Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNMain_175-TREE-2021-00145PI.r ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION PIanning Division CITY OF 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 FILE # TREE -2021-00145 ,ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Removal of two hazard trees DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEED@ Certification? ❑ YES ❑ NO Street Address 175 N main st Assessors Map No. 391BQ5DD9000 Tax Lot(s) ACCT r.Nt IRr.H1rr:hAP1 P # 1006593-0 Zoning APPLICANT Name Leigh Madsen Address 176 Orange Ave Comp Plan Designation Phone 541 -840 -3987E -Mail Imc@ccountry.net City Ashland Zip 97520 PROPERTY OWNER Name Ashland First United Methodist Chico 541.482-364T_Maii offmgr@ashlandmethodist.org Address 175 N Main St City Ashland Zip 97520 SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER Title Name Canopy Arbor Care Phone 541-631-8000 E -Mail Canopy Crew 1 [crew1.canl Address PO Box 3511 City Ashland Zip 97520 Title ISA Certified ArbcKA Joshua Weigang phone 808-269-9231 Address City E -Mail Zip 1 hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct. t understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that 1 produced sun ient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request 2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on tho ground, Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. If I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. 03/04/2021 Applicant's Signature Date As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. leigh Madsen Chair Board of Trustees Ashland First United Methodist Church 03/04/2021 Property Owner's Signature (required) Date fro be compMed by City StaflJ 34,2021 $30.50 . Date Received Zoning Permit Type Tree Removal Filing Fee $ OVER 0 GAcomm-devlplanningTorms & Hendoulsl7aning Permit Applicatiwdac ZONING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ❑ APPLICATION FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner. ❑ FINDINGS OF FACT — Respond to the appropriate zoning requirements in the form of factual statements or findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findings criteria and the evidence that supports it. Include information necessary to address all issues detailed in the Pre -Application Comment document. ❑ 2 SETS OF SCALED PLANS no larger than 11"x17". Include site plan, building elevations, parking and landscape details. (Optional —1 additional large set of plans, 2'x3', to use in meetings) ❑ FEE (Check, Charge or Cash) ❑ LEEDO CERTIFICATION (optional) — Applicant's wishing to receive priority planning action processing shall provide the following documentation with the application demonstrating the completion of the following steps • Hiring and retaining a LEEDO Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and construction of the project; and • The LEEDO checklist indicating the credits that will be pursued. NOTE • Applications are accepted on a first come, first served basis. • Applications will not be accepted without a complete application form signed by the applicant(s) AND property owner(s), all required materials and full payment. • All applications received are reviewed for completeness by staff within 30 days from application date in accordance with ORS 227.178. • The first fifteen COMPLETE applications submitted are processed at the next available Planning Commission meeting. (Planning Commission meetings include the Hearings Board, which meets at 1:30 pm, or the full Planning Commission, which meets at 7:00 pm on the second Tuesday of each month. Meetings are held at the City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main 5t). • A notice of the project request will be sent to neighboring properties for their comments or concerns. • If applicable, the application will also be reviewed by the Tree and/or Historic Commissions. Wcomm-devlplm"iingVor s & Handouis\Znning Permit Applicavon.dac From; Leigh To -planning Cc: "Ashland Methodist" Subject: 175 N Main trees Date: Thursday, March 04, 202112:04:34 PM Attachments: Almond - Arborist report rMCd=,pdf Maple - Arborist report FMC.d.M,pdf [EXTERNAL SENDER] Planning Department, Aaron, As stated in our conversation today I am dissatisfied with the timing on the process to remove two hazard trees from the parking area at 175 N Main St, Ashland OR. I request an immediate approval for removing these hazardous trees. Canopy Arborists have assessed the two trees and have presented evidence of their condition. I will have a more complete assessment and photos to provide by the end of business today. When I asked the arborist if I could assume that the Almond tree and the Maple tree would not fail, would not cause damage to our property or our neighbors' property, or injure a person on one of the properties his response was, "its not a matter if one of the trees will fail, it's a matter of when." A s Chair of Trustees of ashland First United Methodist Church, my duty is to protect the assets of the church and protect it from any possible damage, and to assure that all possible actions insure the safety of members, users of the property and to keep it free from possible litigation. If i fail this obligation I can be held negligent and I and other officers