tree of this species."This criterion is met. 3. The project arborist or landscape architect demonstrates through a revised urban UFR2017-00004 Greensward South—Urban Forestry Plan Modification 3 forestry plan, compliance with Section 18.790.030. (Ord. 12-09 §1) The project arborist submitted a revised Urban Forestry Plan and supplemental report that demonstrate compliance with Section 18.790.030,including tree preservation,protection, and canopy standards. This criterion is met. CONCLUSION: As demonstrated in the analysis above, the proposed modification to the Urban Forestry Plan Component of the approved Greensward South Subdivision (Case No. SUB2014-00010) meets all applicable approval criteria, and can be approved. SECTION V. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice was mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Affected government agencies Final Decision: A Modification to the Urban Forestry Plan Component of an Approved Land Use Permit is a Type I Procedure. As such, the Director's decision is final on the date it is mailed or otherwise provided to the applicant,whichever occurs first. The Director's decision may not be appealed locally and is the final decision of the City. THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON NOVEMBER 20, 2017 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON NOVEMBER 21, 2017 Questions: If you have any questions,please contact Lina Smith at (503) 718-2438 or LinaCSatigard-or.gov. --� November 20, 2017 APPROVED BY: Lina Smith UIT2017-00004 Greensward South—Urban Forestry Plan Modification 4 APPLICANT MATERIALS RECEIVED City of Tigard fl corektry M 0 Di 5 2017 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF TIGARD 1Qiiiir6E1 — Type I ApplicEE PROPOSAL SUMMARY (Brief description) REQUIRED SUBMITTAL � rr�.jam vim. api , o 7- / G;J; ELEMENTS *Vii 11-6 /.c_ p.G7I/ d OK( ❑ Owner's Signature/Writte• thorization a• 0 . ❑ Ti Transfer I ument or Deed ❑ Site ,n(2 rge plans drawn to scale and on- duced to 8.5"x11'/2") ❑ App' ant's .Cement/Narrative Property address/location(s): �f .S Lk) /71).z.„-- Z 5tT (_ opies)Adel s criteria in: 147/47105! 57.4) Cj07"4 S-7) /V41/2 SLiJ 41G'4 s-76_ D(; 1K.;6li.(6+). -11 S-7) Tax map and tax lot #(s): v`Z / 11 /1-11- 16700/ /15 OL�.. ■ Filing Fee Site size: 3 L.-0► -7-0-7.4 4,, / r 1 r 3 5- FOR STAFF USE ONLY Applicant*: 4/1/7D 2-2-C Case No.: V F R Zo 17 U 0 OV-1 Address: 5 7c/? Slits /-I-1�'- '��/Z.r )OJJ Related Case No.(s):_ City/state: & =%L.A-A 61 Ui-` Zip: Q 7 215 Application Fee: 5) I I Phone: 5 U 3 76.2'1- 2,Z 77mail: 4/1 v-�i3i)(-6 e coin Application accepted: * By: ! Date: )1/1 S 1I 1-1 PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDERS) ❑ Same as Applicant Name: /1-1)44 A [ l). 72LtC (:,/ti Application determined complete: ���� By: ^-S Date: //hLith Address: i i a ujC /.-S��7 7 ^� 7 City/state: /' 1 V,E2TcdJ1 Oi. Zip: R 7 215 I:\CURPLN\Masters\Land Use Applications Rev.11/24/2014 Contact name: / A) Dc/-E,- g..",o `rt" Phone number: 503 - 704j- ."?:--11 *When the owner and the applicant are different people,the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner.The owner(s)must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT The applicant's statement must include a summary of the proposed changes. Criteria in either 18.360.050(B) or 18.330.(120(B)(2) must be addressed with a detailed response to each criterion.Failure to provide the information needed to process the application would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. In addition,the Director must find that the proposed change is in compliance with all applicable requirements of Title 18 of the Tigard Development Code.To complete this review,the Applicant's proposal must include a discussion indicating how the site expansion/change will continue to comply with the maximum setback,building height,parking,and landscaping standards. Other requirements of this title such as clear vision, solid waste storage,non-conforming situations, signs,and tree removal may also be applicable depending on the type and location of the proposed modifications. City of Tigard • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • wwwtigard-or.gov • 503-718-2421 • Page 1 of 2 APPLICANTS To consider an application complete,you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTALELEMENTS as described on the front of this application in the"Required Submittal Elements"box. THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. • If the application is granted,the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan,attachments,and exhibits transmitted herewith,are true;and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued,based on this application,may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application,including the policies and criteria,and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property required. A-6/w A-74,412peozi- //.