Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Roca_TL1201_PA-T1-2023-00206
C IT y OF ASHLAND April 17, 2023 Notice of Final Decision On April 17, 2023, the Community Development Director approved the request for the following: Planning Action: PA -TI -2023-00206 Subject Property: Roca St. Applicant: Roca Canyon Horne Owners Assoc. Description: A request for a multiyear phased tree removal of various trees along Roca Creek. Because the subject property contains a regulated waterway removal a planning action is required to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are taken. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-40; ASSESSOR'S MAP &TAS LOTS: 39 JE 15 BC Tax Lot #1211:1 The Community Development Director's decision becomes final and is effective on the 12"' day after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 18 months and all conditions of approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project completion.. The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee schedule. Prior to the final decision date, anyone who was mailed this Notice off inal Decision may request a reconsideration of the action as set forth in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) 18.5.1.050(F) and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Planning Commission as provided in ALUO 18,5.1.050(G). The ALUO sections covering reconsideration and appeal procedures are attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Aaron Anderson in the Community Development Department at (541) 488-5305. cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn wayTel: 641.4885305 AMIand, Oregon 97520 Fax: 5,41.552.2050 TM 800.735.2900 ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS & ORDERS PLANNING ACTION: PA -Tl -2023-00206 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Roca St. OWNERS / APPLICANT: Roca Canyon Home Owners Assoc. DESCRIPTION: A request for a multiyear phased tree removal of various trees along Roca Creek. Because the subject property contains a regulated waterway removal a planning action is required to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are taken. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP & TAX LOTS: 39 IE 15 BC Tax Lot #1201 SUBMITTAL DATE: March 15, 2023 DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: March 27, 2023 STAFF APPROVAL DATE: April 17, 2023 DEADLINE TO APPEAL (4:30 p.m.): May 1, 2023 FINAL DECISION DATE: May 2, 2023 APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE: November 2, 2024 DECISION The application requests a Physical and Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit to allow a multiyear phased removal of several species of dead, dying, and diseased trees within Flood Plain Corridor Lands (regulated waterway, Roca Creek) and Hillside Lands for the open space tax lot 1201 off Roca Street. The application includes the request to remove four trees during 2023; remove six trees in 2024; and remove four trees in 2025 as Roca Canyon Homeowners Association (HOA) funding allows. The trees listed for immediate removal are dead, dying, diseased and/or leaning toward structures which pose a hazard for the community. The subject property is accessed from Roca Street. The property was platted in 1992 (CS 13241) as Lot 1201,.an open space, one acre tax lot of the Roca Canyon Subdivision Phase 1. The property is zoned R-1-10. The subject property is irregularly shaped and slopes into the Roca Creek ravine. The lot is the shared open space for eight landowners as part of an HOA. Roca Creek is an intermittent stream located within the open space lot. The protective riparian buffer is 10 feet on either side of the stream. The open space property slopes to the east, down into a ravine and then up to the east out of the ravine with slopes ranging from approximately 6-30 percent. According to the application, in the early to mid-90s, the lot was planted with trees by the developer and HOA. Several years of severe drought and loss of irrigation water has caused rapid death of many trees on the lot. In addition, a local arborist determined that many of the cottonwood trees are approaching the end of their lifespan and recommended monitoring them on a yearly basis to prevent property damage to homes. The applicability for tree removal within Flood Plain Corridor Lands per AMC 18.3.10.020.3.a (i) and (ii) is, "The removal of three or more living trees of over six inches DBH, or the removal of five percent of the total number of living or dead trees over six inches DBH, whichever is PA -TI -2023-00206 Roca Canyon /JC Page 1 greater, on any lot within five year period, or any form of commercial logging" and "The removal of one or more living conifers greater than two feet DBH or living broadleaf trees greater than one foot DBH. " A total of 22 trees have been identified in the applicant's professional report as trees proposed for future removal. The applicant is prioritizing the removal of 13 of the 22 trees over the next three years. The priority trees proposed to be removed in 2023, are as follows: 17' DBH Douglas lir (dead); 36" DBH poplar (dead/root rot and leaning); 30" DBH poplar (severely leaning); and 36" DBH poplar (stem decay and leaning). Subsequent tree removals proposed for years 2024 and 2025 will include trees that range from 14" to 38" DBH and include both deciduous and evergreen species. The application explains that the HOA will work with professionals to select appropriate and healthy trees to plant in the open space to replace the trees and snags (dead standing tree) that are proposed to be removed. The applicant is requesting: 1). a waiver for less than I :I ratio for tree replacement due to the abundance of trees already existing on the lot, and 2). to plant smaller trees instead of the larger sized trees identified in the plant nursery professional report. This is due to the constraints of the physical environment and challenges accessing the planting areas with large equipment. The applicant proposes to develop a planting plan that will maintain adequate coverage of canopy to shade the creek. Per AMC 18.5.040.B.b and 18.5.050.A, as conditions of approval below, the applicant may reduce the number of trees from 1:1 replacement ratio to a suitable ratio, as determined by a professional. The intent of the replacement ratio is to provide equal or greater canopy cover to shade the riparian area. Replanting the site should meet existing canopy conditions. Due to site access challenges and the number of trees to be replaced, an exception from the minimum 1 1/2 inch caliper deciduous tree or five to six foot tall evergreen tree is being granted. Replacement coniferous and deciduous trees should be a minimum of four feet tall, contain an intact and healthy root system and be seasonally maintained to ensure survivability (provide water regularly during the dry season and/or during periods of low precipitation for at least the first 3 to 5 growing seasons). If the newly planted trees fail to establish, then they shall be replaced 1:1. Trees should be native to the region and climate friendly. Replanting with appropriate native and climate friendly species to replace the canopy will minimize impacts to the regulated waterway conditions. The applicability for tree removal within Hillside Lands (per AMC 18.3.10.090.D.5.d) is that, "The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes an unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards in 18.3.10.090D.D.2. " The application explains that the HOA hired a professional arborist to evaluate the health of the trees on the subject property. The arborist report shows that some of the trees proposed to be removed have been inspected and determined to be dead, decaying, and/or leaning toward structures within the HOA. The applicant is also working with plant nursery professionals to select appropriate trees for the replacement of those removed. As proposed with conditions, replanting with appropriate species, size and in suitable locations within the open space will replace the canopy over time. In addition to replanting, conducting the work without the use of heavy equipment due to the difficult access to the planting locations will minimize potential impacts to hillside slopes. PA -TI -2023-00206 Roca Canyon IJC Page 2 Tree Removal The applicant proposes to remove thirteen trees over the next three years. All proposed trees are located within the open space corridor. Trees are proposed to be removed using manual labor (without heavy machinery) as the open space is inaccessible to vehicles and large equipment. Where possible and if safe to do so, habitat trees, which are dead, live, or semi -living snags should remain within the riparian corridor. Consultation with an arborist is necessary when deciding whether to keep or create a habitat tree to prevent potentially hazardous conditions. Felled trees may be left in place within the riparian area to provide habitat for flora and fauna, be advised that too much buildup of ground fuel (downed wood) can be hazardous in wildfire zones, but some downed wood is valuable for habitat. All trees and snags removed from the steepest slopes must leave stumps in place to limit and prevent erosion on the hillside slopes. Tree Replacement Per AMC 18.3.10.090.D.b., replacement trees shall be planted in a timely manner Stich that the trees will in time result in canopy equal to or greater than the tree canopy present prior to development of the property. The applicant proposes to work with a professional to develop a tree replacement plan that determines the appropriate species, size, and suitable locations for the replacement trees with consideration to landscape characteristics and access to the planting sites. Replacement trees should be planted during late fall through early spring following the removal year. Replacement trees should provide for ecological diversity (i.e. planting a mix of shrubs and trees which are both deciduous and evergreen) to promote adequate canopy coverage for shading the intermittent stream. Replacement trees can be less than the standard requirements of minimum 1 %2 inch caliper deciduous tree or five to six foot tall evergreen due to the difficulty of accessing the riparian area, but replacement trees selected must have a healthy and intact root system and be maintained for the first 3 to 5 growing seasons. For more information about riparian planting see this helpful guide: A Guide to Riparian Tree Planting in Southwest Oregon by Bennett and Ahrens, 2007. Public Input Notice of the planning action was mailed to all properties within 200 feet of the subject property as well as a physical notice posted along the frontage of the property. The notice included a staff contact name and number. In accordance with AMC 18.5.1.050, the Type I procedure for planning applications allows a 14 -day period for the submission of written comments, starting from the date of mailing. No comment was received by the public. The approval criteria for a Physical Constraints Review Permit are detailed in AMC Chapter 18.3.10.050 as follows: A. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter (see AMC 18.3.10.080 Development Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands and AMC 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands), the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. PA -T1-2023-00206 Roca Canyon /JC Page 3 B. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. C. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions.The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance. The criteria of approval for Tree Removal are described in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.7.040.B.1 which require that all of the following criteria are met: a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. The criteria of approval for Tree Removal are described in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.7.040.B.2 which require that all of the following criteria are met: a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. The applicant has submitted a complete set of Findings addressing their burden of proof to the Planning Department to demonstrate compliance with the applicable approval standards for the proposed partition and by their reference are incorporated as if set out in full. PA -T1-2023-00206 Roca Canyon /JC Page 4 In staff s assessment, the application with the attached conditions complies with all applicable City Ordinances. Therefore, Planning Action #PA -TI -2023-00206 is approved with the following conditions. Further, if any one or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action 9 -PA -TI -2023-00206 is denied. The following conditions are attached to the approval. 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2) That all conditions of the original subdivision approval shall remain in effect unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 3) All trees and snags removed from the steepest areas must leave stumps in place to limit and prevent erosion of hillside slopes. 4) Replacement trees should be planted during late fall through early spring following the removal year. 5) Replacement trees should provide for ecological diversity (i.e. planting a mix of shrubs and trees which are both deciduous and evergreen) to promote adequate canopy coverage for shading the intermittent stream. 6) Replacement coniferous and deciduous trees may be a mininium of four feet tall, in very good health, contain an intact and healthy root system, and be maintained to ensure survivability (provide water regularly during the dry season and/or during periods of low precipitation for at least the -first 3 to 5 growing seasons). If the newly planted. trees fail to establish, then they shall be replaced 1:1. 7) Replant with species that are native to this region and climate friendly. 8) Where possible, habitat trees, which are dead or semi -living snags should remain within the riparian corridor. 9) If possible and safe, a limited number of felled trees may be left in place within the riparian area to provide habitat. 