Loading...
Agenda Packet - 2014-03-31 STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANT/OWNER FILE NO. Darryl Fleck AP 14-04 (TR 499-14-00235) TAX LOT REFERENCE STAFF Tax Lot 205 of Tax Map 21E 17CA Jessica Numanoglu LOCATION DATE OF REPORT 17918 Kelok Road March 25, 2014 COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION DATE OF HEARING R-7.5 March 31, 2014 ZONING DESIGNATION NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION R-7.5 Blue Heron I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval to remove 40 trees in order to construct a new single-family dwelling and driveway on the site. II. TENTATIVE STAFF DECISION / REQUEST FOR HEARING AND APPEAL On February 11, 2014, staff tentatively approved the applicant's request to remove 40 trees for purposes of construction. On February 24, 2014, Dana and Jacqueline Shaffer filed a request for public hearing in opposition to the application (Exhibit A- 1). Pursuant to LOC 55.02.085(3), the Development Review Commission (Commission) shall hold a public hearing on this request. III. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Tree Code (LOC Chapter 55) LOC 55.02.080 Criteria for Issuance of Type II Tree Cutting Permits AP 14-04 [TR 499-14-00235] Page 1 of 9 LOC 55.02.084 Mitigation Required LOC 55.02.085 Request for Public Hearing on a Type II Tree Cutting Permit LOC 55.02.094 Conditions of Approval for Tree Cutting Permits IV. FINDINGS A. Background/Existing Conditions 1. The subject property is a 20,908 square-foot lot with frontage on the east side of Kelok Road. Late Iran, . iCardinal Ct X7905 hi 17912 - 1 17918 SITE1 " y 9 1 . 79 � 4s ---- y =_ / .4 4),,� 1, L-1 • 2. The property is zoned R-7.5 and is undeveloped. 3. There are 67 trees on the site with a diameter at breast height of five inches in diameter or greater (Exhibits E-2 and F-2). As illustrated in the aerial photo, above, the undeveloped site is almost entirely covered by tree canopy. 1 l7918sI-rE 4. The site slopes steeply up from Kelok Road to the east, flattens out towards the center of the site, and then slopes moderately down towards the rear (east) property line where the slope steepens downward on the abutting property to the east (Exhibit E-3 and aerial photo, above). AP 14-04 [TR 499-14-002351 Page 2 of 9 B. Compliance with Criteria for Approval Type II tree removal applications must comply with the following approval criteria of LOC 55.02.080: 1. The trees are proposed for removal for landscaping purposes or in order to construct development approved or allowed pursuant to the Lake Oswego Code or other applicable development regulations. The tree removal is requested in order to construct one new single-family dwelling and driveway on the site (Exhibits E-2 and E-3). Single-family dwellings are permitted outright in the R-7.5 zone. The building permit for the proposed dwelling is still under review; however, staff notes that the setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed dwelling comply with the R-7.5 zone regulations. This criterion is met. Staff notes that the City's contract certified arborist originally recommended the retention of Tree #13 located in the public right-of-way along Kelok Road; however, after reviewing additional information submitted by the applicant's arborist and builder, it was determined that the grading impacts would be more substantial than was initially thought (Exhibits F-3— F-6). As a result, staff finds that the removal of Tree#13 is necessary to construct the proposed driveway. 2. Removal of the trees will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability,flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and The appellants, who own the property at 17832 Cardinal Place abutting the site to the east, contend that the removal of the 40 trees will expose the mature fir trees on their property to damaging winds (Exhibit A-1). They also contend that the removal of Trees#51-57, 61-64, and 67-69 will cause issues with soil stability and erosion because the eastern portion of the applicant's property and the appellants' property are in an area that has high susceptibility for shallow landslides according to the Landslide Hazard and Risk Study of Northwestern Clackamas County Oregon (see excerpt of study included in Exhibit A-1 and G-201). Further, a retaining wall is proposed in the rear yard, which may include grading or fill, beneath the driplines of the firs located on the appellants' property (Exhibit E-3). This development would cause irreparable harm to the trees by compacting or otherwise damaging the tree roots. The City's contract arborist made several site visits and reviewed the arborist and soils information submitted by the appellants during the comment period (these exhibits are also appended to the appellants' Notice of Intent to Appeal). As discussed in the City's arborist report, staff finds AP 14-04 [TR 499-14-002351 Page 3 of 9 that the removal of the 40 trees will not have a significant negative impact on the protection of the fir trees on the abutting property to the east because the appellants' fir trees are separated from the trees on the subject site by a small gap in the canopy, which has allowed these firs to develop relatively symmetrical and large live crowns (Exhibit F-3). Generally, trees with less than 30% live crown ratios are considered to have increased potential for wind throw. The trees on the appellants' property have live crown ratios of approximately 70%. Additionally, the proposed dwelling will provide some windbreak benefits as well as the large intact group of trees on the abutting lot to the south (17930 Kelok Road). The four trees closest to the firs on the appellants' property (Trees#61-63) do not provide windbreak benefits because they have crowns no less than 28 feet above the ground (Exhibit F-3). Although the appellants have submitted excerpts from a landslide hazard and risk study showing that their property is in an area susceptible to shallow landslides (Exhibits A-1 and G-201), they have not provided specific evidence that the removal of the trees on the applicant's property would have a significant negative impact on soil stability. The proposed dwelling will occupy the area where most of the trees are to be removed at the rear of the lot and as illustrated on Exhibit E-3, stormwater runoff from the roof of the proposed dwelling will be directed to a stormwater facility at the end of the driveway along the west property line away from the appellants' property. The yard around the dwelling will be landscaped to stabilize soils and prevent erosion. For these reasons, staff finds that the proposed tree removal will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, or flow of surface waters. The applicant illustrates a proposed retaining wall along the rear property line, and it is unclear whether grading is proposed in that area (Exhibit E4). In order to ensure that the proposed tree removal will not result in significant impacts to the protection of the trees on the abutting lot to the east, staff recommends the following conditions of approval:1 1 LOC 55.02.094 Conditions of Approval for Tree Cutting Permits. 1.The City may impose conditions of approval on any tree cutting permit if the condition is reasonably related to preventing,eliminating or mitigating a negative impact or potential impact on natural features or processes or on the built environment of the neighborhood which is as created or contributed to by the approved tree removal. 2.Conditions of approval may include,but are not limited to: a. Cutting a tree or stump flush with the grade instead of grinding or fully removing a stump; b. Requiring modifications in the location,design or intensity of a development or activities on a site or to require or prohibit certain construction methods; **** AP 14-04 [TR 499-14-002351 Page 4 of 9 • No underground utilities or irrigation system shall be installed on the site that is beneath the driplines of the trees located on the abutting property to the east. • The retaining wall on the site shall be shifted to the west so that it is located entirely outside of the driplines of the firs located on the abutting property to the east. No construction activities, including grading, stockpiling, or maneuvering of equipment shall occur within the driplines of these trees. The location of the fir trees on the abutting lot to the east and their driplines shall be illustrated on all final plans to be submitted with the building permit application on the site. • No mitigation trees shall be planted below the driplines of the trees on the abutting lot to the east. As conditioned, this criterion is met. 3. Removal of the trees will not have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics, or property values of the neighborhood. The City may 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. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternative landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Lake Oswego Code. The appellants contend that the removal of 40 trees will have a significant negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and will devalue the appellants' property as well as the neighbors (Exhibit A-1). This criterion requires that the proposed tree removal not have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics or property values of the neighborhood. While staff concurs that the proposed tree removal will have a significant negative aesthetic impact to the appellants who abut the site to the east, staff finds that the tree removal would not have a significant negative impact on the character and aesthetics or property values of the neighborhood as a whole. A significant buffer of trees is located on the front half of the site, which provides the wooded character of the streetscape along Kelok Road and the tree removal at the rear of the site will be buffered from the neighborhood to the north, east and south by existing trees surrounding the property (see aerial photo on page 2 of this report). However, even if the removal were found to have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood, the site is entirely covered by trees and any other location on the site would still necessitate a substantial number of trees to be removed. The appellants argue that the proposed dwelling should be moved 40 feet to the west, which would save between 13-16 trees on the east side of the applicant's AP 14-04 [TR 499-14-002351 Page 5 of 9 property. Staff finds that moving the dwelling to the west by 40 feet would save a total of thirteen trees (Trees #53-57, 61-65 and 67-69). All of these trees except one cherry have poor structure due to high crowns and/or multiple leaders (Exhibit F-2) (the cherry (Tree #64) is an invasive species that can be removed with a free, over-the-counter permit.) Staff also finds that moving the dwelling from its proposed location would push the development into the steeper areas of the site that would necessitate a substantial amount of grading. As a result, staff finds that there would be no reasonable alternative that would lessen the impact on trees. Staff finds this criterion is met. 4. Removal of the tree is not for the sole purpose of providing or enhancing views. Staff finds that the proposed tree removal plan would not open up desirable views for the new house proposed for this property. This criterion is met. 5. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree pursuant to 55.02.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. If the Commission approves the tree removal application, the applicant is required to plant 40 mitigation trees on the property. Pursuant to LOC 55.02.084(1), the mitigation trees must be at least two inches diameter if deciduous or at least six feet tall, excluding the leader, if evergreen. As illustrated on Exhibit E-4, the applicant proposes to plant a total of 40 mitigation trees consisting of big leaf maple, western red cedar, Pacific dogwood, Douglas fir, and Hogan cedar. As discussed previously, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring any mitigation trees at the rear of the property to be located entirely outside of the driplines of the firs abutting the site to the east. Before the final building inspection for the new dwelling can be approved, staff will inspect and approve the mitigation trees. As conditioned, this criterion can be met. Tree Protection [LOC 55.08] The appellants argue that the tree protection zone around their fir trees should be increased to 1.25 feet for every one inch diameter, or a total of approximately 22 feet west from the applicant's rear property line, rather than at the driplines of the trees (see arborist report in Exhibits A-1 and G-200). The establishment of the tree protection zone per LOC Article 55.08 is not related to the tree removal application per LOC Article 55.02, because the tree protection zone is to protect existing trees from the effect of construction and other development activities on a site regardless of whether or not tree removal AP 14-04 [TR 499-14-002351 Page 6 of 9 is requested as a part of the development activities. Accordingly, it is not an issue that is before the Commission. LOC 55.08.030 Tree Protection Measures Required. 1. Except as otherwise determined by the City Manager, all required tree protection measures set forth in this section shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation. 2. Chain link fencing, a minimum of 6 feet tall with steel posts placed no farther than ten feet apart, shall be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline, whichever is greater, and at the boundary of any open space tracts or conservation easements that abut the parcel being developed. 3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade. 4. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the City Manager and arborist for the project. 5. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, or parked vehicles or equipment. 6. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris, or run-off. 7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless directed by an arborist present on site and approved by the City Manager. The determination of the appropriate tree protection zone is within the authority of the City Manager (City Staff): Tree Protection Zone means the area reserved around a tree or group of trees in which no grading, access, stockpiling or other construction activity shall occur as determined by the City manager to be appropriate based on review of the tree and site conditions. LOC 55.02.020 Definitions. AP 14-04 [TR 499-14-002351 Page 7 of 9 Staff will determine the tree protection zone when a development application is submitted and a tree protection plan is issued. LOC 55.08.020 Tree Protection Plan Required. 1. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the City Manager shall be required prior to conducting any development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on a property or site, which requires ministerial, minor, or major development approval. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Approval of the tree removal application [TR 499-14-00235] subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to Issuance of the Tree Removal Permit and Building Permit to Construct the New Dwelling,the Applicant/Owner Shall: 1. Submit final site plans showing the following information to the satisfaction of staff: a. The location of the fir trees on the abutting lot to the east and their driplines. b. No underground utilities or irrigation systems shall be installed on the site beneath the driplines of the trees located on the abutting property to the east. c. The proposed retaining wall shall be shifted to the west so that it is located entirely outside of the driplines of the firs located on the abutting property to the east. No construction activities, including excavation, grading, stockpiling, or maneuvering of equipment shall occur within the driplines of these trees. d. No mitigation trees shall be planted beneath the driplines of the trees located on the abutting lot to the east. EXHIBITS A. NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL Al. Request for public hearing and attachments by Dana and Jacqueline Shaffer, received February 24, 2014 B. [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] C. [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] AP 14-04 [TR 499-14-002351 Page 8 of 9 D. [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] E. GRAPHICS/PLANS El. Tax map E2. Tree Removal Plan E3. Grading Plan E4. Tree Mitigation Plan F. WRITTEN MATERIALS Fl. Tree removal application TR 499-14-00235, submitted January 22, 2014 F2. Tree Inventory F3. City Contract Arborist Report, dated February 6, 2014 F4. Email from Applicant's Builder, Ryan Styger, dated March 3, 2014 F5. Email from Applicant's Arborist, Terrence Flanagan, dated March 3, 2014 F6. Email from City Contract Arborist, dated March 3, 2014 G. LETTERS Neither for nor Against (G1-99) None Support (G100-199) None Opposition (G200+) G200. Letter with attachments from Dana and Jacqueline Shaffer, received January 29, 2014 G201. Landslide hazard information, maps, and photographs submitted by Dana and Jacqueline Shaffer, received January 31, 2014 AP 14-04 [TR 499-14-002351 Page 9 of 9 RECE : .