--,5--/7 Applicant's � si ature� Print name Date /" 4i /7_4'( AAAi . cN,- eV3Z7' //—/_, �7 Owner's signature Print name Date Owner's signature Print name Date ADDITIONAL OWNER/DEED HOLDER INFORMATION Name: Name: Address: Address: City/state: Zip: City/state: Zip: Signature: Signature: MINOR MODIFICATION APPLICATION City of Tigard • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • www.tigard-or.gov • 503-718-2421 • Page 2 of 2 971.409.9354 Morgan Holen 3 Monroe Parkway,Suite P 220 Lake Oswego,Oregon 97035 Aff o CI LTConsulting Arborists and Urban Forest Management morgan.holen@comcast.net DATE: November 10, 2017 TO: Alan DeHarpport (LWD LLC) &Gary Pagenstecher(City of Tigard) FROM: Morgan Holen, Consulting Arborist RE: Greensward South—Urban Forestry Plan Modifications II MHA17034 Morgan Holen &Associates (MHA) was contracted by LWD LLC to modify the previously approved Urban Forestry Plan for Greensward South to remove one existing tree from lot 1.This is the second modification to the Greensward South Urban Forestry Plan. The first modification, dated May 24, 2017, proposed removal of existing tree#5836 in the rear of lot 11 because of hazardous condition and planting of one native Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana) in the back yard of lot 11 and one glorybower tree (Clerodendrum trichotomum) in the front yard of lot 11. The previous modifications were exempt from the Type 1 process because the existing tree was no longer suitable for preservation and the modifications provided a greater amount of per lot and overall development site effective tree canopy cover.The current modifications propose removal of existing tree#5218 in the rear of lot 1, planting three small statured non-native trees on lot 1, planting one native Oregon white oak in each of the back yards of lots 9 and 10, and not planting one native cascara (Rhamnus purshiana) originally proposed in the backyard of lot 10.These modifications are not exempt from the Type 1 process because the changes result in a reduced amount of canopy cover for lot 1, although canopy cover for the overall development site is maintained through planting on lots 9 and 10 and the minimum required canopy cover per lot continues to be satisfied.This memorandum addresses the criteria regarding modifications to the Urban Forestry Plan component of an approved Land Use Permit contained in Section 18.790.070 of the City's Community Development Code. The enclosed site plans were obtained from LWD LLC and are marked-up to show the proposed modifications. Please note that MHA did not prepare the original approved Urban Forestry Plan for this project. Section 18.790.070.D. provides the approval criteria for modifications to the Urban Forestry Plan components of an approved land use permit. Each of the pertinent criteria are addressed below. 1. The project arborist or landscape architect has provided a report and statement certifying that the previously approved urban forestry plan did not account for the circumstances that lead to the proposed modification; The previously approved urban forestry plan did not account for the circumstances that lead to the proposed modifications.Tree#5218, a 23-inch diameter bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum),was originally planned for preservation in the rear of lot 1. While the tree has been well protected during construction, it is not desirable for the woman that recently purchased this lot who is purportedly allergic to maple trees and has a strong preference for the tree to be removed from her property. Furthermore,the condition and preservation ratings of 2 originally assigned to the tree are arguably high because the tree is severely infested with invasive English ivy (Hedera helix) which is contributing the decline of the tree. Greensward South—Urban Forestry Plan Modifications II November 10, 2017 Page 2 of 3 2. The project arborist or landscape architect has provided a report and statement certifying that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed modification;and The new property owner alleges that she cannot have this tree on her lot because she is allergic to maples and therefore there is no practicable alternative to the proposed modification.Although pollen spores from maples are in the air throughout Oregon, it would be especially difficult for someone with legitimate maple allergies to care for and maintain a tree of this species. 3. The project arborist or landscape architect demonstrates through a revised urban forestry plan,compliance with Section 18.790.030. This memo and the modified Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan and Tree Canopy Site Plan (attached) demonstrate compliance with Section 18.790.030. Here is a summary of the proposed modifications: Lot 1: Remove existing tree#5218 and plant one Celestial flowering dogwood (Cornus 'Rutdan'), one Vulcan magnolia (Magnolia 'Lanarth' x. M. liliiflora), and one star magnolia (Magnolia stellata) on the lot, in addition to the Pacific dogwood street tree previously proposed for planting in the planter strip in front of the lot.The effective tree canopy cover for lot 1 is reduced from 87%to 22%, but still exceeds the 15% minimum required per lot. Total% 2x Canopy of 1.25x Mature Mature Area Total Effective based on Preserved Area of Native of Non-Native Tree Canopy 6,643 SF Lot 1 Existing Trees Planted Trees Planted Trees Cover Lot 1 