9 Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director Date PA -T] -2023-00206 Roca Caiiyon /JC Page 5 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON j County of Jackson y The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On April 17, 2023 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #PA -T1-2023-00206, Roca Street, Tax Lot 1201. XendaffEscuin Signature of Employee GAtomm-deVplanningYPlanniag AdouTAs by Sbe&R)Rocaftca_TL_1201�Roca _TL1201_PXTi-2023-0020ENoicingWOiriRoca_TL1201_PA Tt-2023,00208_N06_Affldavii of Mating.dou 411712023 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E158C1207 AMRHEIN MARK J/AMY W 804 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC2403 DE ROUCHEY LOUIS/AMANDA 891 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15SC2000 EXCELL JAMES R ET AL 799 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 Easy Peel' Address Labels ' I Bencl ,along line to expose P013 -Up Edge I PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC1205 BARON ERIC NNIRGINIA K 780 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15SC2502 ELDRIDGE NATHAN P/LESLIE M 840 PINECREST TER ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BB7200 FRIEDMAN STEPHANIE 730 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 Go to avery.com/templates Use Avery Template 5160 I PA -T1-2023-00206 CASEY ROLAND PO Bax 575 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC2201 ENGEL ETHAN A/ELANIE L 839 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BC1203 GOLDSTEIN DENNIS A TRUSTEE ET 766 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BC1211 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E158C1800 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BC1300 HAMILTON C/MARY STEINBERGS HOLMAN PATRICIA ANN ET AL KELLY JAMES D TRUSTEE ET AL 702 PRIM ST 767 ROCA ST 10 TORREY OAKS CT ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC2400 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC1210 i PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BB7100 KINARD JOHN G TRUSTEE ET AL KRUGER KIMBERLY KAY TRUSTEE E KUZMITZ ANDREW A/KATHLEEN R 875 ROCA ST 218 WOODCREEK DR 710 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 WIMBERLY, TX 78676 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC2303 LARDI7ABAL KEN ET AL 1192 EMMA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BC3101 NELSON STEVEN J/MARY P 1286 WOODLAND DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC2200 PAVLICH PAUL/JENI FEINBERG 829 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BC2100 PINETTE JULIE ET AL 811 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BB6300 LAUGHLIN ALISON TRUSTEE ET AL 717 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC1900 NORTH MARCIA L TRUSTEE ET AL 783 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BC2300 PERRY CHERYL ET AL 1198 EMMA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 PLANT OREGON 8651 Wagner Creek Rd TALENT, OR 97540 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BC1401 LAWRENCE FREDRICA G TRUSTEE E 1180 PROSPECT ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 El 513C 1212 OLSEN LORRAINE 1 750 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC1206 PETERSON -BRIGGS ASHLEY D/RYAN 792 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC1201 ROCA CANYON HOME OWNERS 2277 SUNCREST RD TALENT, OR 97540 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BC1200 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BC1209 PA -T1-2023-00206391 El5BC1000 ROCA CANYON HOMEOWNERS ASSOC[ S AND B PROPERTIES LLC SANDLER ALLAN F TRUSTEE FBO 828 ROCA ST 15516 ARTESIAN RIDGE RD PO BOX 306 ASHLAND, OR 97520 SAN DIEGO, CA 92127 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BC1208 SLOAN EARLE R TRUSTEE ET AL 816. ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BC1005 VINER TABITHA/DOUG 813 LEONARD ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 j33ogal 01 aa1ana3 ap uq;e ainEIOey e1 Dai{ Ase:4 Ossaire, p Sallanli PA -T1-2023-00206 391E158C1002 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BB6200 SPROAT DANA KAPUAALA VALOR REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST PO BOX 99 3355 CALIFORNIA ST KILAUEA, HI 96754 OAKLAND, CA 94602 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 El5BC2500 WONG ALAN/SARRI-WONG JESSICA 820 PINECREST TERR ASHLAND, OR 97520 Roca St., TL 1201 N©C 04/17/23 35 0 ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: PA -TI -2023-00206 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Roca St, OWNERS /APPLICANT: Roca Canyon Home Owners Assoc. DESCRIPTION: A request for a multiyear phased tree removal of various trees along Roca Creek, Because the subject property contains a regulated waterway removal a planning action is required to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are taken, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP & TAX LOTS: 391 E 15 BC Tax Lot #1201 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 27,2023 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: April 10, 2023 I- CI Fl 6VL C l' SI ),-,PEC T S MA --J COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 .0.re, Asl-flond, Oregon 975Rm 20 541.552.2050 a bnds r ois TTY: 800,735,2900 c1l'y OF LAND The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted on Page 1 of this notice. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria are available online at "What's Happening in my City" at httiLsJ/g is. ash land. Of. Us/clevelo,p entp m_rgp §gl�sj. Copies of application materials, will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Application materials, may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre -arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing p1garlin uLs., Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments within the 14 -day comment period to or to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 41-30 p.m. on the deadline date shown on Page I. Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a land use application is complete within, 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting the application. After the comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision is mailed to the same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Planning Commission of the Planning Division Staff's decision must be made in writing to the Ashland Manning Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.5.1.050.G) The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of .Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based an also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit Court. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Aaron Anderson at 541-552-2052 or aaron.anderson )ashland,OUIS. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's, office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting, (28 CFR 35,102,-35,104 ADA Title 1). PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL, CONSTRAINTS 183.10.050 An application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and shall be approved if the proposal meets all of the following criteria. A. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. B. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development, C. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions, The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way TO: 541.48€15305 Ash Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 &JsM"jindu us TTY: 800.735:2900 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that. 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On March 27, 2023 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #PA -T1-2023-00206, Roca Street, Tax Lot 1201. 