% City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission FEB 2 4 2014 Dear Sir or Madam, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO This letter constitutes notice that we intend to appeal the tree removal permit issued to Darryl Fleck for the property located at 17918 Kelok Road—Permit No. 499-14- 00235. The permit improperly allows for the removal of 40 trees on the property directly behind our property. As discussed below and in the enclosed attachments, removal of a number of these trees will inappropriately endanger the trees on our lot and significantly change the appearance of the surrounding Cardinal Place and Cardinal Court neighborhood. For these reasons, Mr. Fleck's permit fails to meet the Criteria for Issuance of a Type Il Tree Cutting Permit as set forth in Lake Oswego Code 55.02.080.We request a hearing to further discuss these matters with you. As you know, City Code 55.02.080 will not allow tree removal when the result will negatively impact erosion,soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. In addition, the Code requires preservation of trees when their removal has a significant negative impact on the character,aesthetics, or property values of the neighborhood. Mr. Fleck's permit does not fit within the ambit of 55.02.080. The removal of trees outlined on the Tree Removal Plan will in fact have a significant negative impact on erosion,soil stability,existing windbreaks, protection of trees on our property, and ultimately the safety, character, aesthetics and property value of our home and the homes of our neighbors. First, the removal of 40 trees directly to the west of our home will expose several very large Douglas Firs on our property (currently protected by trees growing upwind) to damaging winds. City Arborist Morgan Holen suggest that "the proposed house will help to act as a windbreak for neighboring trees." However, the trees on our property are several times higher than the proposed house. Ms. Holen also suggest that our trees will be "protected from southwest winds by the large intact group of trees on the lot south of 17918 Kelok Road." This is plausible provided the wind is not hitting our trees from the west as it did during the major wind storm we had on February 16th and 17th of this year, and also providing the property referenced isn't sold to a party desiring to clear as many trees as the Flecks. Secondly,and even more importantly,we're concerned that the removal of trees and vegetation on the Fleck's property near the property line (particularly trees 61-64, 51-57 and 67-69), on the uphill slope directly above our house will create issues with erosion and soil stability particularly since our home is in an area of high susceptibility for shallow landslides as identified in the "Landslide Hazard and Risk Study of Northwestern Clackamas County Oregon" conducted by William Burns, Katherine Mickelson, Cullen Jones, Sean Pickner, Kaleena Hughs, the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries and the U.S.Geological Survey. The attached reports of arhorists Stephen Goetz and Mary Giersch demonstrate that the removal plan proposed by Mr. Fleck will have a dangerous impact on our property. Notably, the applicant could eliminate a number of these problems by moving the proposed house 40 feet to the west; such action would save as many as 13-16 of these trees. EXHIBIT A-1 AP 14-04 [TR 499-14- 002351 -�1 pies Furthermore, the application creates significant concerns regarding grading and soil compaction that are currently unaddressed.As noted by the attached report of arborist and landscape architect Stephen Goetz, the applicant's grading in the Root Protection Zone (RPZ) could cause irreparable harm to several very large Douglas Firs in our back yard near the property line. Adding more than 2 to 4 inches of soil to raise the existing grade in the Fleck's proposed back yard or conversely removing more than 6 inches of soil to lower the existing grade could cause irreparable damage to our trees and threaten our home. The international Society of Arboriculture (ISA) defines Critical Root Zone (CRZ) as an area equal to 1-foot radius from the base of the tree's trunk for each 1 inch of the tree's diameter at 4.5 feet above grade. Ms. Holen in her report recommends that the "Root Protection Zone (RPZ) in the rear of the lot shall be established at the dripline of the neighboring trees." That would put the dripline at approximately 16 feet from the property line on the Fleck's side of the line. However, the root system of our trees is more extensive on the west or uphill side of our trees as the distance between the base of these trees and large boulders on the downhill east side is only 6-7 feet. Ms.Giersch recommends that the (RPZ) be expanded to 1.25' for every 1 DBH inch in order to protect the trees on the down hill slope of our property. We're requesting that at the very least, the RPZ zone be 31 feet from the base of tree E as identified on the Giersch report or extending out 22 feet from the property line on the Fleck's side of the line. Mr. Fleck's plans also call for the construction of a four feet high retaining wall that runs along the entire length of the property line. This wall will cause serious soil compaction directly above the roots of our trees located only a few feet away. Compacted soil cuts off water and oxygen to tree roots. This not only inhibits root development, it weakens existing roots which can increase the risk of trees being blown over during storm events. Ms. Nolen recommends that "the location of the proposed retaining wall shall be modified to avoid construction within the RPZ and the existing grade beneath the dripline of the neighboring trees shall be maintained." Again, we are requesting that the RPZ zone be expanded to no less than 31 feet from the base of tree E as identified on the Giersch report (or extending 22 feet from the property line on the Fleck's side of the line) and that the City not permit the building of a retaining wall nor grading, nor the addition of soil, nor the installation of underground utilities, nor stockpiling, nor the maneuvering of machinery in the RPZ. Additionally, the applicant's plans for underground power threaten the roots of the surrounding trees including those on our property. If underground utilities (including irrigation and lighting systems) are required within the (RPZ), the City must obtain assurances that they will be bored under the tree roots as opposed to trenched. We are very uncomfortable with alternative options that would allow for"utility trenching beneath tree driplines under arborist supervision." This is dangerous and unacceptable. Finally, City Code 55.02.080 expressly prevents tree removal when the resulting impact on the aesthetic of the surrounding neighborhood is deleterious. Here, the clear cutting of 40 healthy trees (many of which are very large) will have a substantial negative impact on the neighborhood and will lead to a certain devaluation of our property and that of our neighbors. While the applicant may have correctly noted that the preservation of trees at the west end of the lot will preserve the look and feel of Kelok Rd., he says nothing of the impact behind his house on Cardinal Place and Cardinal Court. We don't understand why Ms. Holen claims in her report that "the proposed tree removal will not result in significant negative impacts to neighborhood aesthetics." Our home and those of our neighbors to the east of the Fleck property will bear the full brunt of this tree removal. The application calls for elimination 40 trees on the Fleck's lot! From our vantage point there will be no more woods behind our home! We'd like to see the Fleck's build the home they envision,but only if measures are taken to insure that our trees,our home and the homes of our neighbors are protected and that includes the character, aesthetics and property values of our neighborhood under the Lake Oswego Code. Attached you will find the reports discussed above. Mr. Fleck's application does not meet the criteria for a Type II Permit. City code states that the City may grant an exception to this criterion when no other reasonable alternative exist to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Lake Oswego Code. We believe that very reasonable alternatives exist. We are requesting that the proposed residence be moved at least 40 feet to the west for an approximate total set back of 70 feet. This would not only protect the safety of our trees, our home and the homes of our neighbors but also preserve as many as 13-16 trees on the Fleck's property slated for removal including a healthy, mature native Oregon White Oak estimated to be over 100 years old. Preservation of these trees will have a big impact on the preservation of our neighborhood's character,aesthetics and property values. Please contact us at the contact information below to let us know the date, time and location of the DRC hearing. Thank you, '�a c ana .24/1/1 ,,,,,,IAL_____ an„ , line Shaffer 17832 Cardinal Place Lake Oswego,OR 97034 (503) 908-0551 home (503) 830-0046 cell dnjshaffer@yahoo.com RECEIVED Tree Removal Appeal FEB 2 4 2014 Cardinal Neighborhood Reportcrry OF LAKE pgWfiGO City of Lake Oswego Development Review Committee Dear Sir or Madam, We,the residents of Cardinal Place and Cardinal Court strongly oppose the issuance of a Type II Tree Removal Permit to Darryl Fleck for the property located at 17918 Kelok Road - Permit No. 499-14-00235 and hereby add our names in support of the appeal of said permit application submitted by Dana and Jacqueline Shaffer. Type II tree removal applications must comply with the following approval criteria of LOC 55.02.080: Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics, or property values of the neighborhood.The City may 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. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees,so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Lake Oswego Code. Mr. Fleck's permit fails to meet the Criteria For Issuance of a Type II 'Free Removal Permit as defined above because the tree removal plan submitted by Darryl Fleck will have a significant negative impact on the character,aesthetics and property values of our neighborhood. Several of our homes back up to or are adjacent to the Fleck property and each of these homes will be adversely affected by the removal of the wooded area to the west/southwest of these properties. The removal of 40 large trees,most of which are in a clear line of site from our properties will not only hurt the aesthetics of our neighborhood but it will diminish the value of our properties. Further,we are concerned that the removal of the trees identified in the Fleck's tree removal plan could cause damage to large trees on the Shaffer's property that could pose a serious threat to the safety of several of our homes. Additionally, the loss of existing windbreaks to the west/southwest of our homes could cause significant damage to our own trees. According to LOC 55.02.080: Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters,Protection of adiacent trees, or existing windbreaks. We are requesting that the City of Lake Oswego deny the tree removal application submitted by Darryl Fleck and request that the City require revisions to the tree removal and/or the building plans so that the removal of trees on the Fleck property will not pose a threat toe saf• , aesthetics and property values of our homes. 1-713C0 ('i r r ((frtc? ( et' Address J 4L /1J ) Sig d 1-77o- Ca4--4;1_ cj" Liklct as *, O- 963 Address `� �9 ay- 1� , ,('.t if 41 I :6-1 I.�. , ? '' .� Siged /7XC ( r)'r o2 PL, Z � 6C60?-6:-6 / OP 9,703q Address 64/,---.. t Tree Removal Appeal Cardinal Neighborhood Report //lam Signed ' ( /245/ 1� 17.. Address / / / 2'; signed \--UN C sxCL \ ( ,q C��i3a��, � �703 Address Signed Address Signed Dear Sir or Madam, I would not consider myself a tree hugger, but I was unhappy with what I saw Hillsboro doing while we lived there recently. It seemed to me, more often than not, Hillsboro would destroy trees for commercial purposes. It was discouraging and I knew I wanted to live in a city that was more green, more friendly. I wanted to live in a city that I felt was in balance with nature. We were looking for a home in the Fall of 2013. We were going to move to Portland city. I was adamant about living downtown so I could be closer to work. We had already made a couple of offers on homes and were trying to find the right one in Portland. My wife had looked at a couple of homes in Lake O. She was amazed at the beauty of the city and kept pressuring me to look at Lake 0 also. She said I would love it. The first time my wife drove me through Lake 0, I knew I had found my city. I could tell that the city was more aligned with my beliefs and that they cared more about nature and the aesthetics of the city. When I saw so many majestic trees and how the houses seemed to fit responsibly among them, I knew this was my city. When I heard about what Lake Oswego was allowing to happen behind my house, I was disappointed. I can't understand why the city is permitting someone to cut down 40 trees when there was no need. I couldn't understand why the city is allowing someone to have their house in an un-responsible part of the lot. I don't understand how such poor decisions are happening. I don't understand how so many neighbors, include myself and my wife, are against what is going on, but the city is still allowing it. I want to be able to walk out in my back yard and see the towering trees that were so much of the reason we bought our home. The decision to let the home be built at the back of the Kelok lot and cut down 40 trees does not reflect the city I believe Lake 0 to be. I am disappointed. Kyle Aaron 17736 Cardinal Ct Lake Oswego, OR 97034 .;. '' %;,066121610N611 'A r.otr. 1A :nriS" 13I _.,„7... ...,' GIERSCH CONSULTING ARBORIST 5033523 mary@im4trees.com ASSIGNMENT To conduct a Level 1 Limited Tree Assessment for a group of trees located along the western property line of 17832 Cardinal Place,Lake Oswego,Oregon,and to provide tree preservation recommendations based on a proposed development on the adjacent property to the west. FIELD OBSERVATIONS I visited the property on Saturday,December 14th,2013. My observations were limited to what was visible to me from the ground,and the condition of the trees and site on the date and time of my inspection. I met Mr.Dana Shaffer at the Cardinal Place property and he provided me with the preliminary development plans for the adjacent property located at 17918 Kelok Road and the related Lake Oswego Tree Removal Application documents. The application includes a tree inventory and site map that illustrates the onsite trees to be removed(32)and retained(21). The inventory included 12 off-site trees to be retained in the Right-of-Way and on the adjacent properties to the north and south. The 12 subject trees on Mr.Shaffer's property are from 4 to 18 feet east of the western property line on a moderate slope. There is a retaining wall between the trees and the back of the primary residence. Eleven of the trees are mature Douglas-fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii)with Diameter-at-Breast-Height(DBH) measurements ranging from 12 to 26 inches. They appeared to be of good health and structure and have been appropriately maintained. A Tree Inventory Table and Arborist Site Map are included as attachments to this report. DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS The number of trees requested for removal will significantly negatively impact the protection of Mr. Shaffer's trees from wind events originating from the west/southwest and therefore fails to meet the Criteria for Issuance of Type II Tree Cutting Permits set forth in Lake Oswego Code 55.02.080. In my professional opinion,this negative impact could be mitigated by retaining additional Kelok Road trees and by providing adequate protection for Mr.Shaffer's structural and feeder tree roots as follows: Recommendation 1 -- Appeal the proposed removal of trees 61,62,and 63 requested by the applicant to accommodate a lawn/children's play area. Tree 62 is a mature,native Oregon white oak(Quercus garryana)in good condition that is an amenity to the site and to the adjacent properties. Retention of these 3 trees will help mitigate the reduced protection caused by the other trees proposed for removal. To accommodate the retention,the placement of the residence should be moved at least 3o additional feet west for an approximate total set back of 6o feet. Recommendation 2 -- Root Protection Zones(RPZ)established on a development sites are typically set forth as one foot of protection for every one DBH inch. A certified arborist may modify the RPZ based on tree species and its construction impact tolerance,health and condition of the tree,and overall construction site impacts. Based on the above factors,it is my recommendation that an enhanced RPZ be established equal to 1.25'for every 1 DBH inch. This + ' '';i:;: 17832 I. ardin I No(c, i.:rr. f)5<<:..