Original Approval 4,924 SF 884 SF 0 5,807 SF 87% Proposed Modifications 0 884 SF 570 SF 1,454 SF 22% Lot 9: Plant one Oregon white oak in the backyard, in addition to the already proposed cascara in the backyard and Pacific dogwood street tree in front of the lot. The effective tree canopy cover for lot 9 is increased from 25%to 65%. Total % 2x Canopy of 1.25x Mature Mature Area Total Effective based on Preserved Area of Native of Non-Native Tree Canopy 6,105 SF Lot 9 Existing Trees Planted Trees Planted Trees Cover Lot 9 Original Approval 0 1,498 SF 0 1,498 SF 25% Proposed Modifications 0 3,952 SF 0 3,952 SF 65% Greensward South—Urban Forestry Plan Modifications II November 10, 2017 Page 3 of 3 Lot 10: Plant one Oregon white oak in the backyard instead of the previously proposed cascara, in addition to the already proposed Pacific dogwood street tree in front of the lot.The effective tree canopy cover for lot 10 is increased from 25%to 56%. Total% 2x Canopy of 1.25x Mature Mature Area Total Effective based on Preserved Area of Native of Non-Native Tree Canopy 6,011 SF Lot 10 Existing Trees Planted Trees Planted Trees Cover Lot 10 Original Approval 0 1,498 SF 0 1,498 SF 25% Proposed Modifications 0 3,338 SF 0 3,338 SF 56% The overall development site is 119,679 square feet. Prior to the proposed modifications,the total effective tree canopy cover was 48,259 square feet, or 40.3%. Based on the proposed modifications, the total effective tree canopy cover is 48,200 square feet, or 40.3%.The total effective tree canopy cover is increased by 196 square feet compared with the originally approved Urban Forestry Plan and reduced by 59 square feet since the previous modification, but still exceeds the 40% minimum required for the overall development site. Total Effective Tree Canopy Total%based Overall Development Site Cover on 119,679 SF Original Approval 48,004 40.1% Previously Approved Modification 48,259 40.3% Proposed Modifications 48,200 40.3% The enclosed site plans and this report reflect the proposed changes to the previously approved Urban Forestry Plan, demonstrating that the effective tree canopy cover requirements will continue to be satisfied. No payment of a tree canopy fee in lieu of planting or preservation is proposed. The proposed modifications are not exempt from the Type 1 process and a $711 application fee will be required. The client may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations contained herein, or seek additional advice. Neither this author nor Morgan Holen &Associates have assumed any responsibility for liability associated with the trees on or adjacent to this site. Please contact us if you have questions or need any additional information or further assistance. Thank you, Morgan Holen &Associates, LLC ---yi.dyo, f 4,10-64,.... Morgan E. Holen, Member/Owner ISA Board Certified Master Arborist, PN-6145B ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Forest Biologist Enclosures: Modified Tree Preservation and Removal Plan Modified Tree Canopy Site Plan o m � Z z , d+6 M), Z N Y U re Ill m F 11 �, -i- r� LL,r�4 I J ////1 I I I 30' 0 15' 30' 60' Q J Cr) Cl o 0 i i i a I I No? I M . n= e1 Q 1- 0 �'�/�' I �EENti,?;'�t'!ry NOTE: TREE DESCRIPTION IN TREE TABLE ON SHEET •• •• •• J c� �/,' I k;l;l �`. '',.: ; , _.•,r L _ 05 - TREE PRESERVATION & REMOVAL TABLE SCALE: 1" = 30' Ce a d Q /�/ LOT 49 1 il tat rv:,l 6084 r y �rif'S _ ar \ �' .N f� .. 0 \ I LOT 52 .. 607 ,-.'7s� �I�7� I x')60:SW, j',r,,,,,,;(,,i, 02r 60_Z0801s+'601<� `fir - iX :: Z 6080 6073 6023 806023 r r N`l= N O _. W H \' N !1�j11a J6078,'•t. .lr v, X11' -r'..' i s r� r, v u) I Irl..�! ') ,_ l VI �. \' Yr' .'`-r 6076 6077 v t .L_ ^:�s� ____ �� Z u_ re O Um 101 I < i Llr r, 6034 !— N 1 %II - 1 N ceaoo> ��t 1 t 'Irk' ;�e,._;s,; LEGEND O 1 T088: I— .L.I. \ ; 0es` -- L V I� I B09T, ,� y I 'r —0—�•—•—•-- TREE PROTECTION FENCING IJ X30 era war•elro,� _fid Q .. Oz • _ —— PROPOSED STREET TREE. 30'DIAMETER MATURE CANOPY NATIVE t..11-E-4..:..s' Lor sr _ • a ) BOUNDARY LINE PACIFIC DOGWOOD 884 SF IA Lor 50 to `� , --i 4 ` -- -- ADJACENT/ADJOINING LOT LINE iti 1_1 I 1'S ..,1.• ^ \V i/i PROPOSED STREET TREE. 25'DIAMETER MATURE CANOPY NON-NATIVE Z I © a 4 •I ''''' �� /--, -> EUROPEAN HORNBEAM 491 SF Q I,- r'1.,%p\. r _ V�--v —STC ( x— '•.- y 1i ;:y c �` �_ o EXISTING CEDAR TREE TO BE SAVED d > OF ? �, o, - 1i - , ; '-',, �� w I � , 1-- I t' • I I i elle s PROPOSED TREE WITH 25 DIAMETER MATURE CANOPY NATIVE CASCARA. (/) I "?.%,:„.-7...3....,...,,,,,•,,, i� p EXISTING FIR TREE TO BE SAVED EXACT LOCATION ON LOT TO BE DETERMINED AT TIME OF HOUSE 9 1 I to CONSTRUCTION 614 SF }• [ ";-- 1 1"� _ Q • 25,. L I I r ,T. � /�/ \ — Legend for Modifications 05-24-17 and 11-10-17 5800 EXISTING TREE TAGS Z __ __ __ -_ _ __ __ ,�_-. FOR TREE TABLE SEE SHEET 6D r l i 1 MATURE TREE CANOPY U I� - 4 4111111k I O Proposed native Oregon white oak 50'spread=2,4545F \ / 4 �t - ''` '� -1 I a EXISTING MAPLE TREE TO BE SAVED LLI LLJ I ' .::1:::::::1:::::::::::::::::: % �J/AI,�i ~ : t I 0 Proposed gloryb°wer tree 20'spread=314SF \ I i' ``� 1— CC 251 8 #' I 11 �.