of the church could be liable for litigation. I am trying to eliminate the risks imposed by these trees. I believe that the inaction of the planning department is blocking my ability to mitigate the risks that these trees impose. It seems that if the City of Ashland is not permitting our reasonable mitigation efforts that the City of Ashland must share in any outcomes resulting from their inaction. I will have the requested zoning permit finished and in your office before end of business today. I know that you may not be able to make a decision today however because this is an urgent matter i would like an email acknowledging this email and a formal response within 3 business days Sincerely, Leigh Madsen Chair Board of Trustees Ashland First United Methodist\Church 175 n Main St 541-840-3987 CANOPY uc The Care of Trees r_anapprbafcare.tam P.O. Box 3511 Ashland, OR 97520 1541)631 -MOO (CO 189334 March 1, 2021 City of Ashland Planning 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 RE: 175 N Main St tree removal permit The tree requested for removal at 175 N Main St is an almond (Prunus dulcis) measuring approximately 37" DBH and 30ft tall. The tree is in average health, but shows evidence of failed canopy parts and possible retrenchment pruning. Concern for safety of parked cars and pedestrians as well as damage to the neighbor's structures has initiated this request for removal. During inspection a large branch was found partially failed and held up by lower parts of the canopy. It has been removed. Advanced internal decay and hollow areas were present at the failure point. Further inspection revealed an approximately 2ft deep hollow area between the main trunk split and nearby fruiting bodies. There is also close to a foot of soil backfill against the trunk and signs of fungal growth at the soil line. With these indicators of advanced decay and limited remaining tree structure, mitigating the potential of further failure through pruning would be inadequate. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Joshua Weigang Catiopy LLC ISA Certified Arborist 4I'N 9018A ISS. Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client Ashland First Methodist Church Date 312/2021 Time 9:00am Address/Tree location 175 N Main St. Next to deodar cedar at rear of paring lot. Tree no. Sheet of Tree species Almond (Prunus dulcin) dbh 37inches Height 300 Crown spread dia. 20ft Assessor(s) Joshua Weigang Time frame 2 years Tools used Sol] Probe, Spade Target Assessment Site Factors History of failures Topography Flat❑ Slope❑ % Aspect Site changes None 0 Grade change ❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology© Root cuts© Describe Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ ShallowEl Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe Prevailing wind direction NW Common weather Strongwinds❑ Ice❑ Snow❑ Heavyrain❑ Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ❑ Normal N High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) IKI None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests Abiotic Species failure profile Branches[] Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describe Load Factors Windexposure Protected❑ PartialM Full❑ Windfunneling❑ Crowndensity SparseCMl Normal❑ Dense[] interior branches Few[E Normal❑ Dense❑ Recent or planned change in load factors Relative crown size Small❑ Medium0 Large❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss 0 Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown 0 LCR 95 % Target zone Dead twigs/branches 0 5 %overall Max. dia. 'I inch Codominant iJ Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number 0 Max. dia. Occupancy n• Over-extended branches ❑ Recent failure Previous branch failures ❑ similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Nma IU " T "�X —c rate ° m 1—rare m m c ra Fc Target description failure wounds. Cavity where joined to trunk. x 2—occasional 0 Significant ElLikelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible CMI Probable 0 Imminent ❑ —Trunlc — — Roots and Root Collar — 3—frequent 7 N Codominant sterns 0 Included bark 0 Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay 0 Conks/Mushrooms 0 Sapwood damage/decay 0 Cankers/Galls/Burls N] Sap ooze E Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ %circ. 4—constant Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk 1 Parked vehicles ✓ Lean 10 ° Corrected? Yes 3 Yes Yes 2 Pedestrians ,/ Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure 2 Yes Yes 3 Fence ✓ 4 No No 4 Neighbor's structures ✓ 4 No No Site Factors History of failures Topography Flat❑ Slope❑ % Aspect Site changes None 0 Grade change ❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology© Root cuts© Describe Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ ShallowEl Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe Prevailing wind direction NW Common weather Strongwinds❑ Ice❑ Snow❑ Heavyrain❑ Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ❑ Normal N High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) IKI None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests Abiotic Species failure profile Branches[] Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describe Load Factors Windexposure Protected❑ PartialM Full❑ Windfunneling❑ Crowndensity SparseCMl Normal❑ Dense[] interior branches Few[E Normal❑ Dense❑ Recent or planned change in load factors Relative crown size Small❑ Medium0 Large❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss 0 Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown 0 LCR 95 % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches 0 5 %overall Max. dia. 