^,,,. (rP i•./16/2013 I 503.523.6411 MARY GIBRSCH CONSULTING ARBORIST maty@im4trees.com will ensure an adequate percentage of structural and feeder roots are retained which is essential for short-term structural integrity and long-term sustainability of the trees. Recommendation -- Appeal the location of the proposed underground power feed that will encroach into the RPZ. Trenching for underground utilities within the RPZ would result in unacceptable root loss and directly impact the sustainability of the trees. If underground utilities (including irrigation and lighting systems)are required within the RPZ,they should be bored under the tree roots as opposed to trenched. Recommendation 4-- Appeal the location of the proposed storm water retention chamber. Storm water and the retention chamber should be relocated to the front of the property. The proposed location is unacceptable because it is located within the RPZ. In addition,based on the slope of the properties and the location of the trees,it is essential that additional surface water and/or chamber water overflow not be directed toward the roots of Mr.Shaffer's trees. Introducing a significant quantity of supplemental surface water would over-saturate the soil and down-slope tree roots and could lead to extensive root rot and increased risk of total tree failure. Root Protection Zone(RPZ)distance information is provided for retained trees within the Tree Inventory Table. RPZ distance is measured in feet in a radius from the trunk of the tree. Tree protection fencing should be installed along the RPZ of each tree to be preserved or in a combined fashion for a grouping of trees. The fence should be 6-foot high chain link and be secured to the ground with 8-foot metal posts driven into the ground. Encroachment into the specified Root Protection Zones should only occur under the supervision of a certified arborist. Please contact me with any questions pertaining to this report at 503-523-6411,or rnaryLr?im4trees.c0111. Sincerely, r Mary Ka Gie ch ISA Certi e• Arborist PN-6732A Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists {.,li6i11:11 1) :11'(-.. e‘,;1 :);' 12/ 10/2013 1% OP ,01101111.111111111111/111.0\ t, 111.11111164 , MARY GIERSCH CONSULTING ARBORIST 503.523.8411 0 mary@im4trees corn ATTACHMENT A - CERTIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE I,Mary Kay Giersch,certify: • That I have personally inspected the trees and property referred to in this report,and have stated my findings accordingly. The extent of the evaluation is stated in the attached report and the terms of Assignment; • That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; • That the analysis,opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own and are based on current scientific procedures and facts; ▪ That my analysis,opinions and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboriculture practices; • That no one provided significant professional assistance to me,except as indicated within the report; • That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party nor upon the results if the assignment,the attainment of stipulated results,or the occurrence of any subsequent events. I further certify that I am an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist. t82 Cdttdtti tt Plitt'-.-. I•dl+, i;;, ..;.t,,(`}� 1.2 Ib,/2013 • '141111115110r51121131t1IN MARY GIERSCH CONSULTING ARBORIST mary@im4trees.com ATTACHMENT B - TREE INVENTORY TABLE (For Trees Adjacent to Western Property Line) ID# COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME DBH ROOT PROTECTION ZONE* A Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 17" 21'Northwest B Oregon white oak Quercus garryana 15" 19'Northwest C Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 20" 25'North and West D Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 24" 30'West E Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 25" 31'West F Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 16" 20'West G Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 12" 15'West H Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 15" 19'West I Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 17" I 21'West J Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 24" 3o'West K f Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 13" I 16'West L I Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 26" 1 33'West and South *Root Protection Zone distances in radius from base of tree i,'I;, i.,!-;',- ;.Uti ti:'] gl;ia'... 1,0: ()`;. ,'.:1>. ()R 12/16/20E3 • ..: ' •.' I 4 121.4-572A MARY GIERSCH CONSULTING ARBORIST M3.523.6411 N. mary@im4trees.com ATTACHMENT C - ARBORIST SITE MAP ........................... _...-". ',. 60'SETBACK 30'SETBACK Proposed [#H FIR 15" I #L FIR 26"J UNDERGROUND ................ POWER FEED •''` ......, . ----"-'7.- 1 17918 Kelok Rd .4. • . s . •r .: ,. .. . • ''. ,._:.. - . - #62 OAK 24" 1 i 0: ------. 1 'l "44100P. . -• #J FIR 24" ROOT . . . PROTECTION 1 ' • •-.e.•.• ZONES .. ......S.L. ... .,.., .: 1 #I FIR 17" 4IV ... ...,.. , I 1.25'for every -----.., i .: ..*::''. ''... ''. . 1"DBH '-.4..., ;'. :',.". .., ... ..:: #G FIR 12" o.4' / Fr . '........•' . Proposed FroRrATEcH j'. #F FIR 16" • • I.. •. ''''.. .. : 1 : ..;•: '..., .• • . . . • r '"'ftsz'a8""'"6,344.:!•/.. :.:\.... '. ''''• •:'•:'"I #E FIR 25" 1 -. . . ,... I #60 FIR 8" 1.1.77-7-LL;i.,.1. 11 :".=::, •.; .-. -• . '," -.. . '••• .:t2;;IP i,.,• i#D FIR 24" .*--r- .1..i?v:iii. ' ' #60.1 FIR 10" .....4' . .. :... • #60.2 FIR 10" - ilk. . . 1 17832 Cardinal PI I . #60.3 FIR 10" _41(i"Ir•::, . #c FIR. , NOT ON . , INVENTORY 20' #A FIR 17" ...... #I3 OAK 15" )- N INOT TO SCALE I ± ..............____— .)I 1).1,,. t /i.-13:.' ('artitilicli PI71( ,‘ i..1 .. . --;,%, v,f:, )IZ I 2116/2013 THE PACIFIC RESOURCES GROUP December 16,2013 Mr. Dana Shaffer 17832 Cardinal Place Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Subject - Proposed development on lot at 17918 Kelok Road. Dear Mr. Shaffer, After meeting you on site I have reviewed the tree survey/site plan for developing the lot on Kelock Rd. behind your residence and the tree removal justification questionnaire. The information that you have is limited on the particulars related to construction. In general, most of the tree removal appears related to construction. I do have several suggestions in response to the questions that you posed to me related to the proposed development of the lot behind your residence. First, you expressed concern about so many trees being removed from the lot to be developed to the west. From the limited information included on the site plan, most of the trees shown on the plan in front of the house and within the building and driveway footprints must be removed for construction. However, the trees at the rear of the proposed house could be retained and still accomplish the owners desire for a lawn and play space. The tree removal clear-cuts half of the property. To even the casual observer, this will dramatically change the character of the property particularly to you and your neighbors. The rear lot trees(trees 61-64) are healthy, have some structural flaws, but would make a valuable contribution to the landscape of the property if retained. Their retention would in a small way retain some of the wooded character of the property and neighborhood. Preserving other trees would require moving the proposed house location closer to Kelok. The area at the rear of your property and the adjacent lot contain many very large boulders that are exposed at the ground surface. Since these would be difficult to remove, I suspect that the ground surface behind the proposed residence will be smoothed out with the soil excavated from the building foundation. As long as no more than a few inches of fill are placed in the rear yard, the trees 61 —64 could be retained. Placing more than a several inches of fill on the rear of the lot or lowering the grade within 15' to 20' of the property line will preclude retaining trees 61 -64 and will adversely affect your trees, leading to their decline over time and possible removal. Excavation that damages and cuts roots can lead to trees becoming unstable and potentially hazardous. Given that your trees are located close to the property line, they will suffer damage if either fill or excavation takes place within the root protection zone. The City may require protection for the trees on your property and you should request this. Second, you were concerned about erosion and runoff from the developed lot. At the time of my site visit to your property I saw no evidence of erosion, or concentrated runoff from the lot, but this could change depending on how construction takes place on the adjacent lot. The site plan shows a soakage or infiltration chamber to handle runoff from roof drains at the rear of the house. If this is CONSULTING ARBORISTS• URBAN FORESTERS• LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS• PLANT APPRAISERS• LAND MANAGERS• NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS 4100 SW MEADOWS RD SUITE 300 LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97035 (503)222-4320 BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON (425)451-0620 properly sized for the largest storm events, and if the grading of the lot is such that runoff is spread out and not concentrated in swales,you should not be affected. However,the site plan shows a fairly small chamber when compared with the storm water structure in the front of the lot to the north(17912 Kelok). Construction drawings referred to on the site plan may provide assurance that the storm water structure is properly sized, but this should be verified. Third, you expressed concern related to the effects of windstorms on your trees when the lot is cleared. Our most serious windstorms come from the southwest to west. While there are storms that come from other directions, they are typically less severe. At present, the trees on your property are somewhat protected by trees growing upwind, but will be totally exposed when the home site is cleared.There is increased risk of failure to the trees at the rear of your property when the lot to your west is cleared. This is a consequence of development where forestland is cleared and trees at the edge of clearings remain. The risk of failure is unpredictable, because trees can fail for a number of reasons.The loss of roots either from smothering with fill or cutting will increase the risk of eventual failure. You should request that your trees be protected from damage. I also advise that you monitor your trees for any sign of declining health and or instability, particularly during periods of high wind when soil has become saturated from heavy rainfall. Finally, you also asked about what trees might be planted to buffer your property and enhance your privacy by screening the view of the proposed residence. The area at the rear of your property is very shaded by the canopy of the existing trees now, but will receive much more sun when the lot is cleared. The type of trees that can grow and thrive in the shade and completion of mature trees are typically climax forest species that are both deciduous and coniferous. Given that you want screening, trees that are coniferous (evergreen) will be the best choice. At this location that would include Western Hemlock and Western Red Cedar, both of which are easily propagated beneath mature trees. There are selections of these species in the nursery trade that have more uniform growth habits, but I recommend the straight species. You might also consider Coast Redwood, which is also well adapted to the existing conditions on this site. I hope I have addressed all the issues you asked about, but if I omitted any information or if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Respectfully, 40 9 Stephen F. Goetz, Principal American Society of Consulting Arborists,Registration#260 American Society of Landscape Architects,Oregon Lic.#80 Society of American Foresters ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT: Arborists are tree specialists who use their education,knowledge training and experience to examine trees,recommend measures to enhance their health and beauty and to attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist or to seek additional advice. Trees and other plant life are living,changing organisms affected by innumerable factors beyond our control. Trees fail in ways and because of conditions we do not fully understand. Arborists cannot detect or anticipate every condition or event that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Conditions are often hidden within the trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances,for any specific period or when a tree or its parts may fail.Further,remedial treatments,as with any treatment or therapy,cannot be guaranteed. Treatment,pruning,bracing and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborists skills and usual services such as the boundaries of properties,property ownership,site lines,neighbor disputes and agreements and other issues. Therefore,arborists cannot consider such issues unless complete and accurate information is disclosed in a timely fashion. Than, the arborist can be expected,reasonably,to rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided. Trees can be managed but not controlled. To live near trees,regardless of their condition,is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. HAZARD/HAZARD POTENTIAL: For the purposes of this evaluation and/report,a tree or tree part that presents a threat to humans,livestock,vehicles,structures, landscape features or other entity of civilization from uprooting,falling,breaking or growth development(e.g.,roots). While all large landscape trees in proximity to such targets present some degree of hazard regardless of their condition,such inherent hazard is not intended as within this definition and its usage in this evaluation and report. INSPECTION LIMITATIONS: The inspection of these trees consisted solely of a visual inspection from the ground. While more thorough techniques are available for inspection and evaluation,they were neither requested nor considered necessary or appropriate at this time.As trees and other plant life are living,changing organisms effected by innumerable factors beyond our control,The Pacific Resources Group and it's personnel offer no guarantees,stated or implied,as to tree,plant or general landscape safety,health,condition or improvement,beyond that specifically stated in writing in accepted contracts. Dana Shaffer Consultation,02013 The Pacific Resources Group.12/16/13 2 Landslide Hazard and Risk Study of Northwestern Clackamas County Oregon By William Burns, Katherine A. Mickelson, Cullen B. Jones, Sean G. Pickner and KaIeena L. B. Hughs Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Portland Oregon Rachel Sleeter U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California The LIDAR laser-mapping technology in this report shows areas of high susceptibility to shallow landslides on both our property and on the east side of the Fleck's property directly behind our home. Removal of trees and vegetation on the Fleck's property near the property line (particularly trees 61-64, 51-57 and 67-69), on the uphill slope directly above our house will create issues with erosion and soil stability which will increase the likelihood of a landslide in an area of high susceptibility to landslides. Also the removal of 40 trees directly to the west of our home will eliminate existing windbreaks to the west exposing several very large trees on our property and our neighbors (currently protected by trees growing upwind) to damaging winds. A loss of any our trees and their root systems on the uphill slope not only poses a great danger to our home and the homes of our neighbors but also increases the chance of a landslide in our backyard. Please see the photographs we submitted during the comment period. Also, the construction of a 4' high retaining wall along the property line will cause soil compaction on the roots of a number of large trees on our property only a few feet from the property line. This compaction will weaken and ultimately kill these roots significantly increasing the chance that our trees could fall onto our house during a storm event. A loss of these trees and their root systems also increases the likelihood of a landslide in our back yard. Further, if the retaining wall is designed with boulders, a landslide could cause these boulders to roll straight down hill into our house. A h A 0-13-06_PIateD7 51V l.akeOswegoShaltow_print.pdf r+_ 15- '4' • 4t .-i 1 i 1 100% • .. 6,1 Find • OPEN-FILE REPORT 0-13-08 Quarter of the Landslide Hazard and Risk Study of Northwestern Clackamas County,Oregon igtonl ( e 9 Oregon by William J.Burns,Katherine A.Michelson,Cullen B.Jones. I. bean G.Pickner.and Kaleena L.B.Hughes 1 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries,Portland.Oregon Rachel Sleeter U.S.Geological Survey,Menlo Park,California 1M'41"1571 The project deecrib_d is thea publication was supported is part by t 45'2615N Intergovernmental Agreement ICS 1I.21-2011 from Clackamas County,Oregon PLATE 7 EXPLANATION • AREA NOT MAPPED This abarzw-Landslide susceptibility map id•*,;f.