� f O Proposed Celestial dogwood tree 20'spread=314SF j rS II .se3e I I # h 1 1 PROPOSED ROOT PROTECTION ZONE(RPZ)PER \ I oI i ; ARBORIST , 1 0 Proposed Vulcan magnolia tree 15'spread=177SF „ A EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE TO BE SAVED , i L J ,f II L J I I I I , , -�: 13 14 I 1 O Proposed Star magnolia tree 10'spread=795F - m r - c . X Existing trees to to removed based on modifications i iE o I I I I , a a 7 I 1 -- �y I I I 1 o at tr I I y •• .f(JI.. .I 12 I I 1 It o Ir re in I 5 I I I L______. ; L._.. _____1 EFFECTIVE TREE CANOPY TABLE d g a o L•-----_____J 17 L J I I in k 5 c, m C O • z W T E _ / • I _•i ,•, _ • Lot Lot 2x Canopy Area(sq R)of 2x Canopy Area(sq ft) 1.25 x Mature Maurer Area(sq Effective Tree Effective%Canopy Plantng Notes o > c — — ,_.11� —.—.—.——. ., I ,. - c.-T 7 •' Number area Preserved Trees with of Presmrd Stands with Area(sq ft)of R)of Campy Area(sq (Canopy km/Lot N m E ° q 40 ,-"--r--),_ ..,a,.... (q ) condition preservation condition preservation Native Planted trees )p Lot k ) �,Yr7i • s R R a ea �. ` --r° &., k7)-Li'. `i :Z.Q. 'I• ......... 11 .k"- 9 9 a ce v 1 11 ;; _ _ Lot 1 6643 0 0 884 570 1454 22% One 30 foot rawer alPacificdog Dogwood street tree to be planted n d one e1strip-884 sl effective to canopy. .. .74 5'W IIVEZSTREET \'\.,,,,,,,,„" II 1 Ore 20 foot Celestial dogwood,one 15 foot Vulvar magnolia,and one 30 foot Star magnolia to be planted q -0 in yard 570sf effective canopy.Lot 1 total effective canopy cover 1 454sf 15, .§, a _ _ Lot 2 6642 0 0 1498 0 1498 23% One 25 loot native Cascara=6141 effective canopy to be plated'n bark yard One 30 Aral native PocifK Q l. Dogwoo to e in planter sf fective al • .' — � — , _r, , g N 1 I f I 1 J Lot 3 6843 0 0 1498 0 1498 22% One 25dfoostreet native Cascara ap=m614sf effective canopy tobeplaited it barky yard.Ore 30foot effective native Pocific p"...t.r' .... 5/ Dogwood street Tree to be planted in planta strip=8g4sf effective canopy. Lot 3 told effective canopy= —o ." -, oil�w—w p. p2 o -... ) ~ \ O 1 O 1.498os1�. _ f campyt m r f 1.1 L:: _�1 ' V U o — — - � � � � ' Lot/ 6842 0 0 1498 0 1498 22% One 25 loot canopy natise Casco tree-61 hf effective to be plant.ed" bark yard One 30 00l • v r canopy nolic Pacific Dogwood sheet tree to be planted in planter strip=884sf effective canopy. Lot 4 w- _._._ 1 - ' ::--_"- _ - -- toteffective campy=1,498st • I I I I 1'•, Lot 5 6841 0 0 1498 0 1498 22% Douglas Fu X5901 signally rcldned per approved plan sheets 6 and 7 blew down n a card slam. (Sre 25 ai TTI.. ' fool campy relive Coscoro tree=614.1 effective canopy to be planted in bade yard. One 30 toot canopy O r F..... _ i I -- _ I I I I ' I I ; native Pacific Dogwood street tree to be planted in planter strip=884sf effective canopy. lot S total .............. I I 7 I r I I I I r l I 1 effective cmopY=1.498.1 ::-,.=., '4 I I I I I I I (3)20•NATIVE BITTER CHEERY TREE I ' I Lot 6 6711 1413 0 884 0 2297 34% wester Red Cada/1 retained with 15 foot radius =1413.t effective canopy. One 30 foot native Pacific IDogwood street tree to be planted in planter strip=884sf effective canopy. Lot 6 total effective canopy= 0 2 1 1 1 11 I 11 I 11 I (3)25'CASCARA TREE I 2,297st 0 a? Q 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 I (3)30'NATIVE OREGON ASH TREE I I�-y.� Lot 7 7080 0 0 2652 0 2652 37% Three 30 foot native Pacific Dogwood street trees to be plaited in planter strip=2,652sf effective canopy. 00 a Lot 7 told effective canopy=2,652.1 00 - cem E Z 5 I I I I rg� g m r °u 6 I I ¢ I I I 1 [t{.A Lot 8 6101 0 0 1498 0 1498 25% One 25 fool canopy native Cascara tree=614,1 effective canopy to be planted in back yard One 30 loot a4 a'y I I canopy native Pacific Dogwood street tree to be planted in planter strip=884st effective canopy. Lot 8 v n m ! 1 1 I 11 I 11 I 11 I I a total effective canopy=1,498.1. .;';,,C;r to- g' TREE ORIGINALLY RETAINED PER ' Lar 9 6105 0 0 952 0 3952 One 50 loot native Oregon white oak and one 2S foot native cascara tree=3,068sf effective canopy le be o M I I I I I I • APPROVED PLAN SHEET 6 AND 7. 1 planted in backyard.one 30 loot native Pacific Dogwood street tree=884.1 effective canopy.Lot 9 total m o o m W BLEW DOWN IN A WIND STORM. I I I e canopy z,-4 an m effective caro O�� I I I I I I 4 Lot 10 6011 0 0 3338 0 3338 56r One 50 foot native Oregon while oak tree=2,454.1 effective canopy to be planted in backyard.One 30 t,�j-1 XX 3 '� font native Pacific Dogwood street tree=884 sf effective canopy.Lot l0 total effective canopy=3,338. N> 4 3 O )1L-ii J I JIL J I L_ J I L - _I 1 L_ri, __ __J _ co'6 ' '�.