'M chaeCSuCCivan Signature of Employee GAcomm-de41annn1ngT1anningAcdoWPAs by StreetlRlRocalRoca_Ti._12011Roca TL1201_PATI-202300205lNoticinglRoca_TLI201_PA-T1-2023-0020fi_NOG Affidavit ofMailiAg.docx3127f2023 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BC1207 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BC1205 PA -T1-2023-00206 AMRHEIN MARK JIAMY W BARON ERIC NNIRGINIA K CASEY ROLAND 804 ROCA ST 780 ROCA ST PO Bax 575 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BC2403 DE ROUCHEY LOUISIAMANDA 891 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BC2000 EXCELL JAMES R ET AL 799 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BC2502 ELDRIDGE NATHAN PILESLIE M 840 PINECREST TER ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 39IE15BB7200 FRIEDMAN STEPHANIE 730 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC1211 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC1800 HAMILTON CIMARY STEINBERGS HOLMAN PATRICIA ANN ET AL 702 PRIM ST 767 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BC2400 KINARD JOHN G TRUSTEE ET AL 875 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC2303 LARDIZABAL KEN ET AL 1192 EMMA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BC3101 NELSON STEVEN J/MARY P 1286 WOODLAND DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC2200 PAVLICH PAULIJENI FEINBERG 829 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E.15BC2100 PINETTE JULIE ET AL 811 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 El5BC1210 KRUGER KIMBERLY KAY TRUSTEE E 218 WOODCREEK DR WIMBERLY, TX 78676 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BB6300 LAUGHLIN ALISON TRUSTEE ET AL 717 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC1900 NORTH MARCIA L TRUSTEE ET AL 783 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC2300 PERRY CHERYL ET AL 1198 EMMA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 PLANT OREGON 8651 Wagner Creek Rd TALENT, OR 97540 PA -Tl -2023-00206391E15BC1200 PA-T1-2023-0020639IE15BC1209 ROCA CANYON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCI S AND B PROPERTIES LLC 828 ROCA ST 15516 ARTESIAN RIDGE RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 SAN DIEGO, CA 92127 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC2201 ENGEL ETHAN AIELANIE L 839 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC1203 GOLDSTEIN DENNIS A TRUSTEE ET 766 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391El5BC1300 KELLY JAMES D TRUSTEE ET AL 10 TORREY OAKS CT SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BB7100 KUZMITZ ANDREW A/KATHLEEN R 710 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 i PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC1401 LAWRENCE FREDRICA G TRUSTEE E 1180 PROSPECT ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC1212 OLSEN LORRAINE 1 750 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC1206 PETERSON -BRIGGS ASHLEY D/RYAN 792 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC1201 ROCA CANYON HOME OWNERS 2277 SUNCREST RD TALENT, OR 97540 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 El5BC1000 SANDLER ALLAN F TRUSTEE FBO PO BOX 306 ASHLAND, OR 97520 . ... ....... i aGpD dtl-dol asodxa 01 aucl Guofe puag i _--I slagL21 ssaaPPV ^ land AS23 09 LS AdjA PA -T1-2023-00206 391El5BC1208 SLOAN EARLE R TRUSTEE ET AL 816 ROCA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BC1005 VINER TABITHA/DOUG 813 LEONARD ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T1-2023-00206 391 E15BC1002 SPROAT DANA KAPUAALA PO BOX 99 KILAUEA, HI 96754 PA -T1-2023-00206 391E15BC2500 WONG ALAN/SARRI-WONG JESSICA 820 PINECREST TERR ASHLAND, OR 97520 _ ISI �i�ll!II PA-T1-2023-00206 391E1513136200 VALOR REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 3355 CALIFORNIA ST OAKLAND, CA 94602 Roca St., TL 1201 NOC 03/27/23 35 STREET TREE REMOVAL PERMIT rPlanning Division CITY o r 51 Winbum Way, Ashland OR 97520 - 7g5HLAND 541A98 5305 fax 541-488-6006 A tree that is located in any public street right-of-way or other public property may not be removed until a Street Tree Removal Permit has been submitted according to the Application Submission Requirements, below, and reviewed and approved by the City of Ashland. An application for street free removal must demonstrate that the tree is an emergency, hazard, or dead tree as outlined below in the Application Submission Requirements, Application Submission Requirements. An application for a street tree removal permit shall include all of the following information. t. Application Form and Fee. The application must include the information requested on the Street Tree Removal Pennit form provided by the City of Ashland and the permit application fee. Only those property owners of a lot adjoining the street tree location or homeowners' associations responsible for street trees in their development or subdivision may apply to remove an adjoining street tree. If a tree is located in front of more than one property, each property owner or homeowners` association official must sign the Street Tree Removal Parmitform. 2, Site Plan. A site pian of the property drawn to scale containing the following information. The scale of the site ptam must be at least one inch equals 50 feet or larger, a. North arrow and scale. b. Property boundaries including dimensions of all lot lines and driveway locations. c. Location and width of all public streets, planting strips, and sidewalks adjoining the site. d. Size, species, and location of the trees) proposed to be removed. 3. Written Statement, A written statement explaining how the proposed street tree removal satisfies one of the following approval criteria. The Community Development director may require additional information to demonstrate that the proposed removal satisfies one of the following approval criteria including: 1) a written statement to be prepared by an arborist licensed by the State of Oregon Landscape Contractors Board of Construction Contractors Board and certified by the International Society of Arboriculture or American Society of Consulting Arbo€ists; and 2) an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form 10 be completed by an arborist. Street Tree Removal Approval Criteria a) Emergency Tree Removal. The tree presents an immediate danger of collapse and represents a clear and present hazard to persons or property. Immediate danger of collapse is defined as a tree that may already be leaning, with the surrounding soil heaving, andlor there is a significant likelihood that the tree will topple or otherwise fail and cause damage before a tree removal permit could be obtained through the non-emergency process, b) Hazard Tree Removal, The tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning, A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear the tree is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within a public right-of-way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated. c) Bead Tree. The tree is dead. A dead tree is lifeless. Such evidence of lifelessness may include unseasonable lack of foliage, brittle dry branches, or lack of any growth during the growing season. Replacement and Stump Removal. Applicants for approved Street Tree Removal Permits are required to remove any stumps and replace the tree. Stump removal and replacements for approved street tree removals shali meet the following requirements. 1, Any street tree removed shall be removed at ground level or lower, if a tree is removed below ground level, the surface must be restored to finish grade and any regrowth which occurs shall be promptly removed, 2. All street trees shall be an appropriate species selected from and planted according to the City of Ashland Recommended Street Tree List, 3. The minimum size for a replacement tree is eight feet in height or one inch in caliper measured at 12 inches above the root crown. 