•landslide.proae areas that are defined following the protocol of Bums and others On the hams of several faotots and past studies(described in detail by Sums and ltadie(20090,a depth of 15 ft(4.5 on is used to divide shallow from deep landslides.This susceptibility map was prepared by combining three factors 1)calculated factor of safety (FOS),2)landslide inventory data,and 3)buffers applied to the previous two factors.The FOS was calculated using macervativa values such as having a water table at the ground surface. The landslide inventory data were taken from the normaponding inventory-map-The combinations of these factors comprise the relative susceptibility hazard zones:high,moderate,and law as shown • by the Suaceptibiiiry Hazard Zone Maros below.The landslide susceptibility data are displayed on top of abase map that consists of .------------------------------• an aerial photograph(orthorectibedi overlain on the lidar-Actifed digital elevation model For additional detail on bow this map was ,, developed see Barns and others(2012). SHALLOW-LANDSUDE SUSCEPTIBILITY CLASSIFICATION Each landslide susceptibility hazard zone shown on this map has been developed according to a number of specific factors.The �_ dacatian scheme was developed by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries(Burns and others,20121 The ' .. symbology used to display these hazard zones is explained below. ' - . J f s Shallow-Landslide Susceptibility Zones:This map uses color to show the relative degree of hazard_Each none is a combination of several factors(see Hazard Zone Maas,below). --t _---r-• HIGH:• - I HIGH:High suscepabi:lr to shallow landslides. • •• e 'I. f Y [ ..._1 MODERe TEr Moderate susceptibility to shallow landslides. LOW:Low susceptibility to shallow landslides. Shallow-Landslide Susceptibility Hazard Zone Matrix "-tit. . 7.10....e I Final Hazard Zone Contributing Factors- I High I Moderate I Low is Factor of S,tety(FOS) 1 less Mari 1.25 1 1.25-1.5 1 greater than 1.5 _ - {a Landslide Deposits&Head Scarps(Shallow)1 Included I — I — 13 Buffers I 2H:1V(neatl stafps) 12H:1V(FOS Tess than 1.5)I — i 'See explanation of corresponding contributing factor below. -Cm intry f:Iut1 Rut '' 36.00 x 42.00 in --4.-.... y s OPEN-PILE REPORT 0.78-08 S Shallow-Landslide Susceptibility Map of the Southwest Quarter of the +.•�...-....�.. �..a � �,,,,_, Lake Oswego Quadrangle,Clackamas,Multnomah,and Washington Counties,Oregon ti,ton,.�„v,, ��,e, IIt:arbv.�llf.�.l ralia 2818 uo.w.r...arowe...e..rt..wo.s US. p++_.alW.M1406w 1 1 - t l. 1 ....4.......�.......====..•r I i PLATE, Li.. r .uugr. , rrPm : - .. . ..."):',/9 f'' : ,, ' ..r.:..^...7-t...=== • . .f i / _. .fa i � >" ter" ..f �..__ • .4 r . • r. • - ra..- I • a o-- I. .. I: 1 • OJC. ne,'IghbOrh004\ : IAllglANOTICAMIS .. .(I' . '-• s'- . --; - .: „." ; :.. _ r,' . 1...=.1.--"."*".7".'"-...--1.:-•1^.....'-....-.•.^ E • j • ..�. .. i rii°"�' N 001X X 00'9£ t I ,, iir„.4,0* - """" dr -41 .,Cr '` w, w 4 ?? O% l,o�L p.)'o; ,, ,-d s Io 44 a _v**o ` ,, -a t 4 .ti vai4e-0 'si lb riliri‘ .. . Olt 4 4 4 r , , . , it, , # ., ..„,...01 , 1 TA_4 . =w: G'[..? • %009 r - S / Z � .q .7-s ,fid v Jpd,uud mone4506..soml j►+rtomld-80-£[-0- Ps eTh tl ";,;0-13-08 Plate07 5W LakeOswegoshaJow pr Lpof n 15 4D' qt 1 1 1 ' 600% • n c'd , Alf lei ..4r. .:$ ) 1111,, 44: tiiii 4 IS. C,oi ;Y*-\ Caves 1 a, F lk t ttiy) ilk W i 4 ft, r• it . 0 ON ( bo c), ♦ qr.() . 1 i III t EINP Cali r►a1 �\wcQ T ++ 4 'T •. ' r f, ,r de a. Q' fIR G • . 36.00x 42.00 In _ IX: /i 41 A ^`A "a,0-13-08PIa e07,SW_LakeOswegoShallowj,rint.pdf ,--. 51 - - 1 / 1 ` # 1200% • [y'� Find I *. Ill 0 . 0 11 li IF • i kit . , or . , , Its\ lk spirt 1 t .V.---.."--- olac- CV\ de- a, --d\nal -Vace ori ,:. . °lir 1 .. ... tv 0 5 T , m , , „ ... ...,.,..... F 0. f . c., A. ,, , , ,,, . 6, . .., ito,„0",.._ , p ,,.. fir C-% 36.00 x 42.00 in ' Margaret Tassia Broker Portland West Office 8552 SW Apple Way Portland,Oregon 97225 regpja Office:503/297-2523 Fax:503/292-6070 Margaret Tassia Direct:503/520-1387 P.O. Box 91514 Email:mtassia@oregonrealty.com Portland, Oregon 97225 ® Q (503)520-1387 February 20, 2014 To whom it may concern, At the request of Dana and Jacqueline Shaffer, I have reviewed the tree removal application for the property located at 17918 Kelok Road inl Lake Oswego. 1 was asked to evaluate what impact the removal of 40 trees might have on the property value of the Shaffer's home. Based on the large number of trees being removed within clear view of the Shaffer's house and surrounding deck,the loss in the value of their property could be significant. It's quite clear that the removal of the trees in the locations sited on the Removal Plan will eliminate the beauty and serenity of the woods behind the Shaffer's home. This natural setting currently adds great value to their prpppriy. Replpcing this natural setting with a large two story house so close to the propertyline,on an uphill slope from the Shaffer's home will most definitely reduce the amount they might otherwise expect to receive from the sale of their home,if the trees on the east side of the lot were not removed. While it's difficult to predict what the value of the Shaffer's property might be when the Kelok construction is completed,the loss in property value based the proposed tree removal and con,ftruction plans, in my opinion,could be as much as$40,000 to$60,000 in today's market. Sincerely, Margaret Tassia, Broker Oregon Realty Co. ane NEI/4 SWI/4 SEC.17 T.2S. R.I E. W.M. 2 IE I7CA ewnal�isl�l�p"Ilpaw aeM7 I CLACKAMAS COUNTY LAKE OSWEGO \, r loo' Op CANCELLED N05 p 0 2i Tl 900 pl la MI < TL 6100 444 j SEE MAP 2 IE 1100 'ZIT;,'4iii t`^aea... SOUTH LINE LAKE HAVEN 4 ,pr tle II 4e 20 9500` a8 � PLAT 2 -- f0• 1.1 i„eemr •"•o 12p xrorr ..� Ee r .0 y„ r6u 7 nf, Ji 2500 I M ^ —71 C 2 ... I 3 Q •` . F +i 1z i11� ei 1 56� aT 2O r #n*.-..- ..,..,. ... 3 16 t + a Y"I 211 O , II n e • /3Pd Uf ll We° r Q i wa� EFZO 39500 zz nv W a �.....,, b. et °'y ,'4W i c+olwLaj��q 46 i A i Q --- a6 W e 5700 #4*� _l/. li_ to'S �/ .7 ..:�„"'�R �A.;: woo .p' 'PN', `27po p 45 ' 22 11114 i 3 pmt T Z�l/�� Q S�r2`-P mW t ml ` • 5 O n ,u [ 3 ll J a5 an d Ai5000 ~ e000r m5 ."...... x 13 -.51C.1,8 S i .F e1 J�'• {1F oaem • /600`' 16 2800 IMO $,e ,n°f} 0 5801 ± 524e m `� M19oo71 {11 2 2 rr 1� ' yy ssA°. w / ' ' 1 p f 5000n , x¢ 9afioo v 111/4i ! 11230 ('p o��y, Pj' JJ O _zfioo I imu L ' ,e,‘” 11 n`�' ,- _ ( \ i 9 r—...� y ' 1600 l i cpmQ < ' 43 aw'C .. 6$ V . f#.�. .'. '300 S5 j t one ' 2J "+e, 'PLACE ° CJ's 2 0900 `�J .�r3p \ +. 'e /' Ai IS \t6 x i rese i t`v d'+ 46°6^6;31.144420.-- r ^I l 3i1000 leel 42 paiA:":9(i1/4° Y`�'f 0 l"I� �a \ ' x apo p f'`s�” i 1 xa5oo . J " cm Iza RI19 nose. v NPo .a'' __ 22 "1niw !. Ir {` ,6102]C a u' i iN .�s ,w1 4 qit !^: RWI Po0, i +; v. "!. 11300"" :31°°-4.---,251::2 3 t J, ^No. .,�r�.... Y'�x ee>'."` E._ 'F .e"aq' � s, .ta / Pf �+__+ 3 °"ihy� ` a F-- a6io33F ° m600 a ,y ¢°e F .Ps# B. pea 4. elk.'i a'a 9' 90 xE a' 12 m \ $i 164. i 4, _^a ✓ /4.( �„� xxuxa .. '.�x ioLy y r t % '41' s ,r 'p . �� if f. tB. '+' , 2 S 6126 °' 4 Toon �'r70!' A�-/A`� . yt;_ 0�4,92� j `�v .,.....7„'' +'' ^4 }. ; la�oo q tx t eooy�- ?4ye 1r ! S e �e�6 ' ' �4. II i. ,,..::‘0,,,,,)) ''+z, 4Nr x/}tm: F 'ai 3... ii' ++ , �4 # 4 2 3 ` e° 4,17.44:,,„ � i<6126 4802 Q _ W a' Y '° o -ria (,r �( INN 4. 1 r . 4.,„ ¢6 - 4 5,5 ,-- vVL /r 36120 it i. 41"' 9' ,6 .`y+. 1 }2 f 4 i t sA .1 o C�yrw ;,;06s... 7 6 3,e vs.t.) (/� gni it 10 , m i Zed i o- .n C" y & Q` .e s, . P •Crr-- e"';''A t,>6123 C' p 2 A;; >` �' s e_ho' _ t I 3eao^ i4 •.,,p°6 \ , ,.. C - ! .qO Ao 4/ e, 11101 q '-2 CO ,L 6 'W `W ey•�f3 ><Pi ,_ ,°°$o ff` so c. •s J tm p:2 RI d; 3y'°„°,W p3R:.I' <,33 Nm a .�gyy4.r� b� r° fii eq �x e oesoo \ ,e-+aP..TM+x1R it+ryp +;/' a1" izs(^KK P..'*c° �a . 19_ *r e o . Q o f J _ t G 1 • °, t 10 ill II j Il'e�y],y�+I �✓"' 0, a t 6W� P . .:6202 A e 'e w nro �.�...-�."° 3 t`x i1 efiop Fii< 2005 99 a\a � Y' 1 r 6116"" a ilii F 5 uesr y a S LANE ,,.O6W GO,, _ CITY 04, V ... °� 2< mswux ,,. I i ye 2 ,.. .3.K ,,,� '""' Nm6TX LINE c_ANAL Aa1312 .,. tiW. .) m IB300 $�. LINE CANAL GACRES-'r S LAKE OSWEGO CITYMIT6/ SEE MAP 2 If I7CC SEE MAP 2 IE 17 CO 2 I I7CA 600614 LAKE OSWEGO EROSION NOTES 17918 KELOK RD. LAKE OSWEGO, OR °ISTALL GRAVELDPANN°X6iE.TAµ°E ^IW*ulMo NaxTnwenTeexee TREE REMOVAL PLAN TREE SYMBOLS a KENYAN NCLEAN 8D0nsRLONAED OVEN D NUDE SOIoAOEAIQUIRED X DENOTES EXISTING SCALE: I^=3OT SX.t TREE TO BE REMOVED UTILITY SYMBOLS �—' PER ARBORIST REPORT 1 LOT AREA 120,998 SF 1 i ^ DENOTES EXISTING W DENOTES LOCATION OF I BUILDING CVRG 13,343 SF 'C/.5 TREE TO REMAIN WATER METER %OF COVERAGE 115.99% i -- p DENOTES LOCATION OF IMPERVIOUS AREA 3,45D SF - TREE DIAMETER UNDERGROUND POWER FEED S DENOTES LOCATION OF I - SEWER CONNECTION "Cu - G DENOTES LOCATION OF GAS CONNECTION NOTE:SEE ARBORIST REPORT FOR ' TREE PROTECTION FENCING LOCATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS '//., NEIGHBORING PROPERTY ' /;/ ' . TAXLOT202 ASPHALT DRIVEWAY '/ '. " / \Ir6 ../:/: / V {+ ELEV.132.]3'1 21 � %- o- (_- 383 13'27"E -` "- 46 1 (- ^'^ S __ APROX.LOCATION OF- 66,1 POWER PEDESTAL 77 USE FUTURE DRIVEWAY—�// i 1� �'$ 17' "18 •" �0, � 22 3?, /-- - II ,{5 ELEV.149.83' ENTRANCE FOR -11 y9( . `m j2 3B - ■PROPOSED°' 64; CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE g °y..7' `�.,, -35 FFLSv=s+w 53 f 39 p.: 4g 49 3 "[) / ELEV,13914' !y ^ °EjB°"M • 4 �"' ::.; " ? 1 2 i J ° 'N83.1 41 /R-42 ++q'1, m 23 2.5 f 25912 52 ..:‘,„3- 3—L—,. �' � ��� I.) H W 54 `55 5653, ii , -- J --I f - 5O_7' ELEV.14959' a m 59 N LOCATION USED TO CALCULATE BUILDING _ - -- HEIGHT ON ELEVATION SHEET 160,25'ELEVATION NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TAX LOT 200 N • 2 TREE REMOVAL PLAN `r NOTE: L LINND ELEVATIONSALTOPO ARE APRE6 OXASCALE:1^=30' Mester Symbol I-gond I Hatching Legend I Kelok GradingPlan . ,' - Proposed RsyWtt _ - ,, Sapling Properly Comer • Proposed F. . I Located in the SW 1/4 of Section 17 T2S,RIE,W.M. � = Il. Emxlp sawrcWysBwercw ImBI Lake Oswego,Clackamas County,Oregon 4 '_ &ramp Weo•Mebr ® _ Pooling Gas Sem[e 0 Proposed Gavel .�1 .• J� SSI 6 Y '' &leen Deciduous Tree ® GENERAL NOTES • _ `1 r &tang Conifer Tree 0 4W1@R - !£ ' _ Pea LINIVS Kw.. Apposed Proposed Power Pedestal o Vmmuver.W0.xw] r/ ^:" ProWsadCaltlransb . ENGWEElt OW.Pa01L.,dW -II SIT d_' ` Proposed Ares deb o ;t Legend Cott:Um WIWS.PE Ia -.I eecteneedeset IS �uliWl MCYeee VICI�N tln,pplenynx,bgwmSnELOCAlION EUgB On the fl41td MYMtlRebkRUCepgetlmelery6Dl/MnoM Dint I e.StomweMOrMrq.0.Erosbv control Pim Intemction a1EyeN0.adeMNelek Me6 Latitude MOWN; Contra/Nam Ex♦Mep WelMbe -..-._._._._._._._._ Lal.lude:WleY.i'dT. >OMewaY Crow Butluo,Ebrmwbr.6 E4sM,g GU LLre SIITEWeo9 ADDRESS: Sagan carlpel Osage EVHNy LM Line a WpS 1E 11CA - EM9rgGmuMcaMour BW,R*nation W.179.RIG WM Proposed fbnrLatoo eadn,WwWair twin,.OR I'H mWar.a.AeWmmwm: Bmmdery eMdpographIcsurvey Sanwa.prey/Way OmnMe Bey.Top WWI O Pmwsed Sbmr P,Pa cow 4MHurrpinY.n,c,19m1eedqu arvaebnedenaWew mweo w�ti Pry ed PropsMllne fF:Mnianti rs/e1 Micheal Flow flel Proposed Water Samos CwbatlamMePcaEtollvaltaJWilbe]es�lO^B^^WWI.WW yMWlflcNm CenteWW r) .6 FL:Flew Lbw Q' y.�r�C Po(Med Edge of Paremgd Proposed Santry Lateral Mlxatlm nWMup WatlNpudlNu.Rbvadepbd b/Ma Orepon V4/c Proposed De,; IM,Natlm,IMXtlesm WtlIXyXWIkWm CmisbeecoNmn MA OR0.BIIidHWedN,wq, I CU./NlaMOexnW O Proposed index Canino: , mn'WnoMreuntllWmwbn NedaelMd WWp M lonome Wlsam4lemo controrrnewurwamnNxe Wo �ntpna*,Intl and wwWmnship shall wMpm.We ower L — OT! ry 'anon Standard ory V/ y - y ,',i i . ,n i,i BadY MWSciIARYR.Wp WabndaeiW�MRard' WcogetlCXyq o5 i`fl .IIO II L ' Atewaasoctor�PoWWBndFm slats�*Wings Manes rapaWdilela Its p� I'."-,z,��rs. +````� !. Y �1d urainnmmsmrlmchchaber.mm�bewl.dm e®denee .,. ,�'y I a e lia�r\�� ,. mrnmm. il x I - rll(R 'y �uae» • • _ .e 'a 4„ts € -` - I I, a IR�1 'a=:l � ��.� a itr ``yay 1gWwJ .`� II '`J-+;,�-�s� �WIl�il� ��''ff� � raaircrr. • a�a: -wt ' '� � � - y a _ I� : aw I v /�—rte-iJ3-+�/t ', �_ y— 'r .. l� -, awe, I , l it Vr1v:- _Z 1 71 11111441111111 I i ., m .e I �I at l �'"'," R -,_ QQ� I II I,'Y I I, l .,r l •I i — 6 a r I 'Po' I ' ,7-41- -,---,---,—r i 1, 3 a, 1 t) II I a..ar'� II rl' I , l Ill —L _ ;X'� �W' ---r' i H ,. I hRe..a„I {II //r g \aE. mak: I \ V I I _J 1 ®I I /�, I e 1 I � l ' I u II I ra � L 1 e Aw�lrl� 3 uo , 6 EXHIBIT E-3 I AP 14-04 [TR 499-14- I 002351 EROSION NOTES 17918 KELOK RD. LAKE OSWEGO, OR °INSTALLL GRAVEL CDMT ENTRANCE AND wuNTux SILT FENCE TREE REMOVAL PLAN TREE SYMBOLS e�:ANCLEANANDORDERRLY°oEE°re DENOTES EXISTING SCALE: 1"=30' TREE TO BE REMOVED UTILITY SYMBOLS XPER ARBORIST REPORT 1 LOT AREA (20,908 SF 1 - ', DENOTES EXISTING w DENOTES LOCATION OF !BUILDING OVRG. 13,343 SF I TREE TO REMAIN WATER METER 1%OF COVERAGE 115 99% 1J p DENOTES LOCATION OF (IMPERVIOUS AREA 3,450 SF (,�, DENOTES EXISTING UNDERGROUND POWER FEED - TREE DIAMETER - - S DENOTES LOCATION OF SEWER CONNECTION RIE G DENOTES LOCATION OF GAS CONNECTION NOTE:SEE ARBORIST REPORT FOR TREE PROTECTION FENCING i I 'I LOCATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS /�,;, NEIGHBORING PROPERTY j TAX LOT 202 e) 2-INCH CALIPER - ASPHALT DRIVEWAY _ '. BIGLEAF MAPLE (ACER MACROPHYLLUM) B ELEV.132.]3' 1 d 21 '. ,/ % /;'. ( Bd FOOT TALL RCtil f WESTERN RED C ED A i — -r v18313'2J'E APROXLOCATION OF 45I J 1aW 24t „ ' f�oo -LJ�T4r. PO:W6E (THUJA PLICATA)l ^ ), 2-INCH CALIPER/ ' 65 PACIFIC DOGWOOD P (CORNUS NUTTALLII) - �r g W 0 1 j/ ix - _ -, 68 FOOT TALL ^7 20 45 ■ .� DOUGLAS-FIR USE FUTURE DRNEWAY \ w 2? 33T F ELEV.149.83' (PSEUOOTSUGA MEN21ESIp ENTRANCE FOR j 1C X11 +' 32 38 'Z6 -- .- PROPOSED 64 _ ( 6-8 FOOT TALL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE I 8_ _`�,.,�,_7 (hgy I \ �35 F[l[v=t5t ss 63 p A HOGPN CEDAR G 3b \' t2 'n'�-23 tr. 4E` 69 (i2PA 0 Pyh� (THUJA PIJCATA'HOGAN'1 Y C\ 4 -/( s° (' 24,-"F 31J 3! : L43 47 68 E 3 r; 1 ,'. ,a. 39 as 50 67 'fid , ELY' 26 15- '9 ■ .1-X -51 ,ELEV)19914' 11 4° °EEOC"�a4�� yyS 1 �� - ���' r U " N825612"W=Yy "--42 p��� a / ') ?3 29 ( 258.12':�> 52 - � - `Cr 30 R6 -- 53 l�L 54 56 -56- e >C / B3 ( 66 J� REV 149 59' c) -P 2 59 --__ Wt-' W LOCATION USED TO CALCULATE BUILDING -- .� HEIGHT ON ELEVATION SHEET 16025'ELEVATION = a m , 1p A A i 1 NEIGHBORING PROPERTY - N TAX LOT 200 I ilk 1 DRAFT TREE MITIGATION PLAN (SUBJECT TO CHANGE) SCALE:1'•=3O Permit No. t.f31 ` (4 " (OQZ3 S L SWEGO Tree RemovalFee: 4 'IS) .c:b (- ) Records Fee: 7:,_r..Ob Application II &Verification Only) Application Receipt No. (o,3S3' Date: 1122/19 Applicant: Darryl Fleck Phone: 503-805-9385 . E-mail: dgf leckj rrayahoo.corn Address of Tree Removal Site: 17918 Kelok Road Property Owner: Darryl Fleck Phone: 503-805-9385 ._ see attached site plan and tree inventory for Number, Size (Trunk Diameter), and Type of Tree(s) to be Removed: 40 trees size/type of trees Reason for Removal: Construct development allowed per the Lake Oswego Code . I agree to comply with Lake Oswego Code, Chapter 55, regarding tree removal. I grant permission to City of Lake Oswego employees to enter the above property to inspect the trees requested for removal and investigate any trees that may appear to have been already unlawfully removed. I agree to restrain any dog on insp ctionxi day.y. � ,f/ (1` same as property owner Signature of Property Owner(required) Signature of Applicant (if different) The City Manager must sign for trees located on public property. O TYPE I Submit: (1) Removal site plan (8%x 11") ® TYPE II* Submit: (1) Removal site plan (8%x 11"), (2) Questionnaire, (3) Mitigation plan To Do: (1) Mark trees with yellow ribbon, (2) Post sign, (3) Stake building envelope& driveways if new construction is proposed El DEAD Submit: (1) Removal site plan (8%x 11"), (2) Printed photograph of tree Deciduous trees require a site visit by staff between November 1'and April 15th. To Do: Mark the tree(s)with yellow ribbon if a site visit is required. El HAZARDOUS Submit: (1) Removal site plan (8%:x 11"), (2) Printed photograph of tree, (3) Certified arborist's report, (4) Hazard Evaluation Form completed by certified arborist To Do: (1) Mark trees with yellow ribbon O EMERGENCY Submit: (1) Removal site plan (8% x 11"), (2) Printed photographs demonstrating v extreme lean of tree and soil heaving upwards at the base d, a O VERIFICATION * Submit: (1) Removal site plan (8%x 11"), (2) Mitigation plan v � xg (Prior approval) To Do: (1) Mark trees with yellow ribbon, (2) Stake building envelope & driveway m "N X o c s * Building Permits will not be issued prior to tree removal or tree protection inspection and ap w 4 City Staff to Filhqut: i Q Intake Staff --)PJZone1. 5 Tax ID V)IF� -f' 00 20 S Due Date c2-]SI 19 Neighborhood Association 11/2 t e 1..\-efOf / Planning or Building File# M` ''.