-'t'` 1 25 I I I ///���,,, cl �� , Lat 11 6011 2033 0 3338 314 5685 95% Western redcedar pS838 retained with 2.0335E campy credit.One native Pacific dogwood street tree with m b k I� I I I 25 I �18 3884thcanopycredittobeplanted.Or,eglorybowerandonenativeOregon whiteoakto beplantedinyard-__ _ IL tr:,590, y— .t' 4 v y 1 C3-,) 1 areas with 3145F and 2,4545F of canopy credit,respectively.Lot 11 total effective canopy=5,6855F. ;Li y ` 0� / n \ 4 I n I ))) v r r 1- %` , ` I•r=x=—i Lot 12 7036 0 0 3536 0 3536 50% Far 30 fool native Pacific Dogwood street trees to be planted n planter strip=3,536sf effective canopy. n Lot 12 told effective canopy=3.536s1 p / r'` Lal 1J 6399 0 0 1498 0 1498 23% One 25 foot canopy native Cascara tree=614sl effective canopy to be planted Cu bock yard One 30 foot h ''�/ \ I I i s,,1 ' canopy native Pacific Dogwood sheet tree to be platted n planter ship-884sf effective canopy. Lot 13 0 total effective canopy=1.498sf /i I I tlr�J I o !cl 14 7111 0 0 1498 0 1498 21% One 25 loot canopy native Cascara tree=614.1 effective canopy to be plaited Cu back yard One 30 loot oCnPROFS- of I canopy native Pacific Dogwood street tree to be planted'n planter strip=884sf effective canopy. Lot 14 / LOT 23 total effective canopy=1,498.1. <Gj< Egr,INEE,p•S)/$ "9, LOT 46 Co / LOT 31 \ LOT J0 ' I I 1,1 l5 22546 0 7657 0 0 7657 34% Trees 6104,6015,6020,6021,6023,6024,6026,6034,6035,6036 retained=total of 7,567sf effective 54665 S LOT 29 I 111 I I campy. Sec Lot 15 grove calculation below. Lot 15 total effective tangy=7,657sf. Trout A 4688 0 0 7143 0 7143 152% Three 20 loot native Bitter Cherry(3 a 392sf)=1,176.1 effective tree canopy,three 25 fool Cascara(3 x 3 I 1 � TIGARD I 614sf)=1,842sf effective canopy,three 30 fool Oregon Ash(3 x 884.1)=2,652.1 effective canopy to be a plated n water quality facility. Thee nm-native 25'Europeen Hambeam street trees planted(3x491)_ e' '8(p 11,3 -� j 1 r� 1,842 effective canopy. tool A total effective canopy=7,113.1 /fit �Q Approved by Planning Vrr] DANIE`� TOTAL SF EFFECTIVE CANOPY PROPOSED TO BE PRESERVED AND PLANTED:48,200 Date: l�l��b-9- TOTAL SF EFFECTIVE CANOPY REWIRED:47,872 I owrtEs 12/31/2017 I it, o, SHEET Initials: k c07 OF ,`.9, CITY OF TIGARD CASE FILE SUB 2014-00010 30 a LEGENDz o -- BOUNDARY LINE ci 0 eN O 5800 EXISTING TREE TAGS X EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED 6, ( —- -- ADJACENT/ADJOINING LOT LINE o. 20' 40' O Q INN ��1/// xs c MAPLE _ __� E I TIN TREE PROPOSED ROOT PROTECTION ��11'x 17-HALF SCALE FEET 0 Q` t-- a EXISTING CEDAR TREE ) ZONE (RPZ) PER ARBORIST is 4"'-- 1-1-. (3 1111 EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE �¢ Q U Z • EXISTING FIR TREE I � � Lu �C Q 0 1 r r r 14 I- Z Z fp A RIK I.— .:, , , GREENSWARD N 0 0 2 ..... ..... .. . . . . . •. ' I-- .• .....••..... ......... .... •. i 1 1 i r..........__ „ , r JI I 1 I I . . .. . . .1 / / I ` ` 601 r / f�' \ \\ - 9 / / / 1...., , % 52 �,t + _•6084. , _� ..: . ---73-'-'--- - - - - - / / \ :' '-608! r r �.- -f_6°2,1_602614..A144)411_0602\3\69;21 64l5a60l4 Bozo y1 n�//r/rr \�\ 6081 ' 60BO�r�78:�6075 � 06474. 6025, ; �4�'r•Y-+� CO rf- / ILLI \ Y?' •+ a1s-t1--'--, .....................7 : soi :- 74 6°,F �.- 06086 `'�- r ii? O 1 r f" 06034- % 1/1 (..) , _ _ 0300 3°1 i t Yom, / 6089 ��.� 1 I_ 141 r -- LU CC . •:. \� • �' •` &091 I r 1 7 r),,,‘<t ---/ I osrar-� .r- .6100 1 .. p6035-+- -;‘,..N. I 50 1 '-•. , 06631 I I, , 4� f 6099- 6092 -1 `,�` I '' 51 , ¢038 -,1\ , \ ' I j ' ( *4.1 1\) :-.". 7.t2.' .'..--....-.' ill i' �'• / I 15' I j �('sos.; 2p ; ` ,mss 1 v _ ... / _ 5955 \ a ■,/ ; S'� 1 /,�' / -�\ _4 ti `'--; _ z 0 0 LEGEND o 10 a { -- BOUNDARY LINE X o' 20' 40' j O D5800 EXISTING TREE TAGS EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED z — �-- -- ADJACENT/ADJOINING LOT LINE SCAT IN FEET �^ Q ./..-----,.. -,- 1l'xIr MALE SCALE C) ti Y" ~ 0 �I/-&---- EXISTING MAPLE TREE PROPOSED ROOT PROTECTION Uj U z �� o EXISTING CEDAR TREE 1�� ZONE (RPZ) PER ARBORIST Cl) U 4N U fib EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE WI z • EXISTING FIR TREE4ctteliN-14/ ,rePO,,u,, f i F__ __- .41 ,'_ •_11 • , I- .s November 10,2017-Lot 1 Modifications eter Torr: , Master of Forestry od Morgan E. Holen,Consulting Arborist Multnomah Tree Experts, Ltd. MATCHl INE _ SHEET 1 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist(PN-6145B) ISA Board Certified Master Arborist p� Z j"I (,, ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified r y! 5871 i'�- •- --1� t` Aril \ / v_581 1 ; 1f \ -_I f II // / / ' / / // f// 1 I ( I 1 O cc �1 5873( 4411 Ir ! 1 J / / / ---- \ 58551 / / / / / 2/S1 t 5927/' 58721„.,,,I" 587511 �,�; �>•f \ �,f585S .� \\ 4154.92g. \ r! / / / / /r l x 1 COLLI §TO 1 - 1 68741 1 r� 9899 ..-. :962 _ _ - _ r- / ,- i o ���,,r • =r - ss2� .fig �...!. 5878 A•. ..'. \ i. , IMPMA`e '•58 /. • '. . . l / - cc ccI / 17 / / //' / [ 7?L1i4Obti � // ��5862 � • / I Cl. W - •'. 54It -,i' t, AL r / ' / I / /S II / / / / / I I / I CC�J . 59: 1 N Ir / / / // / , / /;►. 5880 r Is / r / / / / / , / / a J / / /� _ J • '..,5613 1 -1 �- - , / - I I r l._A5879. / 1 I I J / / I / 1 ( I j I 1 ► I r }- IZ � �(t'r]�'�' S9i4 �f P / / I . L l`_ -..---,..-.•.-. ,��;:!�_59tS // � f 1 I I f // 11 / // // / ii,/ I /1 /; I r f I f / Irir -rl / , 1_ /. i I r I gild , 1 � , 5812 j / I I I ' 1 1 f _i� _ 917./- �1A k. 5909 I I '+''5810 :'ui' � / /I I /, 1 I Ir _ _ ' 5920:2 �4 59I8'•1,$'5921. - .___f _-,•; ~•- .l \1'. - 3..-�.:c� 'A •„••I*-•-,• 15,5,09-• WiiiZ+i►5811 'v \ -. ,./•.• . -/ '.:+=:.i:-_t .1-:_ . ; A; '-1:: •-•:-;:- �, / / I I co �/ - ./ r 5882 } I I y r'i f / / / / ! / t - _ -- ` /J 1 1.. I I - , / r 1 i \ `��5912 ,„ -rl � 7 /rI I 1 ,J ' •i 1 ' // ,! / / / // !/ / r -- , //1/ / 1 ! 1 - _ ,__`- 1 // c.1_• 5885 .1 ,r I ) 1 / �':V i//f// / / I,/ , / / / i / /:.,. , \1 / / / / 1 , a.-, ,[ I _ _ �- 1.