4. Applicants for a Street Tree Removal Permit may be required to replace the tree of trees being removed with a tree or trees of comparable value. 5. If a street tree is determined to be dead or dying, then the replacement need be no larger than the minimize size described above. TypeofTree(s) poplar, fir, alder, birch Approximate Diameter at breast height 12"-3811 Height 501-110" Canopy Upper Roca Creek Location of Tree along upper Roca Creek, behind RCHOA hornes Reason for Request In the past two years, due to drought and stress, 23 trees have died or in the process of dying. Several trees are now hazard trees (see Casey Roland's Tree Risk Assessments) and are also fire risks. Are there underground utility lines andlor overhead power lines present? no. private irrigation system only. If yes, please list which lines are present Is there sidewalk damage? no If yes, has a Public Works permit been issued? OVER 0 C: llrusTier Re,novaE P2i U R-i. d 10:4.d,w Roca Canyon Homeowners' Association Tree Removal Permit Written Statement TREE REMOVAL Applicant is Roca Canyon Homeowners Association (RCHOA), consisting of 8 homeowners in the Roca Canyon subdivision which was developed in the early 1990s. Half of the owners are elderly and/or disabled. Their homes overlook open space containing Roca Creek, an intermittent stream with Talent Irrigation District water rights. Since 2016, RCHOA has been a Firewise Community in good standing with the Ashland Fire Department. Before development of the homes, the open space in the subdivision contained only grassy spaces, no trees. During the early development, the developer and owners planted cottonwoods, alders, pines and firs along the greenway and hillside in the open space containing Roca creek. In retrospect, we overprinted, as many of these trees were planted too close to the homes or too close to each other. Around 2005, RCHOA hired the Lomakatsi Restoration Project to stabilize the creek bed and plant additional pine trees and vegetation around the creek. Around 2013, Camp Kaye, a local arborist, examined the trees in the open space, finding that the cottonwoods were approaching the end of their lifespan. He advised the HOA to monitor them on a yearly basis in order to prevent property damage to homes and our irrigation system. Following this advice, RCHOA has monitored these trees and, over the following years, planted several smaller native trees including maples, dogwoods and cedars to compensate for the future loss of the cottonwoods. Over the past two years, due to severe drought and loss of irrigation water in Roca Canyon, alders, poplars, firs, and birches have rapidly died or are in the process of decaying or dying. Due to limited financial resources and management capacity, RCHOA requests a tree removal permit to remove hazardous, dead and almost dead trees that we can afford to remove over a three year period.. RCHOA has hired Casey Rowland of KC Rowland Tree Service to assist with our application and to remove and trim our trees. Casey's ISA Risk Assessment Forms for the 3 cottonwoods that pose the greatest hazards are included with this application. Casey has also indicated that tree 3, close to one of our homes, is dead and needs to be removed. Below are pictures and descriptions of the 4 trees we seek to remove as soon as possible in. We have prioritized others for removal in 2024 and 2025. RCHOA and Casey will monitor the trees and remove or trim them based the HOA's funding capacity, tree conditions and fire safety requirements. TREE REPLACEMENT RCHOA can work with Plant Oregon staff to select rees on a 1 to 1 basis for replacement of trees removed. However, RCHOA requests a waiver for less than 1 to 1 replacement because too many trees, were planted 30 years ago and volunteers and other plantings have added to the volume overtime. We can obtain adequate canopy to shade the creek with fewer, well -selected and placed, trees by working with Plant Oregon. In particular, RCHOA requests that the City waive its 1 to 1 replacement requirement for removal of the cottonwoods and Douglas fir, Tree 3. These trees are not natives and/or were planted too close to our houses and, as mentioned above, have already been "replaced" by more suitable native trees. RCHOA also asks for a waiver on replacement size because of our unique environment and the challenge of access and planting larger versus smaller trees. Well -selected and placed trees will grow quickly and provide adequate canopy within 1-3 years. We would like time to address our most pressing needs before concentrating on replacement. Managing the cutting and removal of just a handful of enormous trees is itself a prodigious task for our small HOA because our open space is inaccessible to vehicles and large equipment. To satisfy Firewise requirements, we need to pay for other trimming of dead, dying and partially fallen trees; remove the enormous amount of resulting tree limbs and clear our open hillside of flammable grass and blackberries. Last year, Plant Oregon viewed Roca Canyon, assessed our tree situation and provided replacement recommendations. Their report is included with this application. They indicated that Roca Creek was heavily shaded with existing canopy but loss of additional alders by the creek would necessitate additional canopy coverage. Once we address the removal of our hazardous cottonwoods and Douglas Fire (tree 3) and satisfy our Firewise requirements, the HOA will be able to work with Plant Oregon on a tree replacement plan to replace dead and dying trees. Trees to be removed in 2023 as money is available. #3 = 17" DBH Douglas Fir —this tree is dead and is threatening home at 828 Roca Street #5 = 36" DBH PoplIar—this tree has root crown decay at the ground and along the trunk and is leaning toward home at 828 Roca Street. See Casey Roland's Basic Tree Risk Assessment for complete, information. #17 = 30" DBH, Poplar, Severely leaning toward home at 766 Roca Street, Neighbor to north has noted the tree's lean has increased in the past year. See Casey Roland's Basic Tree Risk Assessment form for complete information. #4 = 36" DBH Poplartree has stem decay and is leaning toward home at 828 Roca Street. See Casey Roland's Basic Tree Risk Assessment form for complete information. ISA. Banc Tree Risk Assessment, Form - 5tte �actars History of failures Topography Flabb Slope❑ Aspect Site changes None ❑ Grade change ❑ Site clearing ❑ Changed soil hydrology ❑ Root cuts ❑ Describe f[ // / Soil conditions Limited volume 13 Saturated ❑ Shallow❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots % Describe Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds Ice❑ Snow[] Heavy rahk' Describe _ Tree Health and 'S pedes 'Profiile Vigor Low ❑ Normal ❑ High4k Foliage None (seasonal)V None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests Abiotic -- Species failure profile Brancheo Trunkpr Rootsg Describe (1,06( 1 El a ':. _ Lra d Factors Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Full ❑ Windfunnelin9v Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium ❑ Larger Crown density Sparse❑ Normal Dense[] Interior branches Few❑ Normalt—Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑ Recent or planned change in load factors Tree befacts andCondrtions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches ❑ %overall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. n Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole /a circ. Over-extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised L] Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls Sapwood damage/decay Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay�i Flush cuts ❑ Other Response jrowth Main concern(s)'stual Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant', Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible © Probable �. Imminent --Trunk -- — Roots and Root: Collar — Dead/Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/colorrv, Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdiing ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decal Cankers/Galls/BurisV Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ. Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness 5q Lean ° Corrected? Response growth Response growth z-F'i r _�'L ° Main concern(s) �----- Main concerns) Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor © Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significantik Likelihood of failure likelihood of failure Improbable© Possible 11 Probable ❑ Imminent 13 Improbable 13 Possible 0 ProbableV Imminent 11 Target zone occupancy Y• `m C a rate 1—rare G ►" Target description - x •� F t z- occasional 3—frequent a y + � 4—constant a a 1 2 3 4 - 5tte �actars History of failures Topography Flabb Slope❑ Aspect Site changes None ❑ Grade change ❑ Site clearing ❑ Changed soil hydrology ❑ Root cuts ❑ Describe f[ // / Soil conditions Limited volume 13 Saturated ❑ Shallow❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots % Describe Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds Ice❑ Snow[] Heavy rahk' Describe _ Tree Health and 'S pedes 'Profiile Vigor Low ❑ Normal ❑ High4k Foliage None (seasonal)V None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests Abiotic -- Species failure profile Brancheo Trunkpr Rootsg Describe (1,06( 1 El a ':. _ Lra d Factors Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Full ❑ Windfunnelin9v Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium ❑ Larger Crown density Sparse❑ Normal Dense[] Interior branches Few❑ Normalt—Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑ Recent or planned change in load factors Tree befacts andCondrtions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches ❑ %overall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. n Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole /a circ. Over-extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised L] Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls Sapwood damage/decay Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay�i Flush cuts ❑ Other Response jrowth Main concern(s)'stual Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant', Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible © Probable �. Imminent --Trunk -- — Roots and Root: Collar — Dead/Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/colorrv, Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdiing ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decal Cankers/Galls/BurisV Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ. Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness 5q Lean ° Corrected? Response growth Response growth z-F'i r _�'L ° Main concern(s) �----- Main concerns) Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor © Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significantik Likelihood of failure likelihood of failure Improbable© Possible 11 Probable ❑ Imminent 13 Improbable 13 Possible 0 ProbableV Imminent 11 Conditions ..of concern.. MMMT CCN C CCC A CE WWE ILA I SCC' ` WMW�CC C CCCCCCCCCCCCC= CC CCCCCCC,C`CC101CCC CYXC CCCC rWEno CWCc 0 0 M �I E CCCCI� rC'jC7>1191 C+ CCCNO- CCCCCrNCCCCC C CCC CCCC CCCC CCCC CCC C CCCC Co XCC CCC C CCCCCCCCC[074CCCCCC CCC C CCCC r0iCC'C CCCC MMMT a CC C CCCCC, rCCCCC C CCCC CCCCCWOR CCCCCC REM * i0 -7P MatrjxZ Risk rating matrix. ,. , Notes, explanations, descriptions North Mitigation options Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low D Moderate D High D Extrem'$41 Work priority 0 213 30 413 Overall residual risk tow D Moderate © High D Extreme K Recommended inspection interval Data © Final © Preliminary Advanced assessment needed DNo ©Yes-Type/Reason Inspection. limitations ©None ©Visibility DAccess DVines DRoot collar buried Describe This datasheet was produced by the intemational Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists ; 2013 P, �o �f N11 Basic Tree Risk Assessmeri, Form Client cZg-t L�/`tc Date Time Address/Tree location /!Yt.Lj - '"� if Tree no. Sheet of Tree species dbh '3b Height it C2, Crown spread dia. Assessor(s) Time frame Tools used Tali'get Assessm�ni Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ FuII ❑ Wind funnelingW, Relative crown size Small© Medium ❑ Larger Crown density Sparse Normand Dense 11 interior branches Few 13 NormalA Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent or planned change in load factors Tree tlefeCts an d ConsiiYior►s Affecting ti .el i ikehhoad of failure :• — Crown and Branches -- Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches © %overall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. a Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hale /o circ. Over-extended branches El Previous branch failures ❑ similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned © Raised ElDead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/BurlV Sapwood damage/decay Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — Dead /Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/color Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark 0 Cracks 0 Dead © Decay Conks/Mushrooms Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burl] Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ %circ, Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots 0 Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Lean ° Corrected? Response growth Response growth Main concern(s) Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ SigniHcantiQ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ SignificantV Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible 0 Probabled Imminent 0 Improbable 13 Possible 0 Probable Imminent 13 Target zone Occupancy N3-2 rate 1—rarep- x -occasional r m c M1• Y Target description •� I° c t % 3 --frequent m > N ' 4µ constant a.0 CX M 1 0 Pp IF2 3 4 Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ FuII ❑ Wind funnelingW, Relative crown size Small© Medium ❑ Larger Crown density Sparse Normand Dense 11 interior branches Few 13 NormalA Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent or planned change in load factors Tree tlefeCts an d ConsiiYior►s Affecting ti .el i ikehhoad of failure :• — Crown and Branches -- Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches © %overall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. a Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hale /o circ. Over-extended branches El Previous branch failures ❑ similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned © Raised ElDead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/BurlV Sapwood damage/decay Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — Dead /Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/color Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark 0 Cracks 0 Dead © Decay Conks/Mushrooms Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burl] Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ %circ, Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots 0 Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Lean ° Corrected? Response growth Response growth Main concern(s) Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ SigniHcantiQ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ SignificantV Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible 0 Probabled Imminent 0 Improbable 13 Possible 0 Probable Imminent 13 1 2 3 4 Matrix I. Likelihood matrix. MatrixZ Risk racing matrix. C�a;s�J�+AJC+��C��C�►�C��C+��C�r1C:�,C�1�7CM�J.