- "fi "2r €-1,1itigation Plan Approved/Denied See. c. c OI a v1 Removal Approved/Denied Decision Staff Worms\applctns\tree permit apps\tree permit eppli¢atron-revisea7 ISI Qop StC� . oc i1`L 1>r.kp a/ashy_ Tree removal authorization: I authorize Darryl and Stacie Fleck at 17918 Kelok Road Lake Oswego Oregon 97034 to remove trees#14,#21 and#65 as shown on the attached site plan. Signatures: Printed Name: t n a (or”,•4-44:\ Signature G //,` Date: It/c/ i3 1'� Address: I1' 12. � C)g{ �r9 Printed Name:JESSi (o- 3JIA Oil vn Signature �-.. r Date: 1Lb l 3 Address: 11Q1 la Kick VAI Tree removal authorization: I authorize Darryl and Stacie Fleck at 17918 Kelok Road Lake Oswego Oregon 97034 to remove trees#55,#40,and#56 as shown on the attached site plan. Signatures: Printed Name: -C/Ozi� c Cie-1(9% 6 (9%CA( Signature -J61 Date: 7 'n 2 z4 / (74 Address: /7 7 3 S7-4* S cif- ,t,Aa c-)sideE?7 o, ! '3tf Printed Name: Signature Date: Address: TREE REMOVAL QUESTIONNAIRE The City's Tree Code encourages tree preservation and protection because trees are a valuable community resource that contribute significantly to Lake Oswego's quality of Ilfe. The City's Tree Code requires a Type II permit for the following situations: • Removal of a tree on a residential property (that is occupied by a single family dwelling) that is larger than 10' in diameter or trees that are beyond those allotted through the Type I process. • Removal of any tree(s)that is 5° or greater in diameter on property other than single family residential or any vacant site. A Type II permit may only be approved if you can demonstrate through the required application materials that all of the following criteria are satisfied. Please be as thorough as possible with your answers. City staff will visit the site, review the information contained in this application, and make a decision regarding this request. You will be notified if additional information is needed. Please answer the following Questions: 1. Removal of trees under a Type II permit is only allowed for two purposes: landscaping or constructing a development that is approved or allowed by applicable development regulations. Please explain how the removal of the tree(s) relates to one of the two allowed purposes. Please attach a landscaping or development plan. The purpose of the tree removal is for development allowed by the Lake Oswego Code. Most of the tree removal is necessary for the construction of a single family home and driveway access.Alternatives were considered to reduce the amount of tree removal, but were found to not be practicable or effective. These alternatives are described in the table on the following page. Response continues on following page... 2. Will removal of the tree(s) have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks? (Note: A simple yes or no response is not adeouate. Describe details of your lot such as number of trees, tree sizes, slope of land, arid trees on adjacent lots and in the neighborhood.) The removal of trees will not have a significant negative impact on erosion,soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.An erosion control plan will be required with the building permit application to prevent erosion during and after development.Also, the 21 retained trees on the property and right of way will continue to provide erosion control functions. Each tree removed will be replaced with a new tree and the site will be landscaped after development to further prevent erosion.According to City maps, there are no unstable or slide prone soils on the site, nor are there surface waters flowing on the site. The retained trees are clustered on the windward (western)portion of the site to maximize the structural stability of the unit. Response continues on following page... 3. Will removal of the tree(s) have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics or property values of the neighborhood? (Note: A simple ves or no resoonse is not adeouate. Describe the tree character of your neighborhood and how this tree removal would impact that character.) The removal of trees will not have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics, or property values of the overall neighborhood. The 21 retained trees on the property and right of way are clustered toward Kelok Road, thus preserving the wooded character and aesthetic along the streetscape of the property. This will also maintain the property values in the neighborhood by preserving the overall wooded aesthetic of the area and softening the impacts of new development. The decision was made not to place the house near Kelok Road, because the tree removal and new structure in that location would have more negative impacts on the overall neighborhood than setting the house away from the street as proposed. 4. Is removal of the tree(s)for the sole purpose of providing or enhancing views? The removal of trees is not for the sole purpose of providing or enhancing views. The property is not a view lot, and the proposed removal does not open up views from the property. The City may approve a tree removal request if it is demonstrated that no reasonable alternative exists in order to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. In making this determination, the City may require alternative site plans or placement of structures (including alternative foundation designs) or alternative landscaping design that incorporates existing trees. Mitigation for the removal of each tree is required as a condition of approval of a permit, if approved. r.VonisVmwe-slpInriceree forms Tee pes!itnnake Noe d Trees 10.22-10 cocdoc 1. Removal of trees under a Type II permit is only allowed for two purposes: landscaping or constructing a development that is approved or allowed by applicable development regulations. Please explain how the removal of the tree(s) relates to one of the two allowed purposes. Please attach a landscaping or development plan. Response continued from previous page: x, S-; -tet to -F_ mow,- ,�h ,x z het x uia'c- S3al�n;54tTA g -tS _ itai-f hr.'x %. `" ._� 'r,` - j �.,. ati I.Move house 30 -Increased costs(--$86,000 plus)associated with excavating approximately 12 feet west. additional feet of soil make the alternative impracticable.According to the project development coordinator,the increased excavation cost would be $50,000,the increased engineering cost would be$6,000,and the increased cost for a retaining wall would be$30,000.This does not include the increased cost of excavation if large rock is encountered. -In addition,the alternative is aesthetically undesirable since it would require placing the house in a canyon and force the lot to the south to be developed in a similar fashion. -Also,the net amount of tree retention does not justify the additional costs of moving the house to the west.While it may be possible to preserve up to 7 trees within or near the existing house footprint by moving the house 30 feet west,3 trees in the front yard would need to be removed.This would result in a net additional tree retention of 4 trees.Also,6 of the 7 trees within or near the existing house footprint have either poor condition and/or structure while only 1 is optimum for retention.These 6 trees with poor condition and/or structure may not survive the construction trauma and/or long term due to their pre- existing issues. -Finally,challenges associated with accessing the rear yard also played a part in rejecting the alternative.Moving the house west would require the rear yard access to be off the second floor.This would require re-engineering of the rear foundation wall to retain the 12 foot cut.Alternatively,steps would have to be built from the lower floor to access the rear yard.Both of these options present functional and aesthetic issues in the rear of the house and further increase project costs. 2.Install retaining -Due to engineering and terracing requirements for the approximately 10 foot wall on south side retaining wall,the trees in close proximity to the driveway would still likely of driveway. need to be removed because of significant disturbances in their root zones during construction. -Aesthetics also played a part in rejecting the altemative since the owner does not desire a view of a large retaining wall when looking out the front of the house. -Finally,landscaping costs would also increase as it would be difficult to work the retaining walls into the aesthetics of the landscape. Removal of trees 61 through 64 will allow for a lawn/children play area in the backyard, which is desired by the future owner. A development plan and tree inventory is attached identifying the trees to be removed. 2. Will removal of the tree(s)have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability,flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks? (Note:A simple ves or no response is not adequate. Describe details of your lot such as number of trees,tree sizes, slope of land, and trees on adjacent lots and in the neighborhood.) Response continued from previous page: Also,there is an existing stand of trees on the property to the south of the site which will continue to exist after development. This preservation of trees on the western portion of the site and on the property to the south allows for the maintenance of existing windbreaks and protects trees on adjacent lots from the effects of wind because the most significant winds in this area come from the west and southwest. The trees on the neighboring property at 17832 Cardinal Place directly east of the site were evaluated from offisite on January 13, 2014 to assess the potential impacts from site development There are a several Douglas-firs(Pseudotsuga menziesii)of varying sizes near the subject property line and all appeared to have characteristics such as relatively high live crown ratios indicative of trees able to withstand the effects of wind. While approximately 1/3 or less of the driplines of these neighboring trees will be impacted by placement of a retaining wall, minimal impacts to their overall health and stability are anticipated. Any excavation within their driplines will be supervised by the project arborist to ensure they are adequately protected during developmentFinally,the revised plan includes measures to limit hydrological impacts to neighboring trees at 17832 Cardinal Place. In the November 26, 2013 plan there was a storm water infiltration facility in the rear of the property at the outer edges of their driplines. The new proposed location of the infiltration facility is beneath the driveway adjacent to Kelok Road. The attached development plan and tree inventory includes details such as the number of trees, tree sizes, slope of land, and trees on adjacent lots. L.NlaOSWEGO City of Lake Oswego Cenrenma:19104010 1=2PUBLIC NOTICE Pending Tree Removal Permit Name of applicant Darryl Fleck* Tree Permit No. y 9 9-I q - 00 Z 3 S Applicant's Phone Number 503-805-9385 I. Darryl Fleck* do certify that I am, or I represent, the party requesting a Prim your name permit to cut 40 trees (see attached site plan and tree inventory for tree sizes and numbers) trees Size,number, and nye of trees to be removed on property located at 17918 Kelok Road . Pursuant to LOC Address or location 55.02.082, this notice has been prepared to notify the neighborhood association of the pending removal. I will mark the proposed trees with yellow tagging tape and, post a public notice sign on the subject property prior to your receipt of this notice. You may submit comments on the application in writing within 14 days of the date of this notice. I understand that I am responsible for maintaining the notice and marking during the entire 14 day comment period. `Note: The questionnaire portion of the application i ' k was prepared by Teragan&Associates, Inc. (Arboriculture'Consultants). Signature Notice Date: I I Zz 1 I "( Neighborhood Association: 12; krun Map&Tax Lot +=)1 � n- w 205 REMINDER: A tree cutting permit is required to remove trees larger than 5 inches in diameter. Topping trees is prohibited in the City of Lake Oswego. City of Lake Oswego Planning and Building Services Department 503-635-0290 Im:\fomalmasterslpIsnninglt eo forms\tree Westonnam;(typo ii trees)10-22-10.doc.doc Kelok Road, Tree Inventory_-_ TREE COMMON BOTANICAL NAME DBH CONDITION* STRUCTURE* COMMENTS TREATMENT NO NAME (IN.) 1 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 24 good . good _ retain 2 Douglas-fir ' Pseudotsuga menziesii 14 good good retain 3Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii _ 6 ____ poor __good- retain 4 bigleaf maple _ Acer macrophyllum ' 12,8 good g — - _--_._ _ _ poor _ suppressed _ retain 6 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 18 - good good lean towards street retain 7 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum • _ 10 _ good poor high crown _ ____ _ _ retain __ _' 8 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 20 good poor one-sided retain ' 9 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 16 good poor one-sided _ retain 10 -bigleaf maple - - Acer macrophyllum6 _ good poor _ 'stem decay, le_an towards street _ retain 11 Douglas-fir Pseudotsugamenzies/i 10 poor poor _ one-sided, su _ _ retain 12 ' bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum _ 10 - poor_ poor _ high crown, location accurate? ___ _ _ retain _13 _ Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 26 _ good good _ _ remove for construction 14 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 12 very poor very poor property line,failed leaders, decay __ remove for condition 15 __bigleaf maple - Acer macrophyllum 4 very poor very poor exempt due to size, suppressed remove for construction 16 bileaf maple 9 __ _ Acer macrophyllum poor very poor one-sided remove for construction h llum 10 17 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 12 good poor high crownremove for construction ' 18 bigleaf maple _ Acer macrophyllum_ 12x2 good poor :high crown __ __ remove for construction 19 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 14 good poor rooted on boulder remove for construction 20 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 14 good good _ remove for construction 21 ' bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 8 very poor good property line,declining remove for construction 22 Oregon white Quercus garryana 12 poor poor suppressed 'remove for construction ' 1 oak 23 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 18 good good retain 24 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 10,16 poor poor •stem decay, high crown retain bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 10x2 poor poor codominant, high crown retain 26Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 24 good good .dominant _ retain 27 bigleaf maple ' Acer macrophyllum_ ' 6x2 -- good poor offsite, suppressed retain 28 bigleaf maple Aer macrophyllum 12 poor - -- -_ . ,, poor stem decay, suppressed retain ' 29 --bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 12 _ 9 poor failed leader, stem decay__ retain _ _ _ __ --- - - - poor very - -- -- -30 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 10 good good - retain 31 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 6 ' very poor ' very poor suppressed _ _ retain 32 _ Douglas-fir _ Pseudotsuga menziesii _ 24 good good , - - _ __ _ remove for construction 33 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 12 very poor poor extensive stem decay remove for construction ,d 34 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 16 good poor codominant _ remove for construction 35 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum _ 20 poor very poor extensive stem decay, codominant .remove for construction , h o a = 36 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum Yllum 16x2 very poor very poor extensive stem decay, codominant remove for construction N)H m 37 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 14 very poor very poor extensive stem decay, lean over future remove for condition 7y H 1 _ _ driveway aN __38 : bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum _ 16x2 very poor - very poor extensive stem decay, codominant _ remove for condition co N ‘0 39 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 10 poor poor remove for construction 3 A 40 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 12 good good remove for construction Kelok Road, Tree Inventory TREE COMMON BOTANICAL NAME DBH CONDITION* STRUCTURE* COMMENTS TREATMENT NO NAME (IN.) 41 Western red Thuja plicata 4 excellent excellent exempt due to size 'remove for construction cedar _ 42 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 18 _ good good _ remove for construction 43 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 10 good poor poor trunk taper remove for construction 44 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii - 4 good poor exempt due to size, poor trunk taper __ remove for landscaping 45 bigleaf maple Acer macrophy/lum 14 good poor one-sided remove for construction 45.1 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 24 good good offsite, may need to bridge significant roots, retain Iapproximate location added to site plan 46 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 6 good good remove for construction 47 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 8 good good .remove for construction 48 Oregon white Quercus garryana 20 good poor .high crown remove for construction oak 49 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 16 good good remove for construction 50 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 6 good poor high crown remove for construction 51 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 20 good poor high crown _ _ remove for construction 52 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 8 good poor high crown _ remove for construction 53 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 4 good poor exempt due to size, high crown remove for construction 54 Douglas-fir _ Pseudotsuga menziesii 10 good poor high crown _ remove for construction 55 ' Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 12 good poor offsite, high crown remove for construction 56 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii , 10 good poor multiple leaders, high crown remove for construction . 