--'r / / 5807 . / 7 / / / ?d I '. / // r / 1 I -- ` .t+' --5884 - 1 - 1 / ,•:5808 r�--�'--- -•_ 1 1--- !--- 1 , 1 z r ' 5923 �� _ _`��' _ 4'.5883 --_ � 1// r /' t _j -1/ -/ f --/ -� / ! ,i / / / I / / / I o 0 0 r rt-r- � ! 1 r 7 - r� y-'---r //,i r-y_--._,-._-.7---7--1„, /f / I / / / l & c c ?DT -- I I I., !.. 5888 _ ,/ � I. I • `'"` 111 / / / / 1,, t // / / /I / ;,` / / 25 / 25 f 1 / / I1 I z F N 4 - r I --f"`~ 5889 •5890 / / r /'1 I/ 58W .4, 5864 1/ / / -----i j./ /-- ` // t %t--.c,-..-,,, 1 1 / / N % b906•:•5907 589( e`er / i. / r / t` 8 ��i w1 t rt. 7 1 .� ��r� / I i. I ',59 i #5802 1 i / // /- I J/I // / �/ I/I t , , + / I/ / / 15904 5905 I rj'1 / f (/ I / / i' a > > --j-- *24 // J'^ A. �� _-- J 5892- ' . r' I, \ =` 5800'' I/ i // //L�� / i�/ f/1� ��• ( ��f// / / / //! w / / 5893 1,....1 . 5801 / ` / i� // // _I_ �I r / • _ •,, _- --r Y 1 rt-' 1 1 , 1 5828 // // / .r 1 / // J/ /%' + / f/ ,/ I / / /� '� n Vy5926 / ( /r i �( rr / I I rr rr lit , I I / / f // // I K ,�- // /'� +ter/ �`�./ f / I / / f '� r J r / / .- / / T �r' / / v-,E--, / I IIs- �`Ve I.- .I-." I r st .'( / I t / I I < ,�, N 5925 / /5902Al!, r 5898 -_ I J r . / // / 1 1 ./ ' // I 1 - /, / , o / 5903��7+•/ f I `� f / /r 1•-I / Jr) I )/ // / f / 1 I A/ / ., [ II. �!� / / / o .. N m TA, / .i ` f //58s9� 5897 4 �- \---- / IIr�r //r / / // // / I/ I // // ///I + ,,// /` / ! a/ w,: �._ 5895- -► -F' y / / ,� I / f / IL :- ,F / Irl1 5907 // I•.'59� ��;' 1 96 • ~ --�~ , 1 /r--r I' .,• 5••1 // // / //I I/// // // J /// �. // / // 1 v�; /`� / r - I I i� I / / / 1 } I I�f / ! / I \ 1/ -t-- 1 --- �l L•/ -,f--C� --- J I �!_ _ t/ , -_.�!. .__1 .._-.J_J I/L_-_ .e' \ _-L�J 1 L� // /! / a ~�� , �. . J/ / (1, `\ t X 7- I/ i `-'\ 1 .r' -/ r- 58-�0 /// I / , / , ./ I T'� / �� / I \ 1' • , .� 1 / / r1 t /`I�� //r �� 1 / / - 43t / I 1 /5218 // /f� - VVV -� 1 • �` ( ®5901 / / 3 J ,/ `. \` r �� / _ 1 -- - - -"8_530, d ! T ntiii 1 -,_ \�, / \ \ \ \ \ / \ L 1 \ \` + 1 .:25'...•. • 25''---. -\,. / t .. ' \ // 1.1*4,/' \ ntrier \ = S E > _ , , , , , .. t ............._............. / I i,,,,-, ~ j 1 4.T . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . .// 1 I \. . .4/� 1 47 46 / � 31 30 1 •29 28 :._'1 \ 1 : / a 1 /PINEB ?OOK TERRA'CE 1 :: ::: 4. i L - - - - a / \ 1 I .i I SHEET g • IH.., ,` , ! _ _ �� i . I - z/ CNOTE: TREE DESCRIPTION IN TREE TABLE SHEET 60 10 1 c, • z T Common Norm D6 Crown ECC Condition Pre.. •reserve Comments RPZ Lot T Common Name 0694 Crown &CC Condition Pelt. •reserve Comments 1892.Lot T.f 'Common game ' 026tI Crown ECC'Coodltlon Pres. IP reserve/Comments'�' RPZ1Lat n. 0 V • us -q. 0.0Sr 2 • dins 1q. t. sling Radius Sq. 2,Re6r•q Rsdn2 CE 1 7017 2 u Wble•dQed Geake 5900 14 6 i1190 00uIIi•s tr 20 1257 2 gable 6940 .fbus Sr 17 112 4'52 2 2 tel>le di1 13 o ach ed CC 54191 -tern red ceder11! 15 0 1 basal decay,tank decay 6041 western red cedar 32 16 604 2' 2' hedgerow;lopped.resprouled tops z 0 1:12_1eef melte 42 0 0 0 basal decay;trunk decay:ileum decay broken lop 5191 fern red ceder���]©©- aDla 6042 western red leder 7 8'- 0' 1 1 hedgerow;lapped:resprouted lops:stem decay t .• .eau r 10 314 2 2-added �� l ^xrra_��®©©�statle C 64-1-3--.western red ceder 12 10 314 2 2 3+edperoec lopped;resprouled lops:7416043,$044.6045 are one tree 0 S rresturr red c r 14 1: 2 2 .1 I1191 was red cedar 31 15 707 Mahle �� 6044 western ltd e•dOr 22' 10 314 2 21 topped:tCSQNllted lops / Cr) r 1114 Oouytea It 22 25 1983 2 2 ^Y 41895 ••stem rod cedar 33 t8 1018 debts II 6048 w166•fa re Cede 13 10 314, _ 2 2 •tapped:resprouted tops Z 2801 western red cedar 2 14 616 2 2 gable 4896 -tam red cedar 33 15 707 multi a sterns at 10 6046 western red cedar 28 12 422 2 2 ,t•••-.'resprouled 1• 5057 western red cedar 26 16 0 1 0 broke top:Inmk decay;mil6pie resptauted laps 5897 Of.lead Ma•11 21 30 0 • basal deco lank dee. 6047 big earlm uta 1 10 314 2 2 sable a' CL 0051 •..• ash 31 10 0 0 0 la •broken 1 •:trunk deco•:stem dace 3900 Ng leaf maple 30 0 0 basal decoy;sesme trunk decay;bedew 6074 0069911 k 19 12 452 2 2yes noble 14 15 Q T" 0 5141 western red ceder 26 20 1257 2 2 ,.1.384e Spot Ow91as Cr 14 1016 2 a ,• - et defeats 6071 ocwd•s er 15 8 201 2 f'yes 'stable 12 15 CC -.-I--• 1-1- v 5143 western red ceder 23 12 452 2 2 gable 5907 WI.. 3' 2'7 201 2 ,7e; Ell 6076 Ir 15 8 11 2 es noble 12 15 Q Q -tQ 5144 weaken red coder 14 I 0 1 0 [Hulk decayIII5903 • • rry2041 IIIMMee he 6077 k 18 16 514 2' 2`es stab*stab*clematis - 11 15 [/) ®we•slleri red •' 1111115211111111111521111110i 604©© leans mer creeb _ MIMI 1504 ••,:s 1r 111$11191018 e /111110070 -'-'153a fr 15- 66- 113 f 2 rira stable 10 15 (v O t - western red cedar 12 88 ©-s -sled ENO. 5905 Deeper,u : 1016 s sled 6079 sk 13' 1' 201 2 2-yes (able 10 15 � U Q -- 5147 western red caller 21 12 452 codanainate:5147 sill X48 are one free 3906 k t 1237 111147. ia 26s on ma 3$06ard�0i;21aes on tree 5006and5807 6000 Dort Or 16 12 452 2 2 yes ,gable 12 15 z Q 3140 western red ceder r 12 452 cedcenr ale:5147 and 5148 are ane Tree 3907 s fr : 2483 hes: 6001 i s it 16 10 314 2 2 yes aabte 12 15 W E Q CD 5149CD *Wein red olds! 20 14 818 gable 111 89041 sir 2463 ed branches;cry 6082 Dortpter Or tt3� 12• 452 21 610 3181 western red cedar�j]®®©©�44040 _M 5909 D0u s Cr , 1521 able 6083 s Sr 17 12 452 2 7-yes �1 able 12 15 `CC n 5- 169 OMNI aeh 6 12 452 1910 was red cedar 6881 wasIMl reed cedar ---30 24 18 604 2 2 yes dable 18 15 171 White aih 0 ---16..."