��C�JC� Seir Risk Categorizatilan l Likelihood , CV E CU U Failure Impact Failure & Impact Consequences c E Matrix 2) Risk 4-1 °' 3 rati ng Conditions ao TargetIT _m °—° ' mar s a �` o v of part c v Tree part of concern a U. protection o a 3 ° Caa s i on c c z ° (from Matrix 2y 1 2 3 4 Matrix I. Likelihood matrix. MatrixZ Risk racing matrix. C�a;s�J�+AJC+��C��C�►�C��C+��C�r1C:�,C�1�7CM�J.��C�JC� Seir Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ Higl�A Extreme ❑ Work priority 1 �( 2 ❑ 3 ❑ A ❑ Overall residual risk Low 0 Moderate ❑ High$ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval Data ❑ Pinal ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ©No ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations ❑None ©Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe This da€asheet was produced by the international Society of Arboriculture {ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists - 2013 P- 7 _(') l Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ Higl�A Extreme ❑ Work priority 1 �( 2 ❑ 3 ❑ A ❑ Overall residual risk Low 0 Moderate ❑ High$ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval Data ❑ Pinal ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ©No ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations ❑None ©Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe This da€asheet was produced by the international Society of Arboriculture {ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists - 2013 P- 7 _(') Client Address/Tree to do Tree species Assessor(sj Ba4dc Tree Risk Assessmeia Form Date — J'3-2VZ3TJme !T.,oe h1t" —rAPr AYRr= - Tree no. /Z Sheet of I dbh ........ . . �SV' Height Crown spread Time frame Tools used Tree a t Assessment History of failures Topography Flat[] SlopejA Aspect Site changes None 0 Grade change 0 SiteclearingO Changed soil hydrology[] Root cuts© Describe Soil conditions Limited volume 13 Saturated EJ Shal low El Compacted 0 Pavement over roots© _% Describe Prevailing wind direction -5-- Common weather Strong winds*WIcell SnowD Heavy rain D Describe Tree Health It'h P;1dP Vigor Low El Normal OF High 0 Foliage None (seasonal)IA None (dead)[] Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests Abiotic Species failure profile Branches2f TrunkZ Roots Id Describe r77, ':."Icad.Fai ors wind exposure ProtectedEl PartialEl FullE] Wind funnelingX_ Relative crown size SmallO MedlumEl Large Crown density Sparse4 Normal El Dense© Interior branches Few 11 Normallg-Dense El Vines/Mistietoe/Moss 0 Recent or planned change in load factors 'h".e Ilikellh'o'64 of Failure X) jtion&� ... ectingsp. Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown** LCR % Cracks 0 Lightning damage El Dead twigs/branches 0 —%overall Max.dia.— Codominant D included bark D Broken/Hangers Number Max, dia. Weak attachments 11/a hole % circ. Over-extended branches 0 Previous branch failures IJ Similar branches present F-1 Pruning history Crown cleaned -0 Thinned 11 Raised 0 Dead/Missing bark 0 Cankers/Galls/BurisO Sapwood damage/decay 0 Reduced 0 Topped 0 Lion -tailed 0 Conks 0 Heartwood decay 0 Flush cuts 11 Other Response growth Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A 0 Minor 11 Moderate El Significanto Likelihood of failure Improbable 0 PossibleD Probable ,i Imminent 34 —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Missing bark 0 Abnormal bark texture/color 0 Collar buried/Not visible 0 Depth Stem girdling E03 Codominantstems 0 Included bark El Cracks 0 Dead 0 Deca onksusrooms)M Y'VC/Mh I VS Sapwood damage/decay 0 Cankers/Galls/Burl 'R sap ooze 0 ooze Ej Cavity 0 % circ. Lightning damage 11 Heartwood decayE] Conks/Mushrooms 0 Cracks 0 Cut/Damaged roots 0 Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper El Root plate lifting 13 Soil weakness 13 Lean 0—S Corrected? Response growth Response growth vtt t Mai concern(s) Main concern(5) 7!;T_1tt= sG V44 Load on defect N/A 13 MinorO ModerateEl Significantm Load on defect N/A 11 Minor El Moderate 0 Significant Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure ImprobableD Possible El Probable P Imminent 0 ImprobableD Possible 11 ProbablN Imminent—I) Target zone Occupancy E r rate '-'re � - Z Target description 'r- 'S 'n -2," 3 frequent "a LLD cc 0- A o 2 3 4 History of failures Topography Flat[] SlopejA Aspect Site changes None 0 Grade change 0 SiteclearingO Changed soil hydrology[] Root cuts© Describe Soil conditions Limited volume 13 Saturated EJ Shal low El Compacted 0 Pavement over roots© _% Describe Prevailing wind direction -5-- Common weather Strong winds*WIcell SnowD Heavy rain D Describe Tree Health It'h P;1dP Vigor Low El Normal OF High 0 Foliage None (seasonal)IA None (dead)[] Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests Abiotic Species failure profile Branches2f TrunkZ Roots Id Describe r77, ':."Icad.Fai ors wind exposure ProtectedEl PartialEl FullE] Wind funnelingX_ Relative crown size SmallO MedlumEl Large Crown density Sparse4 Normal El Dense© Interior branches Few 11 Normallg-Dense El Vines/Mistietoe/Moss 0 Recent or planned change in load factors 'h".e Ilikellh'o'64 of Failure X) jtion&� ... ectingsp. Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown** LCR % Cracks 0 Lightning damage El Dead twigs/branches 0 —%overall Max.dia.— Codominant D included bark D Broken/Hangers Number Max, dia. Weak attachments 11/a hole % circ. Over-extended branches 0 Previous branch failures IJ Similar branches present F-1 Pruning history Crown cleaned -0 Thinned 11 Raised 0 Dead/Missing bark 0 Cankers/Galls/BurisO Sapwood damage/decay 0 Reduced 0 Topped 0 Lion -tailed 0 Conks 0 Heartwood decay 0 Flush cuts 11 Other Response growth Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A 0 Minor 11 Moderate El Significanto Likelihood of failure Improbable 0 PossibleD Probable ,i Imminent 34 —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Missing bark 0 Abnormal bark texture/color 0 Collar buried/Not visible 0 Depth Stem girdling E03 Codominantstems 0 Included bark El Cracks 0 Dead 0 Deca onksusrooms)M Y'VC/Mh I VS Sapwood damage/decay 0 Cankers/Galls/Burl 'R sap ooze 0 ooze Ej Cavity 0 % circ. Lightning damage 11 Heartwood decayE] Conks/Mushrooms 0 Cracks 0 Cut/Damaged roots 0 Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper El Root plate lifting 13 Soil weakness 13 Lean 0—S Corrected? Response growth Response growth vtt t Mai concern(s) Main concern(5) 7!;T_1tt= sG V44 Load on defect N/A 13 MinorO ModerateEl Significantm Load on defect N/A 11 Minor El Moderate 0 Significant Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure ImprobableD Possible El Probable P Imminent 0 ImprobableD Possible 11 ProbablN Imminent—I) RISK,ptegprlxdtiph / Consequehces'd allure Failure &Impact (egfgible Mln¢r 