57 ; Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 10 good poor high crown remove forconstruction 58 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyl/um 18 good poor codominant, extensive branching over future retain structure ' . - - 59 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 18 good poor offsite, high crown retain - -60 ' Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 8 good - good _ offsite _ _ _ retain 61 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 10 good poor suppressed remove for landscaping 62 Oregon white Quercus garryana 24 good poor one-sided due to competition with tree 63 remove for landscaping oak 63 _ Douglas-fir _ Pseudotsuga menziesii 14 good poor one-sided due to competition with tree 62 _ remove for landscaping ' 64 bird cherry Prunus avium 16 good good invasive, photo _ remove for landscaping 65 Oregon white Quercus garryana 16 good poor high crown, one-sided remove for construction oak 66 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 18 good good property line retain 66.1 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 24 good good offsite,approximate location added to site retain _- _ plan 67 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 14 good poor one-sided _ _ _ ___ remove for construction 68 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 8 poor poor suppressed _ remove for construction ' 69 • Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 14 good good_ _ _ remove for construction *condition and structure rating includes excellent,good,poor,very poor,to dead/hazard 971.409.9354 Morgan Holen 3 Monroe Parkway,Suite P220 Lake Oswego,Oregon 97035 --�--VITO CI AT Liu Consulting Arborists and Urban Forest Management morgan.holen@comcast.net DATE: February 6, 2014 TO: Jessica Numanoglu,Senior Planner FROM: Morgan E. Holen, Lake Oswego Contract Arborist RE: 17918 Kelok Road—Tree Evaluation At the City's request, I visited 17918 Kelok Road in Lake Oswego on December 30, 2013 and February 4, 2014, in order to evaluate existing trees in terms of the application for Type H tree removal (499-14- 00235). I also reviewed comments,two arborist reports, photographs, and other documentation submitted by Dana and Jacqueline Shaffer, residence at 17832 Cardinal Place.This report documents my review of the application materials and provides arborist recommendations in terms of the City's code criteria. Type II tree removal applications must comply with the following approval criteria of LOC 55.02.080: 1. The tree is proposed for removal for landscaping purposes or in order to construct development approved or allowed pursuant to the Lake Oswego Code or other applicable development regulations. 2. 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;and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the character,aesthetics,or property values of the neighborhood. The City may 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. In making this determination,the City may consider alternative site plans or landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Lake Oswego Code. 4. Removal of the tree is not for the sole purpose of providing or enhancing views. 5. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree pursuant to 55.02.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. The application proposes removal of 40 trees, including 36 trees proposed for removal for the purposes of construction and four trees proposed for removal for landscaping purposes. After reviewing the site plan and evaluating the trees on-the-ground, removal of 39 trees is necessary for the purposes of construction and will not result in significant negative impacts. Removal of tree 13 does not appear necessary for construction,although minor grading is proposed beneath the dripline along the north side of the tree.Tree 13 is a Douglas-fir in good condition with no major defects located in the right-of-way along Kelok Road. Excavation beneath the dripline should be avoided if alternatives are available, or else conducted under the supervision of a qualified arborist who can evaluate exposed roots and provide on-the-ground recommendations to minimize root impacts. If EXHIBIT F-3 AP 14-04 [TR 499-14- 002351 N pRyeS 17918 Kelok Road February 6,2014 Page 2 the area beneath the dripline will be built up from the existing grade, a layer of permeable geotextile fabric should be placed on the ground surface beneath the dripline area and the grade may be raised using clean crush rock and/or good top soil.This tree is suitable for retention with development and may be withdrawn from the application or additional information may be submitted to demonstrate that removal of this tree is necessary. The neighbor's on Cardinal Place are concerned that the proposed tree removal will result in significant negative impacts on erosion, soil stability,and to the protection of trees located on their property, including impacts to existing windbreaks by exposing their trees to damaging winds, impacts to the flow of surface waters by creating drainage issues, and impacts from proposed grading, utilities,and soil compaction within the proposed root protection zone(RPZ).The comments also describe that the proposed tree removal will result in significant negative impacts on neighborhood aesthetics. In addition,an arborist report submitted with the neighbor's comments describes how trees 61-64 may be retained by modifying the setback from 30-feet to 60-feet and the Shaffer's letter describes that 13 to 15 trees could be preserved by modifying the setback to 70-feet. The neighboring trees are primarily Douglas-firs that appear in generally good condition.These trees are growing in a group,which is separated from the Kelok trees by a small gap in the canopy.They are growing close together and are undergoing natural stand dynamics. Douglas-fir is not tolerant of shade and trees growing in close proximity compete with one another for growing space resulting in a mix of dominant, co-dominant, intermediate,and suppressed trees—this is natural stand dynamics. For example,the 16-inch diameter Douglas-fir(tree F) is considered intermediate in crown class and the 25- inch diameter Douglas-fir(tree E) is considered codominant with the 24-inch diameter Douglas-fir(tree 0),while all of these trees are likely the same age. Because of the small gap in the canopy,the codominant trees have developed relatively symmetrical and long live crowns.The crown spreads were variable, but I measured the largest crown radii, including a 20-foot crown radius at tree E and 17-foot crown radii at trees D, G and L. While on-site,I also measured some of the neighboring tree heights and heights to live crowns to determine live crown ratios. In general,trees with less than 30% live crown ratio are considered to have an increased potential for windthrow.The neighboring trees generally have live crown ratios of approximately 70%.Trees 60,60.1,60.2,and 60.3 are the exception—these are intermediate and suppressed Douglas-firs with approximately 27%live crown ratios. However,these trees will remain sheltered by tree 59,which has a live crown ratio of 41%. In general,the neighboring trees have good structure and are not predisposed to windthrow, even if the trees proposed for removal are removed. In addition,the proposed house will help to act as a windbreak for the neighboring trees, but moreover, the neighboring trees will continue to be protected from southwest winds by the large intact group of trees on the lot south of 17918 Kelok Road. 17918 Kelok Road February 6,2014 Page 3 Modifying the setback to 60-or even 70-feet does not seem worthwhile considering that it would require removal of additional trees in generally good condition in the front of the lot,while providing protection for trees in poor condition in the rear of the lot.This includes the four trees proposed for removal for the purposes of landscaping:tree 61, a small bigleaf maple that has been overtopped and suppressed by adjacent, more dominant trees—it has a very small and high live crown and is not a significant tree;tree 62, a large Oregon white oak that has a one-sided and high live crown and numerous dead and broken branches and branches with decay;tree 63,a suppressed Douglas-fir with poor crown structure and a very small live crown;and tree 64,a non-native and invasive sweet cherry that may be removed with a free and over-the-counter invasive tree species removal permit. Tree 63 would be hazardous to the new home and removal of this tree will result in significant negative impacts to tree 62 because they are growing in such close proximity to one another and their roots have been competing much like their crowns;tree 62 would have an increased probability for failure once hazardous tree 63 is removed. These four trees do not provide a windbreak for the neighboring trees. Furthermore,the crowns of these trees are no less than 28-feet above ground level and preservation would not provide screening benefits for the neighbors.All in all,these four trees are not suitable for retention with development. Below are arborist recommendations to ensure that the proposed tree removal will not result in significant negative impacts to the protection of trees located on the adjacent property, including impacts to existing windbreaks, impacts to the flow of surface waters,or impacts from grading or utility installation: • The location of the storm water retention chamber has been modified and is now located in the front of the lot and outside of the dripline of protected trees;the chamber shall be properly sized for large storm events. • If underground utilities are required beneath the dripline of protected trees,the utilities shall be installed by boring a minimum of 3-foot depth to avoid root impacts.Alternatively, utility trenches beneath tree driplines could be excavated under arborist supervision and root determined by the arborist to be critical shall be preserved intact within the trench. • The root protection zone(RPZ) in the rear of the lot shall be established at the dripline of the neighboring trees with tree protection fencing installed at the dripline at a minimum. No activity shall occur within the RPZ including grading, installation of underground utilities,stockpiling, maneuvering machinery,or other potential impacts. The RPZ shall be protected throughout construction, including landscaping.The location of the proposed retaining wall shall be modified to avoid construction within the RPZ and the existing grade beneath the dripline of the neighboring trees shall be maintained. 17918 Kelok Road February 6,2014 Page 4 • If irrigation will be installed for establishment of new trees, drip irrigation or other low-flow emitters are recommended to avoid excess runoff and saturation of the root zone of existing trees.Saturating the root zone of mature Douglas-fir trees would likely be detrimental. The property owners at 17832 Cardinal Place should be aware that although the removal of trees at 17918 Kelok Road will not result in significant negative impacts to their trees, it is the property owner's responsibility to conduct their own due diligence by contracting with a qualified arborist to evaluate risk potential. While removal of trees at 17918 Kelok Road will not have a significant impact on the likelihood for failure of their trees, all trees within striking distance of a target(e.g.their house) pose some level of risk potential. My visual assessment of their trees was limited to the east side of the trees and they generally appear in good condition and suitable for preservation as an intact group. Nevertheless,the potential for failure may be probable if defects are present on the west side of these trees which I was not able to evaluate and due to impacts that likely occurred to tree roots during installation of their existing retaining wall. Lastly,the proposed tree removal will not result in significant negative impacts to neighborhood aesthetics. The row of Douglas-fir trees on the neighbor's property in the rear of the lot will help to preserve the character and aesthetics of the neighborhood from Cardinal Place and Cardinal Court.The existing trees in the front of the lot beyond the limits of disturbance and the trees located on the lot to the south help to maintain the wooded character of the neighborhood. Preservation of tree 13 in the right-of-way will also help to maintain neighborhood aesthetics. Thank you, MorganNolen &Associates, LLC 4114-' Morgan E. Holen, Member ISA Certified Arborist, PN-6145A ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Forest Biologist From: Ryan Styger [mailto:RyanS@PacificLifestyleHomes.com] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 11:57 AM To: Numanoglu, Jessica Cc: darryl fleck <dgfleckjr@yahoo.com> (dgfleckjr@yahoo.com); terry@teragan.com; William Parker Subject: 17918 Kelok Rd. Tree #13 Jessica, below you will find a list of things I would like passed onto the arborist. 1. The grading that will be taking place beneath the dripline will be extensive even with the use of a retaining wall. 2. With the use of a retaining wall there would still be excavation as close as 8' directly to the north at the edge of the rock surface that will run along the side of the paved driveway.That cut would be approximately 4'-0"deep. 3. With the use of a retaining wall there would be another additional cut of about 4'-0"to the North East of the tree at a distance of approximately 5'-0" from the tree centerline or 4'-0"from the tree base.This cut and install of the wall would allow for the plumbing of the trench drain to be installed and connected to the storm chamber. 4. The start of the storm chamber excavation for the plumbing lines and trench bed will be approximately 8'-6" away from the center of the tree with a maximum trench depth of roughly 7'-6" 5. The storm chamber and trench drain location is placed in the only suitable location in order to stay compliant with stormwater regulations.The original location of the storm chambers was going to be one large facility along the front property line that would have resulted in the need to have more trees removed. We elected to design a spread out system that would go under the driveway to minimize the impact to the trees as currently shown. 6. The driveway surface elevation cannot be adjusted to a higher elevation to create less impact on the cut around tree#13.The only way that we could position the house and meet city standards was to place the slope of the driveway as shown. After speaking with Terry this morning about the work we will be doing around this tree we would like to propose as follows.Allow us to remove the tree at this time with the tree cutting permit, with the condition that Terry will be onsite when the excavation is done in the area of this tree.At that time if the root system does not extend to the north and can be maintained we will keep the tree. We could also have the city look at the root system as well at excavation. Let me know your thoughts on this Jessica and if there are any other questions that I need to address. Ryan Styger Pacific Lifestyle Homes Garrette Custom Homes 101 360-213-0839 Pacific ( 1{25t (2 o:ars y M 360-304-9901 rvansftacificlifestvlehomes.com EXHIBIT F-4 AP 14-04 [TR499-14- 2 002351 Numanoglu, Jessica From: terry@teragan.com Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 2:24 PM To: Ryan Styger; Numanoglu, Jessica Cc: darryl fleck <dgfleckjr@yahoo.com> (dgfleckjr@yahoo.com); William Parker Subject: RE: 17918 Kelok Rd. Tree#13 Hi Jessica, As I understand from my discussions with Ryan from Pacific Lifestyle Homes prior to the submittal of the tree removal application and again this morning,the excavation for the installation of the driveway, the storm drainage system and a retaining wall will come within 8 feet of the center of tree#13 which is a 26 inch diameter Douglas-fir considered to be in good condition.The ideal location of the tree protection fencing should be 26 feet from the center of the tree although given that we are impacting the tree only on one side of it, I feel that the tree will be fine even when the tree protection distance is reduced by half which should be 13 feet from the center of the tree.The concern is that with the excavation for a retaining wall causing the cut to come within 8 feet of the tree's center, major roots may be impacted. Now it is possible that the roots of the trees are not extending too far to the north of the tree toward the driveway but we would not know that for sure until excavation is done. In addition, if the area does have large rocks in the ground, the excavation for the footing of a retaining wall may exceed the 8 feet toward the tree's center as large rocks may extend toward the tree. The same type of situation is occurring with the piping for the storm water system. In that situation the exaction will come within 8.5 feet of the tree's center,again too close to feel comfortable with. Plus it is my understanding per Ryan that the depth of the excavation will be 7.5 feet which will require the sides of the trench to be cut back during the excavation for safety reason, causing the cut to come even closer to the tree. I would suggest that the tree be allowed for removal with the stipulation that the project arborist be on site during the excavation for the driveway, rainwater system and retaining wall to determine if too many roots would be impacted that would cause the tree to have too much of a probability to fail. If we find that are going to impact too many or too large a root to be able to retain the tree safely, we would be happy to call in the City's arborist to check and confirm our findings. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thank you, Terry Terrence P. Flanagan • ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-0120BMTL ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Teragan i t I 1 & Associates, Inc. Arboricultural Consultants 3145 Westview Circle, Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Cell 503-803-0017/ Office 503-697-1975/ Fax 503-697-1976 www.teragan.com EXHIBIT F-5 t AP 14-04 [TR499-14- 002351 Numanoglu, Jessica From: Morgan Holen [morgan.holen@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 9:34 PM To: Numanoglu, Jessica Subject: RE: 17918 Kelok Rd. Tree#13 Hi Jessica, I have reviewed the information you forwarded to me from the applicant and applicant's arborist,which provides additional detail regarding the proposed construction adjacent to tree 13 compared with the site plan and grading information provided with the application materials. Based on this additional information,the extent of construction impacts within the dripline area are much more substantial than what I reviewed previously. I agree with the applicant's arborist that a cut of this magnitude closer than half the dripline distance from the trunk could be detrimental.Their proposal to seek the tree removal permit now and attempt to preserve the tree during construction based on further evaluation of root impacts at the time of excavation seems reasonable. Removal of this tree is likely necessary for the purposes of construction based on the proposed impacts within the critical root zone. However,the actual root impacts could be assessed on-the-ground during construction to determine whether or not the impacts actually warrant removal. Would it be possible to permit Type II removal for the purposes of construction with a condition that the tree be preserved until the project arborist evaluates root impacts during excavation and provides written documentation to the city if the impacts indeed warrant removal? It would be good to also condition that the excavation be performed under arborist supervision so as to provide on-the-ground recommendations to minimize impacts and document exposed roots while the work is in progress. Please let me know if you have questions or if I may be of further assistance. Thank you, Morgan Morgan Nolen A,JIOCIATt I Consulting Arborists& Urban Forest Management 971 .409. 9354 3 Monroe Parkway,Suite P 220 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 morgan.holen@comcast.net From: Numanoglu, Jessica [mailto:jnumanoglu©ci.oswego.or.us] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 2:42 PM To: Morgan Holen Subject: FW: 17918 Kelok Rd.Tree #13 Morgan, I received an additional email, below,from Terry Flanagan regarding tree#13. EXHIBIT F•6 AP 14-04 [TR 499-14- 1 002351 Jessica Numanoglu Senior Planner City of Lake Oswego , 1 c. L Dear Jessica, " "''T"' This letter constitutes our comments with respect to the Tree Removal Application submitted by Darryl Fleck for the property located at 17918 Kelok Road—Permit No. 499- 14-00235. We have very serious concerns with Mr. Fleck's proposal for the removal of 40 trees on the area of the property directly behind our property. As discussed below and in the enclosed attachments, removal of these trees will inappropriately endanger the trees on our lot and significantly change the appearance of the surrounding neighborhood. For these reasons, Mr. Fleck's application fails to meet the Criteria for Issuance of Type II Tree Cutting permits as set forth in Lake Oswego Code 55.02.080. We request that a permit not be granted unless changes to the tree removal plan are submitted that will insure the safety of our home and those of our neighbors as well as protect the character, aesthetics and property values of our neighborhood. As you know, City Code 55.02.080 will not allow tree removal when the result will negatively impact erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. In addition, the Code requires preservation of trees when their removal has a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics, or property values of the neighborhood. Mr.Fleck's permit does not fit within the ambit of 55.02.080. The removal of several trees outlined on the Tree Removal Plan will in fact have a significant negative impact on erosion,soil stability, existing windbreaks, protection of trees on our property, and ultimately the safety, character, aesthetics and property value of our home and the homes of our neighbors. First, the removal of 40 trees directly to the west of our home will expose several very large trees on our property (currently protected by trees growing upwind) to damaging winds. We're also concerned that the removal of trees and vegetation on the Fleck's property near the property line, on the uphill slope directly above our house will create issues with erosion and soil stability. The attached reports of arborists Stephen Goetz and Mary Giersch demonstrate that the removal plan proposed by Mr. Fleck will have a dangerous impact on nearby trees on our property. Notably, the applicant could eliminate this problem altogether by moving the proposed house 40 feet to the west; such action would save as many as 13-15 of these trees. Further, the application creates significant concerns regarding grading and soil compaction that are currently unaddressed.As noted by the attached report of arborist and landscape architect Stephen Goetz, the applicant's grading in the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) could cause irreparable harm to several very large Douglas Firs in our back yard near the property line. Adding more than 2 to 4 inches of soil to raise the existing grade in the Fleck's proposed back yard or conversely removing more than 6 inched of soil to lower the existing grade could cause irreparable damage to our trees and threaten our home. The international Society of Arboriculture (ISA) defines CRZ as an area equal to 1-foot radius from the base of the tree's trunk for c-ach 1 inch of the tree's diameter at 4.5 feet above grade. Ms. Giersch recommends that this zone be expanded to 1.25' for every 1 DBH inch in order to protect the trees on the down hill slope of our property, further complicating the applicant's permit. EXHIBIT G-200 AP 14-04 [TR 499-14- 002351 01PaVA Mr. Fleck's plans also call for the construction of a 4 foot retaining wall that runs along the entire length of the property line. This wall will cause serious soil compaction directly above the roots of our trees located only a few feet away. Compacted soil cuts off water and oxygen to tree roots. This not only inhibits root development, it weakens existing roots which can increase the risk of trees being blown over during storm events. Additionally, the applicant's plans for underground power threaten the roots of the surrounding trees including those on our property. If underground utilities (including irrigation and lighting systems) are required within the CRZ, the City must obtain assurances that they will be bored under the tree roots as opposed to trenched. Finally, City Code 55.02.080 expressly prevents tree removal when the resulting impact on the aesthetic of the surrounding neighborhood is deleterious. Here, the clear cutting of 40 healthy trees (many of which are very large) will have a substantial negative impact on the neighborhood and will lead to a certain devaluation of our property and that of our neighbors. While the applicant may have correctly noted that the preservation of trees at the west end of the lot will preserve the look and feel of Kelok Rd., he says nothing of the impact behind his house on Cardinal Place and Cardinal Court. Our house and our trees, directly to the east of the Fleck's property,will bear the full brunt of this tree removal. We'd like to see the Fleck's build the home they envision, but only if measures are taken to insure that our trees, our home and the homes of our neighbors are protected. Attached you will find the reports discussed above. Mr. Fleck's application does not meet the criteria for a Type II Permit. City code states that the City may grant an exception to this criterion when no other reasonable alternative exist to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Lake Oswego Code. We believe that very reasonable alternatives exist. We are requesting that the proposed residence be moved at least 40 feet to the west for an approximate total set back of 70 feet. This would not only protect our trees, our home and the homes of our neighbors but also preserve as many as 13-15 trees on the Fleck's property slated for removal including a mature native Oregon White Oak estimated to be over 100 years old. Thank you, -" `ban and Jacqueline Shaf er 17832 Cardinal Place Lake Oswego,OR 97034 (503) 908-0551 home (503) 830-0046 cell dnjshaffer@yahoo.com tel^ t�...ld 1 4k." `` " MARY GIERSCH CONSULTING ARBORIST 503 523 6411 mart'@im4trees 0111 ASSIGNMENT • To conduct a Level 1 Limited Tree Assessment for a group of trees located along the western property line of 17832 Cardinal Place,Lake Oswego,Oregon,and to provide tree preservation recommendations based on a proposed development on the adjacent property to the west. FIELD OBSERVATIONS I visited the property on Saturday,December 14th,2013. My observations were limited to what was visible to me from the ground,and the condition of the trees and site on the date and time of my inspection. I met Mr. Dana Shaffer at the Cardinal Place property and he provided me with the preliminary development plans for the adjacent property located at 17918 Kelok Road and the related Lake Oswego Tree Removal Application documents. The application includes a tree inventory and site map that illustrates the onsite trees to be removed(32)and retained(21). The inventory included 12 off-site trees to be retained in the Right-of-Way and on the adjacent properties to the north and south. The 12 subject trees on Mr.Shaffer's property are from 4 to 18 feet east of the western property line on a moderate slope. There is a retaining wall between the trees and the back of the primary residence. Eleven of the trees are mature Douglas-fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii)with Diameter-at-Breast-Height(DBH) measurements ranging from 12 to 26 inches. They appeared to be of good health and structure and have been appropriately maintained. A Tree Inventory Table and Arborist Site Map are included as attachments to this report. DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS The number of trees requested for removal will significantly negatively impact the protection of Mr. Shaffer's trees from wind events originating from the west/southwest and therefore fails to meet the Criteria for Issuance of Type II Tree Cutting Permits set forth in Lake Oswego Code 55.02.080. In my professional opinion,this negative impact could be mitigated by retaining additional Kelok Road trees and by providing adequate protection for Mr.Shaffer's structural and feeder tree roots as follows: Recommendation 1 -- Appeal the proposed removal of trees 61,62,and 63 requested by the applicant to accommodate a lawn/children's play area. Tree 62 is a mature,native Oregon white oak(Quercus garryana)in good condition that is an amenity to the site and to the adjacent properties. Retention of these 3 trees will help mitigate the reduced protection caused by the other trees proposed for removal. To accommodate the retention,the placement of the residence should be moved at least 3o additional feet west for an approximate total set back of 60 feet. Recommendation 2 -- Root Protection Zones (RPZ)established on a development sites are typically set forth as one foot of protection for every one DBH inch. A certified arborist may modify the RPZ based on tree species and its construction impact tolerance,health and condition of the tree,and overall construction site impacts. Based on the above factors,it is my recommendation that an enhanced RPZ be established equal to 1.25'for every 1 DBH inch. This '.1.-;;- ,,; `‘ 'toll ul.lt ,'i, i4I' 11/ 10/20;3 H S' r;r MARY GIBRSGH CONSULTING ARBORIST 503 523 641 - marylThim4trees mm will ensure an adequate percentage of structural and feeder roots are retained which is essential for short-term structural integrity and long-term sustainability of the trees. Recommendation q -- Appeal the location of the proposed underground power feed that will encroach into the RPZ. Trenching for underground utilities within the RPZ would result in unacceptable root loss and directly impact the sustainability of the trees. If underground utilities (including irrigation and lighting systems)are required within the RPZ,they should be bored under the tree roots as opposed to trenched. Recommendation 4-- Appeal the location of the proposed storm water retention chamber. Storm water and the retention chamber should be relocated to the front of the property. The proposed location is unacceptable because it is located within the RPZ. In addition,based on the slope of the properties and the location of the trees,it is essential that additional surface water and/or chamber water overflow not be directed toward the roots of Mr. Shaffer's trees. Introducing a significant quantity of supplemental surface water would over-saturate the soil and down-slope tree roots and could lead to extensive root rot and increased risk of total tree failure. Root Protection Zone(RPZ)distance information is provided for retained trees within the Tree Inventory Table, RPZ distance is measured in feet in a radius from the trunk of the tree. Tree protection fencing should be installed along the RPZ of each tree to be preserved or in a combined fashion for a grouping of trees. The fence should be 6-foot high chain link and be secured to the ground with 8-foot metal posts driven into the ground. Encroachment into the specified Root Protection Zones should only occur under the supervision of a certified arborist. Please contact me with any questions pertaining to this report at 503-523-64n,or inary(Wint4trees.com. Sincerely } Mary Ka Gie sch ISA Certi es Arborist PN-6732A Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists re, :1Pti I , Lai., ( ,t'!;n (i)t 12116,'_>O13 563.523.6 64411' MARY GIERSCH CONSULTING ARBORIST --- - mary@im4trees.mm ATTACHMENT A - CERTIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE I,Mary Kay Giersch,certify: • That I have personally inspected the trees and property referred to in this report,and have stated my findings accordingly. The extent of the evaluation is stated in the attached report and the terms of Assignment; • That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; • That the analysis,opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own and are based on current scientific procedures and facts; • That my analysis,opinions and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboriculture practices; • That no one provided significant professional assistance to me,except as indicated within the report; • That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party nor upon the results if the assignment,the attainment of stipulated results,or the occurrence of any subsequent events. I further certify that I am an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist. iaj2Ui;i -1 MARY GIERSCH CONSULTING ARBORIST 503 523 6411 - mat y@im4trees.coin ATTACHMENT B — TREE INVENTORY TABLE (For Trees Adjacent to Western Property Line) ID# COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME DBH ROOT PROTECTION ZONE• A Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 17" 21'Northwest B Oregon white oak Quercus garryana 15" 19'Northwest C Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 20" 25'North and West D Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 24" 30'West E Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 25" 31'West F Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 16" 20'West G Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 12" 15'West H Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 15" 19'West I Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 17" 21'West J Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 24" 30'West I K Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 13" 16'West L Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 26" 33'West and South *Root Protection Zone distances in radius from base of tree 'n,,,, 1... I'a rd -il iacr I -1L ` ', , _ , OP 12l16/1013 , „„.. .,.: , L. , ,......0**,_ .3A Certified Arbarist , , . MARY GIERSCH CONSULTING ARBORIST 503.523.6411 mary@im4trees.tom ATTACHMENT C — ARBORIST SITE MAP 60'SETBACK 30'SETBACK Proposed #H FIR 15" #I,FIR 26" UNDERGROUND • •• • „ POWER FEED 17918 Kelok Rd • . :._ • #K FIR 13" p w #62 OAK 24" Ems:,. 0 ••f;;,� f • I.�'" .............. #T FIR 24" ROOT ..'l • PROTECTION #I FIR 17" ZONES �' ,. • 1.25'for every 1_: . 1"DBH = #G FIR 12" Proposed i STORM-TECH ' - r #F FIR 16" CHAMBER .. IIIIR""" „���� I- #E FIR 25" 'ilk.. ;.g,..