....86.04...__..._..__2 basakl decay;severe trunk decay ■• 6913 western ted cedar 20 8910 weslem red cedar Ilii EO 00 r_basal l decay' eerily;burned out E. 1856 s ft 20 15 b; 401 'f pas sabre rte.olipmp�erty i 15 v -QL 3718 bTpTt4YmapplIe 23 28 2403 2 2 - • ley ••.••,,r•.. •,r.: �:] 2827©�• '•branches 8907 OO k 25 10 314 2 l yes dead branches 18 15 5 1800 lig hist maple 23 40 5027 2 2 dead breeches 1914 ►.. 1 7 r 7 S sstd 60841 s IF 14 8 201- 2- 2-jen %bee 12 15 3807 western red cedar 15 12 452 2 2 gable 5914 ►!,,.� � 25 1983���gatlle ■� 6089 3 k 22 12 452 2 2•y!f stable 18 15 5303 ••teat ma.a 24 28 0 1 0 basal decoII �C•.'1' r� � �� s,.'used MEM 6090 s Cr 43 12 452 2 2 yes stable 10 15 580.1 [,e,�'• 221111111103111112111111111111119111111111111111111111111 crook k1 tiunb MIMI 5917 OOvQas r � 707 2�_srlp,eessed ■I 6091 /1 k 20 8 201 2 2yes deed 15 1E 3805 ••uglasM 42 38 4536MIN 2 dead braechos 3911 s/r 7018 2 e 6092 ealmaple 10 16, 804- 2 2 rfeadGranches 5806 Douglas Jr 24 16 $04 2 dead brarmoimes:Neo,rrouted tap III ® ���©©�s,• sed;Tic FS 5___1119_,99___map �� 6093 Douglas Jr 28 22 1521 2 2 'dead branches 5107 ei .• sir 24.12 28 Olin oMEI red •col 5920 •[•'•.: ©©'dead branches �� 6094 Norway rretee -....._.....-8 16 604 2 2 irabte -, MR western red cedar 27 22 0 1 0 trunk decay;hales 5921 Douglas 1r 21 18 1018 2 gable 6095 Norway maple 8 12 452 2 2 gable !` 5809 western red cedar 25 16 804 2 2 gable 111 5927 s if 18 15 1018 2 iiwpressed 6096 Oregon ash 11 1r 804 2 2 gable 0 Sate [bugles Sr 10 16 804 2 2 suppressed;windthrow hazard 5923 Coo s fr 31 15 707 2 nab[• 6097 t4 tresl a 18 20 0 0 0 6aseTtiee3y:trunk decay;stem decay;ann8taria 1811 e• • 8 lr 30 28 2463 2 2 dead branches; 5924 O lues it 46 32 3217 2 dead branches;by 6091 English walnut 17 20 8 0_ 0 sere basal doe was logged 86189;we relapsed 60� 5117 Cb ..,0 V 40 25 1963 2 2 dead branches:by 5975 Douglas Cr 35 25 1963 2 dead branches:fy 6099 dlledmapfe 12 24 0 1 lyes braflrl Fop;elsm 8 15 Q 5813 17DUgla5 F± 13 8 0 1J suppressed; _. 5926 bird the 1O e 4 kT. 1 •tot/epee lean over dwell . 6100 red aider 8,11 12 452 2 2yea eod.mGtsle et less• 14 15 5559 Oro k 9 8 0 0dead 3927 birdcherry 12 452 - 26101 begleattnet110 27 20 2124 2 2b.is ,.able 20 15 /�5106 Douglas fr 28 28 2463 2suppressed; y 5918 Couples k 22 1521 2 6350 Douglas It 18 10 314 2 2yes codomfnateal base f4 15CC �Ss17 Douplas3r 13 14 616 2suppressedFt' 3970 bledchant' 12 452 2� 6301 Daugtask 18 12 452 2 2ye8 gable 14 15� Q i Ll5811 Deugles Br 73 16 1018 2 + 13 : r • • O (/3119 _OOsrplas it 40 20 1267 zable by 59®k7t>�s SE+ e 24 16 604_�-dead branchesIJ- a. .1L(�5820 (Deegla0 Ir 27 16® 2dead tranches;iy7;suppressed 3934 Dlas k 43 25 2703� �dead branches; � CC t C Z5121 Do6gl8s fif 21 18 801 2ivy 8974 bw sir 15 70T dead tuarwhes; s ce r-L ^3822 .it 2sus• /sed 5935 Douglas k 27 16 804 noble;Clematis;lyeMEER weslem red cedar 16 able 59762124 2 ,.ebie;clematis:l7 3824 HFalernredceder 34 16 1018 2111 3937 a• ,•e Ar 616 2 ■• ECC is Effective Canopy Cover. Lu cc1815 Oau.esit 22 24 0 1trunk dee- :let*cog el 30' 5938 Douglas 8 27 18 1018 2 2 deed branches:�v 3126 0. ..sk 3® 2124 2�4a.- ■. 5939 brole(maple 6 16 604 2 2 au ..ed Condition Rating is 0 - severe decline or dead; i - declining; 2 - overage; 3 - excellent LU 5477 Dou•esAr 46 2124 2 gable 3940 Dor 19fr 24 16 604 2 2 sale Q Preservation Rating is 0 (hazard), 1 (dead or dying), 2 (overage), 3- (resilient ) CE Mil Enphh howl• 12 20 11.10111111111111=1111111611111.111111114111118 �= 594 t [�+,• s tr 27 16 844 2 2 gable j-_ 5839 English hew/• : 13 15 707 2 2 ptwlolrc•lc lean �� 5942 Douglafir 0 1 p radrtrprot RPZ is suggested root protection zone, measured in feet of radius surrounding the tree. 5uo flip leaf maple 15,14 22 0 0 0 basal decay;tnee decay;stern decay,broken by 1943 hee,.s k ®• 1257 2 2 dead tranches;hy;clematis 11111 5131 big leaf maple 13 16 0 0 0 basal decay;I.unk decay:stem decay,broken top 5944 e• sir 34 16 604 2 2 deed branches;ley;clematis Analysis and Mitigation 3131 western red cedar 26 14 0 2 1 Casal decay lege catty in stump 5945 Dangles it 34 22 0 2 1 viable • 3137 veslemredceder 23 13 531 2 2 stable 5946 13oupaslr 32 20 1257 2 2 dead branches 11,103 sq. ft. of existing crown cover are being preserved on the property. 5134 !Douglas Ir 36 18 1038 2 ty 3947 Douplds k 48 18 0 1 2 basal decay;ceaty al basso;sparse ,, 5535 w�eatemred cotter 30 18 1018 2 gable 5943 Voltprafu 32 18 1018 2 2 stable;hydead branches Per Section 10 Part 3.M.2.a. this does not include any tree with a Condition or Preservation P MS Couples lr 31 20 1257 2 yea- N: dead{ranches 5949 blp teat maple 6 12 452 2 2 sgUrtes damage Rating less than 2. , 9137 big IearMaple 6.6 12 0 1 beset decay:dead ate n;terminad dacha 5950 44 L 32.30 20 1257 2 2 gable:codomlnale from base Per Section 10 Part 3.)41.2.a., effective tree canopy coverage for open grown tree areas has 4 sub western red cedar 35 18 1018 ye. gable 5931 western red cedar 12 8 201 2 2 Jab* q 5139 weslenl red cedar 47 18 1018 2 +!able 6937 blvd cherry 9 12 452 2 2 gable been doubled. Q ', 5e4o western red ceder inginE1018 2 z gabioljilli 8913 nerd ebony 10 2 52 z ,cable District: R4.5 requires 40% effective tree canopy. F 5141 western red cedar 604 2 2-stable 5954 bird Cherry 6 6 113 2 gable Property area is 151 737 sq. ft. minus ROW dedication of 32,058 sq. ft. Effectivepropertyz o 0 0 BBDouglas it 37 1018 2 siabte 5955 bird cherry 6 8 201 2 gable p Y • tn c-3 ° of s• as it p� 101$ 22 NM re muted 1.. .