'I inch Codominant iJ Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number 0 Max. dia. Cavity at codominant unix o Weak attachments ❑ Y tCavity/Nest hole /o circ. Over-extended branches ❑ Recent failure Previous branch failures ❑ similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned 0 Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burin ❑ sapwood damage/decay El Reduced E Topped ❑ Lion-taiied ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay CMI Present in recently failed branch Flush cuts ❑ other Retrenchment Response growth Main concerns) Large branches with decay originating from pruning/ failure wounds. Cavity where joined to trunk. Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate 0 Significant ElLikelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible CMI Probable 0 Imminent ❑ —Trunlc — — Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Miss]ng bark 0 Abnormal bark texture/color 0 Collar buried/Not visible © Depth lft Stem girdling ❑ Codominant sterns 0 Included bark 0 Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay 0 Conks/Mushrooms 0 Sapwood damage/decay 0 Cankers/Galls/Burls N] Sap ooze E Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ %circ. Lightning damage Heartwood decay El Conks/Mushrooms 0 Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Depth 2ft Poor taper 0 Root plate lifting 0 Soil weakness 0 Lean 10 ° Corrected? Yes Response growth Response growth Main concern(s) Deep cavity originating at main codominant union. Main concern(s) Backfill against trunk. Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate E Significant 0 Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate 0 Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible 0 Probabie ❑ Imminent ❑ A Improbable ❑ Possible 0 Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Page I of 2 Risk Categorization Motrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Very low Likelihood of Impacting Target Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely I Unlikely Risk rating Conditions Hill 1111 lull Bill ■. of ■ • • ■ Maldx 2, to trunk.��©� C�OC� CCC � ��'� � CCC • • - . - MMMT N N AN -W NUFS-k Rnno 000 MMMT � XX CCCI Fill FOR v-� IN: XOI Motrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Very low Likelihood of Impacting Target Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely I Unlikely MatrixZ Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Failure & Impact Negligible Consequences of Failure Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Notes, explanations, descriptions Recent large branch failure had advanced decay originating from pruning woulds and tearout area from previously failed limb. Mitigation options i 1, h I` 's North Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High 0 Extreme ❑ Work priority 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ Overall residual risk Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval 6 months Data 9 Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ENo ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations ❑None OVisibi€ity ❑Access ❑Vines gRoot collar buried Describe This datasheet Avas produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (TSA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (IRAQ) arborists — 2013 Page 2 of 2 CANOPY LLC The Care of Trees canopyarbomarexom pU. Bos 3511 Ashland, OR 97520 (541)531-EDDO CCD Mm March 1, 2021 City of Ashland Planning 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97524 RE: 175 N Main St tree removal permit The tree requested for removal at 175 N Main St is a bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) in average health. This multi -stem tree has a DBH of approximately 19.5 inches, and a 25ft height. Concern for safety of parked cars and pedestrians in this highly trafficked area initiated the request for this removal. There is a strip of substantial decay on the back side of the larger trunk and a strong lean over the parking area. Probing around the base also revealed hollow areas of decay and dried up fruiting bodies in the lower trunk and root flair. The severity of the decay, tree structure and poor ability of this species to compartmentalize rule out pruning alternatives. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Joshua Weigang Canopy LLC ISA Certifed Arborist #Pini 9018A 10sil Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client Ashland First Methodist Church Address/Tree location 175 N Main St, Next to deodar cedar at rear of paring lot. Tree species Almond (Prunus dulcis) dbh 37inches Assessor(s) Joshua Weigang Time frame 2 years Target Assessment Date 3/2/2021 Time 9:00em Tree no. Sheet of Height 30ft Crown spread dia. 20ft Tools used soil Probe, Spade Site Factors History of failures Topography FlatE Slope❑ % Aspect Site changes None 9 Grade change 11 Site clearing ❑ Changed soil hydrology Root cuts ❑ Describe Soilconditions Limitedvolume❑Saturated❑ Shallow❑ Compacted❑ Pavement over roots % Describe Prevailing wind direction NW Common weather Strong winds ❑ Ice ❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rain ❑ Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ❑ Normal 0 High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) X None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests Abiotic Species failure profile Branches ❑ Trunk❑ Roots ❑ Describe Load Factors Windexposure Protected❑ Partiall7 Full❑ Windfunneling❑ Relative crowns4e Small❑ Medium/] Large❑ Crowndensity Sparse0 Normal❑ Dense❑ Interior branches FewN Normal❑ Dense© Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑ Recent or planned change in load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown 9 LCR 95 % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches ❑ 5 %overall Max. dia. 1 inch Codominant O Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number o Max. dia. Weak attachments D Cavity at codominant uniorCavity/gest hole %circ. Over-extended branches ❑ Pruning history Previous branch failures N Recen#failure Similar branches present D Crown cleaned Thinned © Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Hurls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay Ll Reduced 9 Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑r Present in recently failed branch Flush cuts ❑ Other Retrenchment Response growth Main concerns) Large branches with decay originating from pruning/ failure wounds. Cavity where joined to trunk. Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate W Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible O Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar --- Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible 9 Depth 1ft Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls 9 Sap ooze © Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ %circ. Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay © Conks/Mushrooms 0 Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Depth 2ft Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Lean 10 ° Corrected? Yes Response growth Response growth Main concern(s) beep cavity originating at main codominant union. Main cancern(s) Backfill against trunk. Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate O Significant ❑ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate g Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure improbable ❑ Possible O Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ improbable ❑ Possible1�7■. Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Page I of 2 Target zone Occupancy LID E G 'S— c m X "= rate Z—rare a O m r Target description �° c x •�, M s m vt 2—occasional 3 -frequent u m c 3 'i 4 --constant a 1. Parked vehicles ✓ 3 Yes Yes Z Pedestrians ✓ 2 Yes Yes 3 Fence ✓ 4 No No a Neighbor's structures ✓ 4 No No Site Factors History of failures Topography FlatE Slope❑ % Aspect Site changes None 9 Grade change 11 Site clearing ❑ Changed soil hydrology Root cuts ❑ Describe Soilconditions Limitedvolume❑Saturated❑ Shallow❑ Compacted❑ Pavement over roots % Describe Prevailing wind direction NW Common weather Strong winds ❑ Ice ❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rain ❑ Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ❑ Normal 0 High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) X None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests Abiotic Species failure profile Branches ❑ Trunk❑ Roots ❑ Describe Load Factors Windexposure Protected❑ Partiall7 Full❑ Windfunneling❑ Relative crowns4e Small❑ Medium/] Large❑ Crowndensity Sparse0 Normal❑ Dense❑ Interior branches FewN Normal❑ Dense© Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑ Recent or planned change in load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown 9 LCR 95 % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches ❑ 5 %overall Max. dia. 1 inch Codominant O Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number o Max. dia. Weak attachments D Cavity at codominant uniorCavity/gest hole %circ. Over-extended branches ❑ Pruning history Previous branch failures N Recen#failure Similar branches present D Crown cleaned Thinned © Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Hurls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay Ll Reduced 9 Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑r Present in recently failed branch Flush cuts ❑ Other Retrenchment Response growth Main concerns) Large branches with decay originating from pruning/ failure wounds. Cavity where joined to trunk. Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate W Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible O Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar --- Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible 9 Depth 1ft Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls 9 Sap ooze © Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ %circ. Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay © Conks/Mushrooms 0 Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Depth 2ft Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Lean 10 ° Corrected? Yes Response growth Response growth Main concern(s) beep cavity originating at main codominant union. Main cancern(s) Backfill against trunk. Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate O Significant ❑ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate g Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure improbable ❑ Possible O Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ improbable ❑ Possible1�7■. Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Page I of 2 Risk Categorization 4 Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Very low Likelihood of Impacting Target Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likelihood Very likely Q E-0 Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely m Unlikely Consequences Failure Failure & Impact Impact :3y Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely I aj (from Matrix l] w @ s H C 3 Y Risk c rating Conditions Target ; ° E ? v `o F a of part U ° Tree part of concern a ,� F protection p a a �j ° yy z a O! �° {., by C C 7 (from z i;° Matrix Z] Branch 2 main branches with 1High signs of internal decay and weak attachment 2 Mode rat to trunk. 3 El ✓ ✓ ✓ Mode F-1 _. Low Branch 4 2 I -I I' l117-11111 4 Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Very low Likelihood of Impacting Target Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely I Unlikely MotrixI Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Failure & Impact Negligible Consequences of Failure Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unllkely Low Low Low Low Notes, explanations, descriptions Recent large branch failure had advanced decay originating from pruning woulds and tearout area from previously failed limb. North Mitigation options Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High IN Extreme ❑ Work priority 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ Overall residual risk Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval 6 months Data W Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ONo ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations ❑Mone ©Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines WRoot collar buried Describe This datashcet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists — 2013 Page 2 of 2 �i ; n S North Mitigation options Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High IN Extreme ❑ Work priority 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ Overall residual risk Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval 6 months Data W Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ONo ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations ❑Mone ©Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines WRoot collar buried Describe This datashcet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists — 2013 Page 2 of 2 CANOPY. s�r:g° CANOPY 11c PO BOX 3511 Ashland, OR 97520 US (541) 5416311462 canopyarborcare@gmail.com http://www.canopyarborcare.com ADDRESS Ashland First Methodist Church 175 N Main St Ashland, OR 97520 US I is VIGi_: Remove big leaf maple with significant basal decay. Cut stump low as possible. No cleanup. Remove large almond tree with fruiting bodies at base. Cut stump low as possible. No cleanup. Arborist report. Prune 10 trees along S Laurel St. for sidewalk and street clearance. Clean up and haul away debris. Prune 10 trees along S Laurel St, for sidewalk and street clearance. No cleanup. Prune box elder to thin/remove sucker growth and remove 1 inch and larger deadwood. Prune white oak to remove mistletoe and any deadwood 1 inch and larger. Prune large blue spruce to create 4 to 5 feet of roof clearance and thin out lower 15 ft of deadwood. Prune magnolia to create or to 5 feet of clearance from roof and building. Remove several hanging dead branches. QUOTE # 4180 DATE 02/18/2021 AMOUNT 190.00 760.00 100.00 475.00 285.00 475.00 285.00 285.00 285.00 I have included an option for no cleanup for the pruning as well. I TOTAL $owl 40.00 returned to the property further evaluate the trees yesterday 2119. The ��77 "Payment due upon project completion' 'Please make check payable to Canopy LLC and mail check to: P.O. Box 3511 Ashland, OR 97520' —Please note, there is a 30 day grace period for all transactions, and then a past due interest rate of 12% will be charged and compounded monthly.— CCB#199334 & Arborist #WB -9504A neighbor expressed concern at the removal of the almond in particular. She would appreciate the courtesy of being kept informed to the progress of these removals. Sincerely, Joshua Weigang ISA Certified Arborist PN 9018A Accepted By Accepted Date °Payment due upon project completion' *Please make check payable to Canopy ILC and mail check to: P.O. Box 3511 Ashland, OR 97520' —Please note, there is a 30 day grace period for all transactions, and then a past due interest rate of 12% wili be charged and compounded monthly.— CC B#1 99334 & Arborist #WE -9504A s,'Ar say a3 .A��e,.t4 t Rr s S t e et ark "` �.?; .z,..,e�A r—u!>...h�' 'Allk P r c� f s,'Ar say a3 .A��e,.t4 t Rr s S t e et ark "` �.?; .z,..,e�A r—u!>...h�' � \ » »� \� . � , ` �� � � � � / � \���� �� ^° ; � \ � � � � � � � \ . �, y � � � » ° . < � . . �� � � � � ,� « �� � � � � \\ \ � ^� \ � � \� a \ ` � /� � ��� � 2: a� . . a moo` MW Lk NY 'oft t r Mai Rig" V WINK 0116. AS re -�►� Alf: --ua