5tnificanx severe tk CQw Mo�lerte Likelihaod flow Moderate 1{igh High Somewhatllkefji7 IYliaderaie Moderate s i ow Low `Eow > Failure Impact Failure & Impact Consequences U (from Matrix 11 Risk w C c m rating Conditions '�' ° Target T. ° ' coo > Y m g of part Tree part of concern w protection> --k- 3 _ Z „°, 3 °° > z = 7 v V) (fram Matrixz) 1 F] 7r7 4 Matrix I. Likelihood matrix. MatrixZ Risk rating matrix, L'ikel hand of-'' Consequehces'd allure Failure &Impact (egfgible Mln¢r 5tnificanx severe tk CQw Mo�lerte Likely flow Moderate 1{igh High Somewhatllkefji7 IYliaderaie Moderate Unlikely i ow Low `Eow > Low J lJP WE Fol pe, If, ro,re, ro,50/ rJNIOJ North Notes, explanations, descriptions 6vi- ! {i 'Vkq F 3 Mitigation options Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate[] High ❑ Extreme l Work priority 10 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ overall residual risk Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme Recommended inspection interval Data ❑ Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No OYes-Type/Reason _ Inspection limitations ❑None ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists - 2013 P— ') -f'] Dear Roca Creek HOA, It was a pleasure to visit your site and I am happy to provide the below recommendations. If you have any questions, concerns, or changes please let me know. The predominant tree in decline along this section of Roca Creek is Alnus rhombifolia, White Alder. The changing climatic conditions including several years of drought have caused these trees to decline and die. It is the recommendation of Piant Oregon that there be an attempt to create wildlife snags out of the dead alders to provide bird and mammal habitat. Habitat trees are dead or semi -living snags that are topped at a height that reduces the risk of falling dead wood. The remaining snag is typically left for easy future removal. After several years of standing dead tree trunks will rot and the snag will either fall on its own or be felled. The dead logs then becorne additional wildlife habitat on the ground until they rot and turn back into soil. You can find out more about habitat trees..here. This area of Roca Creek is already heavily shaded with an existing canopy. However the continued loss of additional Alders which looks likely will create a need for additional canopy coverage. It is our recommendation that you replace the dead trees that are left as wildlife habitat with a one to one ratio. The replacement trees should be spaced to maximize future canopy and provide the best possible growing conditions for the new trees which need light, water, and decent soils to grow. In this scenario the replacement trees would not be, planted where the dead trees are - in particular because of the habitat trees remaining. There are numerous areas within the tipdan o buffer zne 50-100 feet of the creek to plant mitigation trees. It is important to note . 9. ------ that this section of Roca Creek is non fish bearing as there are several dams downstream and Roca creek is piped underground for several hundred feet. Alder is on the recommended mitigation list because newly planted alders will thrive in comparison to the existing alders that are dying because they will not have gone through the climatic changes of severe drought. The best land management strategy is to increase native diversity and pick trees that are resilient to Current climate changes. Therefore the list below are specific species recommendations to this area of Roca Creek. These are trees that will do well in this area and will provide many benefits to this bioregion. Recommended mitigation (replacement trees) Acer macrophyllurn - Bigleaf Map!Ie AeSCLIILIS californica - California Buckeye Alnus rhombifolia - White Alder Acer Circinaturn - Vine Maple Betula nigra - River Birch Pinus jeffreyi/ponderosa - Jeffrey Pine or Ponderosa Pine Pseudotsuga menziesii - Douglas Fir Quercus kelloggii - California Black Oak Quercus garryana - Oregon White Oak Sambucus racemosa - Elderberry Sequoia giganteum - Giant Sequoia Fire wise recommendations - Irrigated vigorous healthy green trees are of low fire risk regardless of species. As a tree maintenance practice for low fire risk, remove any dead wood and branches from all trees. As trees grow - limb LIP the lower branches. Use a % rule - making sure to never remove rnore that'l of the branches (leaving the top, % of the tree branches) and never remove more than 20% of the total canopy in a single season. Practice good arboriculture when pruning. Dead materials should either be removed from the site or placed along the creek where they can rot as opposed to on the dry slopes where they will remain dry potential fire fuel. Properly spacing trees so that they are not all clustered into dense groves can help reduce fire spreading risks. Large species trees require 20 - 30 feet of growing space. This area of Roca Creek is inaccessible by equipment due to steep slopes and houses. In this type of scenario the more materials that can be left on site the healthier the environment will be and far less cost and energy expenditure. It isn't feasible or advisable to remove all of the dead material. We recommend that the large wood be used for ground habitat near the creek and that the small branches (less than 4 inch diameter) be piled up slope in a clearing for future safe winter time burning. The cost for replacement trees is roughly $500 per tree planted for large size trees (2 inch caliper for deciduous trees and 6-7 foot for conifers). There is an additional charge for irrigation supplies - which are necessary for establishment of new trees. This site poses some challenges for planting as well due to the slope and distance from the street. The planting crew will need to dolly all the trees down the slope and use a wheelbarrow to mulch all of the trees properly. A rough estimate would be $6,000 to replace the dead trees. The best way to proceed utilizing Plant Oregon is to make an appointment to come out to the nursery and select your specific replacement trees. We tag the trees in the field and give prices for each tree here at the nursery. We can then give a detailed estimate for the entire job. We can plant these trees in the fall anytime after November 1st 2022. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you. Mike Oxendine and the Plant Oregon team. 6RCHOA Trees are marked in blue paint/tape as identified by Casey 1A - 25" Poplar at top of greenway closest to Kimberly's, by fence (not marked by Casey) 1B - 25" Poplar at top of greenway farthest from Kimberly's, by fence (not marked by Casey) 1. 25"DBH Poplar 2. 26"DBH Alder 3. 17"DBH Douglas fir (dead by Sasha's) 4, 38"DBH Poplar 5. 36"DBH Poplar (dead, leaning toward Sasha's) 6. 18"DBH Alder 7. 20"DBH Alder 7A — 20" Alder behind 804 Roca St. home (Amrhein's) (not marked by Casey) 8. 15"DBH Birch 9. 9"DBH Birch 10, 18"DBH Alder 11. 19"DBH Douglas fir 12. 16"DBH Alder 13. 22"DBH Alder 14. 14"DBH Douglas fir 15. 14"DBH Douglas Fir 16. 12"DBH Alder 17. 30"DBH Poplar (leaning toward Dennis) 18. 30"DBH Poplar 18A. 30" DBH Poplar by Rainy's (not marked by Casey) RCHOA PRIORITY LIST 2023 Remove #3, #5, #17 2024 Remove #1, #4, #11, #14, #15, #18 as money and status of trees allow 2025 Remove #1A, #1B, #14, #18A, as money and status of trees allow Dead alders, firs, birches, will be trimmed or removed as money and status of trees allow