� 5956 /811•201 maple 18 18 1018 2 dead traemcfies area is 119,679 sq. ft. Z w r m N 1844 Douglas it 18 1018 5957 .•teat ma.e 10 16 804 2 s,.-sled;dead branches ee o `e in . 514# western ltd cedar MB 18 1610 2211111111L.- ■I 5958 Coigns Or 1 18 1.18 a•e N R v d 5646 leouglansr 41 26 2124 2 e:saes;sametreeas5978 5939 a• •ask 24 16 804 _gable S� 719,679 sq. ft. x 40% = 47,872 sq_ ft. effective canopy cover required. s Q 8847 Ooupras fr 30 18 101. z gable II 5960 Dewing lr 26 24 1610 2 sa 47,872 sq. ft. required - 11,103 sq. ft. preserved = 36,769 sq. ft. effective canopy cover > "> 9515 Douglaslr 19 15 707 2 sable 5961 Crwplesk 21 10. 314 2 'kis bee to be mitigated. E E 5849 Don.-s to 27 18 1018 2 clematis 5962 Doop4as Sr 15 10 0 1 suppress.ad:die nee re rr rr 1,310 western red cedar 24 616 1 r trunk decay,easily at 6' 9963 e. •as lr 36 22 1521 2 ales To achieve 15%ECC per Lot and Tract A and 40% overall canopy 37,097 sq. ft. of ECC are 0051 Douglas le 24 1810 2 2 clematis;M7 III5964 Douglaslr 23� 804 2� Mme o being planted. r 3857 Don,as Sr 14 616 2 2 sus• used;clematis 3963 e. •-. Sr 39 1018 2 - o w�-r er Couples Sr 804 ga..- 3966 big lr.afineple 15 16 804 2 suppressed:stem decay�'Q"�®�® �brdccrm at 80 res..u(exf lo. ■1 3967 peceic dogwood 9 12 452 2t.»iable II PNW 1SA wholesale median cost for a 3" deciduous tree in the Willamette valley is $174. s. r :�3© vase 5961 western red cedar 6 e 201 3 clematis = -- m east Douglas Or 18 14 616 2 gable 3969 amiss tr 16 fie viable $174 /59 = $2.95 5137 Douglas it 26 16 461 2��dead branches 5970 Douglas Si ill 20 1257�®■gable The required tree canopyfee is 0 sq. ft. x 2 95 = $0 , 5358 a...ask 1st 72�� dances inlestalion 5971 e• ,las tr 16 604 N.'2/4e q * - i 5159 Dm.as It 20 18��� 59u _c.".3s oa k ��) a sst4e MI If positive, this fee would be reduced by additional amount of effective tree canopy planted 1 516D Dorgtas 6r 32 22 1521 2® Va..- ■ 3973 Doelas it 32 20 I7 2��dead branches �. a ® on the site using the canopy area values found in the Urban Forestry Manual Appendix 2. 5361 Dm.as Or 33 20 1257 2 ,.able: - ..a 5974 e• • s fr 18 12 2 • ow hazard0 ,_.. 5s61 D aglas hr 11 10 314 2 wirldi 00w 1lazard �- 5975 msestern ted cedar 18 12 0 1 0 Mink decay: •VW.woodpecker damage 0161 temps V 28 16 004 2®.liable MI 8916 ••leaf mapte 5 1. 1304 2 2� II 5864 Dcuglas er 34 18 101: 2 dead branches; ;clernalis 5977 leaf ma.n 13 22 0 1 1 deed branches;broken lop N o 5865 Douglas Or 24 1113M311111111111111111:1 �n RI e'[.�'�� E 707 2��viable -- 5560 . •as to 25 gaDTe 3980 big leaf metre 9 18 0 2 1 squInee damage;n'reehanlcat damage to base V ;gi�+ l I 0167 Douglas it 31 15 707 2 dead branches 6012 I. •ash 24 12 452 2 2 FT • 5368 bed cMerry 6 16 604 2 stable 6013 a• .3311 20 18 804 2 2 stable erg,-..,8 6014 I. sit 15 7 154 2 2yesao^�E 3670 Douglas if 33 20 1257 2 dead baanChes stable 10 ©re Z o� 5871 western red cedar 20 16 804 2 gable - 6015 r I. .•s 8t 211 8 201 2 2 es gable 76 5871 western red cedar 11 12 0 r beset decay;hollow II 6016 I. •Fac r �(]� �© .r7e;o1•••- y �� Z z it; .6 Sa73 e •as 6r 30 18 1018 dead branches 6017 �ppr •as Fr 1 4 0 1 5ed,elprop«ry November 10, 2017 Lot 1 Modifications N2 441 ' 8/74 western red cedar 11 +x .5z gable 6011 0ouplas9r 16 a 201 2 vlable of properly Morgan Holen,Consulting Arborist sm 5875 e• •0s fir 20 18 1018 ideal Vance. M. 6009 Douglas Jr f0 16 804 2 gable;at propertyIII o 1876 Douglas fir 10 314 2 clematis 6070 1706811594 10 8 201 2 yes gable - ISA Board Certified Master Arborist(PN-6145B) W 3877 Douglas 8r 20 1257 2 gable 6071 •• •et 10 17 8 201 2 es able 5878 Englshhawtharne 14 616 2 gable � ;T.m® 2411111111311111111111211111111111111a ,•essed EW ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified C 5379 big teat maple • 26 2124 2 stable 6073 D011gle►lr 17 10 2 es 5810 Ouuglas fer ', 18 1018 2 gable11 6074 8 it 10 10 • 1 es stable ` 5631 Douglas it r 20 1257 2 gable 6975 • .tM lir 7 0 r 0 es viable ie sass Dagfas It 18 1016 2 gableEll ��1••►,� ®=.Cf'•1©©� � ELtO 3883 e• .as Ar 18 1018 2 gable 6034 affilli 20 616 2® cable Eli , :834 Douglas Cr 21 18 1018 2 gable 6035 •••• 23 1018 2 dead branches ,/',S 9 Douglas 3815 fr 21 12 452 2® gable; III •� � �©©tom dead branches IC MEI 3256 I. .as lir 29 20 1257 2 •bfe: 1•11111 MEING=IMMIKEEL/ • ©©-codaminate al base;dries SEIM 5888 Douglas Cr 18 10 314 2 21 suaressed111116088 •�•'P'T �j��©©-dead branches 'M 5989 Coughs 8r 12 12 0 0 0 &ad 6039 red alder /1,14,12 24 1810 21 2 cadornlnate at base;rnulo stems _ - _ - ( •eter Torres, Master of Forestry .5- Multnomah Tree Experts, Ltd. i SHEET , ISA Board; Certified. Master Arborist , 6D 5 Or z 7 10 4 x