• • - . _ t #60 FIR 8" 114111 (- —_-1 ....•J #DFIR 24" I #60.1 FIR 10" .. 3 " #60.3 FIR 10" ;+Ar•:•..• 17832 Cardinal P1 i NOT ON -- INVENTORY #C FIR 20" #A FIR 17" • #B OAK 15" t 1...„....4..4,``.4, N NOT TO SCALE I :51 Page 17832 Cardinal Place, Lake• (›;),t1 ;;,), OR 12/16/2013 THE PACIFIC RESOURCES GROUP December 16, 2013 . t JAN 2 9Q'7 Mr. Dana Shaffer cif)/of no c 17832 Cardinal Place Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Subject - Proposed development on lot at 17918 Kelok Road. Dear Mr. Shaffer, After meeting you on site I have reviewed the tree survey/site plan for developing the lot on Kelock Rd. behind your residence and the tree removal justification questionnaire. The information that you have is limited on the particulars related to construction. In general, most of the tree removal appears related to construction. I do have several suggestions in response to the questions that you posed to me related to the proposed development of the lot behind your residence. First, you expressed concern about so many trees being removed from the lot to be developed to the west. From the limited information included on the site plan, most of the trees shown on the plan in front of the house and within the building and driveway footprints must be removed for construction. However, the trees at the rear of the proposed house could be retained and still accomplish the owners desire for a lawn and play space, The tree removal clear-cuts half of the property. To even the casual observer, this will dramatically change the character of the property particularly to you and your neighbors. The rear lot trees (trees 61-64) are healthy, have some structural flaws, but would make a valuable contribution to the landscape of the property if retained. Their retention would in a small way retain some of the wooded character of the property and neighborhood. Preserving other trees would require moving the proposed house location closer to Kelok. The area at the rear of your property and the adjacent lot contain many very large boulders that are exposed at the ground surface. Since these would be difficult to remove, I suspect that the ground surface behind the proposed residence will be smoothed out with the soil excavated from the building foundation. As long as no more than a few inches of fill are placed in the rear yard, the trees 61 —64 could be retained. Placing more than a several inches of fill on the rear of the lot or lowering the grade within 15' to 20' of the property line will preclude retaining trees 61 -64 and will adversely affect your trees, leading to their decline over time and possible removal. Excavation that damages and cuts roots can lead to trees becoming unstable and potentially hazardous. Given that your trees are located close to the property line, they will suffer damage if either fill or excavation takes place within the root protection zone. The City may require protection for the trees on your property and you should request this. Second, you were concerned about erosion and runoff from the developed lot. At the time of my site visit to your property I saw no evidence of erosion, or concentrated runoff from the lot, but this could change depending on how construction takes place on the adjacent lot. The site plan shows a soakage or infiltration chamber to handle runoff from roof drains at the rear of the house. If this is CONSULTING ARBORISTS• URBAN FORESTERS• LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS• PLANT APPRAISERS• LAND MANAGERS• NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS 4800 SW MEADOWS RD SUITE 300 LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97035 (503)222-4320 BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON (425)451-0620 properly sized for the largest storm events, and if the grading of the lot is such that runoff is spread out and not concentrated in swales, you should not be affected. However, the site plan shows a fairly small chamber when compared with the storm water structure in the front of the lot to the north (17912 Kelok). Construction drawings referred to on the site plan may provide assurance that the storm water structure is properly sized, but this should be verified. Third, you expressed concern related to the effects of windstorms on your trees when the lot is cleared. Our most serious windstorms come from the southwest to west. While there are storms that come from other directions, they are typically less severe. At present, the trees on your property are somewhat protected by trees growing upwind, but will be totally exposed when the home site is cleared. There is increased risk of failure to the trees at the rear of your property when the lot to your west is cleared. This is a consequence of development where forestland is cleared and trees at the edge of clearings remain. The risk of failure is unpredictable, because trees can fail for a number of reasons. The loss of roots either from smothering with fill or cutting will increase the risk of eventual failure. You should request that your trees be protected from damage. I also advise that you monitor your trees for any sign of declining health and or instability, particularly during periods of high wind when soil has become saturated from heavy rainfall. Finally, you also asked about what trees might be planted to buffer your property and enhance your privacy by screening the view of the proposed residence. The area at the rear of your property is very shaded by the canopy of the existing trees now, but will receive much more sun when the lot is cleared. The type of trees that can grow and thrive in the shade and completion of mature trees are typically climax forest species that are both deciduous and coniferous. Given that you want screening, trees that are coniferous (evergreen) will be the best choice. At this location that would include Western Hemlock and Western Red Cedar, both of which are easily propagated beneath mature trees. There are selections of these species in the nursery trade that have more uniform growth habits, but I recommend the straight species. You might also consider Coast Redwood, which is also well adapted to the existing conditions on this site. I hope I have addressed all the issues you asked about, but if I omitted any information or if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Respectfully, Stephen F. Goetz, Principal American Society of Consulting Arborists,Registration#260 American Society of Landscape Architects,Oregon Lic.#80 Society of American Foresters ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT: Arborists are tree specialists who use their education,knowledge framing and experience to examine trees,recommend measures to enhance thou-health and beauty and to attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist or to seek additional advice. Trees and other plant life are living,changing orgamsms affected by innumerable factors beyond our control Trees fail in ways and because of conditions we do not fully understand Arborists cannot detect or anticipate every condition or event that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree Conditions are often hidden within the trees and below ground Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances,for any specific period or when a tree or its parts may fail.Further,remedial treatments,as with any treatment or therapy,cannot be guaranteed Treatment,pruning,bracing and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborists skills and usual services such as the boundaries of properties,property ownership,site lines,neighbor disputes and agreements and other issues. Therefore,arborists cannot consider such issues unless complete and accurate information is disclosed in a timely fashion. Then, the arborist can be expected,reasonably,to rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided. Trees can be managed but not controlled. To live near trees,regardless of their condition,is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. HAZARD/HAZARD POTENTIAL- For the purposes of this evaluation and/report,a tree or tree part that presents a threat to humans,livestock,vehicles,structures, landscape features or other entity of civilization from uprooting,falling,breaking or growth development(c g.,roots). While all large landscape trees in proximity to such targets present some degree of hazard regardless of their condition,such inherent hazard is not intended as within this definition and its usage in this evaluation and report. INSPECTION LIMITATIONS The inspection of these trees consisted solely of a visual inspection from the ground. While more thorough techniques are available for inspection and evaluation,they were neither requested nor considered necessary or appropriate at this time As trees and other plant life arc living,changing organisms effected by innumerable factors beyond our control,The Pacific Resources Group and it's personnel offer no guarantees,stated or implied,as to tree,plant or general landscape safety,health,condition or improvement,beyond that specifically stated in wnting in accepted contracts Dana Shaffer Consultation,02013 The Pacific Resources Group 12/16/13 2 REC;Ei` landslide Hazard and Risk Study of Northwestern Clackamas JAN 3 1 20i4 County Oregon City Of LATI L: '.,1TJWilliam Burns, Katherine A. Mickelson, Cullen B. Jones, Sean G. Cornrows EtavoI"pn it Dept. Pickner and Kaleena L. B. Hughs Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Portland Oregon Rachel Sleeter U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California The LIIDAR laser-mapping technology in this report shows areas of high susceptibility and areas of moderate susceptibility to shallow landslides on both our property and on the east side of the Fleck's property directly behind our home. The construction of an infiltration/storm water retention chamber on the east side of the proposed house within several feet of our property line (and a severe down-hill slope directly into our home) creates a very hazardous situation for our family and our neighbors. Over-saturation of the ground soil from additional surface water or chamber overflow would cause significant damage to down-slope trees and the foundation of our home putting us at significant risk. We would like confirmation that the proposed chamber has been re-located to the front of the house. The construction of a 4' high retaining wall along the property line will cause soil compaction on the roots of a number of large trees on sur property only a few feet from the property line. This compaction will weaken and ultimately kill these roots significantly increasing the chance that our trees could fall onto our house during a storm event. Also, if the retaining wall is designed with boulders, a landslide could cause these boulders to roll straight down hill into our house. Removal of the following trees (Tree Inventory #s 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68 and 69) identified on the Tree Removal Plan for 17918 Kelok Road will have a significant negative impact on existing windbreaks and the removal of trees 61-64 could have a negative impact on erosion and soil stability in an area susceptible to landslides. EXHIBIT G-201 AP 14-04 [TR 499-14- 002351 3-3 pa,es 0-13.-08_Plate07 SW LakeOswegoShaliow-print.pdf 1 1 1 100% • a • 1 OPEN-FILE REPORT 0-13-08 (.4uarter o the Landslide Hazard and Risk Study of Northwestern Clackamas County.Oregon Eton Counties, Oregon by William J.Burns,Katherine A.Mickelson,Cullen B.Jones, Sean G.Pickner.and Kaleena L.B.Hughes • - Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries,Portland,Oregon • • Rachel Sleeter U.S.Geological Survey,Menlo Park, California • 122.41'15"VY The project described in this publication was supported p impart by - 45'28'15"N Intergovernmental Agreement IGS 11-21-2011 from Clackamas County,Oregon `` PLATE 7 i EXPLANATION AREA NOT MAPPED Tais shallow-landslide susceptibility map identifies landslide-prone areas that are defined following the protocol of Bons and others ,.� .,201.2).l On the basis of several factors and past studies(described in detail by Burns and Media(2009]),a depth of 15 ft(4.5 m)is used to divide shallow from deep landslides.This susceptibility map was prepared by combining three factors:1)calculated factor of safety 1 (FOS),2)landslide inventory data,and 3)buffers applied to the previous two factors.The FOS was calculated using conservative values such as having a water table at the ground surface. The landslide inventory data were taken from the corresponding inventory map.The combinations of these factors comprise the relative susceptibility hazard zones:high,moderate,and low as shown by the Susceptibility Hazard Zone Mains below.The landslide susceptibility data are displayed on top of a base map that consists of an aerial photograph(orthorectified)overlain on the lidnr-derived digital elevation model For additional detail on how this map was developed see Burns and others(2012). SHALLOW-LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY CLASSIFICATION Each landslide susceptibility hazard zone shown on this map has been developed according to a number of specific factors.The dacsifiction scheme was developed by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries(Burns and others,2012).The sy nabolay used to display these hazard zones is explained below. Shallow-Landslide Susceptibility Zones This map uses color to show the relative degree of hazard Each zone is a combination of several factors(see Hazard Zone Mart.below). , r -- MGM High susceptibility to shall=landslides. • MODERATE:Moderate su mptibility to sallow landslides. LOW:Low susceptibility to shallow landslides. Shallow-Landslicle Susceptibility Hazard Zone Matrix ......--- Final Hazard Zone Contributing Factors" High I Moderate Low ' - 01 Factor of Safety(FOS) less than 1.25 I1.25-1.5 I greater than 1.5 J i' ®Landslide Deposits&Head Scarps(StnllOW) included I — — (: _ ta Buffers 2H:1V(head scarps) 12H:IV(FOS less than 1.5)I — 'See explanation of corresponding contributing factors below. .5 niihtf'V(.11111 Pd - _ _35 00 x 42.00 in _ II do.sauunu:,.® OPEN-FJLE REPORT 0-13-08 Shallow-Landslide Susceptibility Map of the Southwest Quarter of the .. ouPo..5tu..r Lake Oswego Quadrangle,Clackamas,Multnomah,and Washington Counties,Oregon m,ww. 2013 a.Aw.um•mmmaw �wu .,P<rtImanw.m US Sun,Yeale Peek,C.Mais m 1 I. i ' vmPLATS x••••e..w� • MG NOT„,pts �r>A _ 't +y JAVA NVTNMPm �••^— w Et .i • , i r r S >/ ,:fit _ 1 , Ei 1 • may ." _. . Li=._ o* 0 v r-5't�-,c e ' 'a 4. 4. / 1.11.704 I 4.,, ;1 4. ....-- s'''....""'... ) -/ -i.:.• •. , r, -04 AIM Nuru rrso Y SCALE 16,000 - f - -'-'- ®..- _.. .." '��J w-- —• a- — =M m e �.. mea a I —wm.w+._i.u.wr-a... 4..7...w __._.. ,_..._—_____-_-_._--..--_._..—_--�� r.r.airrr..+- W..-.-..a...+. --__��—,— _ 0-13-08_Plate073W Lake0swegoShallowprint.pcif - ' 600% - .7.1 Fil '1: - - . .-f-: 74 7 1 i 1 ; i . lor of 111 1 i 1 $ 41 .1.....-4, II - 4040, I (511 Ilit 1 - 4 1 , 1 i . I I 44 # 1$ " 1 46, i I " vr • . 11 * i • 5 • , • Alt 4 r)1...1005e It. 41. alk i 4.4 i • • .41A f II T\ ,-` . 0 , ilr Ve. , i..- Or• . 1, 0 X 1 i 1 , • _ . •. I .. dr - - . ... p - -A, I . 4 t °• IRO 1 _a. Ili e 1 i oar 1 36.00 x 42.00 in W..'qi41*41WL"4--- 741/1.11.1111111W 4116/101111W ,, - w '• 14 n _ _ %:0-13-06_7fate 07-,55W_Lake.Oswe9oShallow_prfetpsi f, c - 1�- 1 / 1 - ' S00% - r—i-+i y=in i 4.alis 40 ,1q a 1 t iii '' 6 1 4 t �.� I j 4 Ov,c. NK\nvSe. 1 yr etJ _ • v 5\ it 0 u t' • _ 4 Cut desac - IC 1 110 I 1I0 ' T — alc_ 911. 0 vf & i 36.00 x 42.00 in r - 1 c r—�—A'', I`..0-13-08_Plate07_SWLakeOswe o5hallow�rint.pdf ' ,f..._,- 1 ! 1 - • 1200% - „j Find ill • a i ) , 1 I 1 41. '. I 4 - :111111111 .1111111111111:4 t IP. i ral .; I. s. • 1115\ I • +0 Our1n0Vgfl. t our cul, de sa-4- SIP ' - 044010" • I AI Vii'y i_t ir it,: , „or..,, . .. I :, ' tr,-;:, ii,eft 41.r4.., f. Ci i 36.00 x 42.00 in f x.-11 --- Trees slated for removal that we are requesting be preserved. ..... • • !EGO, OR - • . . • fYi • Ld_________........_..._, Z r IVE WAY 2% 1 t . , ,OPERTY r . I •-• NEIGHBORING PROPERTY i i 1 TAX LOT 202 fli / I i / ' a 1 _ ' • /...1 ..., r •- ,.. APROX.LOCATION OF 451—CONC.WASH 66.1 f - LI' -' ''' • POWER PEDESTAL . , OUT AREA / - /f 34-7ig - . - ---- .---7.--q-P•spE__ -____ ,--/ ,<= - / _.,, ---- __ 66 i 111117-:` 1-6= 1...4' rt: EV.149.83' t . 14' iiii PROPOSED " ,.°"32 1-4. /3--6—iti——N 1 1875 --. 45 ('"' ' .. • ' 63 / ,^.:2!. i , /,,• . 0 47. ------ ...... 4,4v:t, vi (--k . 46,,,,/-65;' 62-351! / f___,- k z 23 _.,.0 ‘ 24- 1.4. • . 4 . J CE 1/21ER 17 61 17 z' 4.) 38 --Oh .1.4 47 ,'---, ./ CLUSTEN/ 3, ,,..,..\,3 r '.42''' -• . .31 ___/-6' id X: 9 i 48 - - 68-' y6Trigt /V.ii.z.10 /°" KSEILTPmAFENCTEERAIAIN SLEDsrE EDTC W.2 39------,0 '`.-•-• ' 4Aill - trx 61• ‘ !,'. / a KEEP tr 49 ,... .2° 51 . i / ! • 1 t..--,.. • ,---• — i -f --t:--,,,oit r--_ ,0- NE3*----1-6W-------.W . ilt1 42 \ 52 - - . .' - .).'''''. ' ( 4-...,,_. 25a12, ,..--- , 1 - ) ___ • 30 i 40 I -, ,,,.• -. -4" ' '''9- A.:--. DIRT STOCK PILE,FIELD-- 7 53 I ;*-. T.' . 1 ., , • ‘.55 56_ ,• -,,, ,,, , IL NEPL,ri,'LlgiAl..7 l'OUSF VERIFY LOCATION 54 . 68; , ,.. . ELEV.149.59' • COVER IF EXPOSED 4"'ABS PIPE FROM RAIN DRAINS- . I 60- 3' I MORE THAN(14)DAYS TO INFILTRATION CHAMBER 59 ... PLACE CLEAN-OUT AT !i i NEIGHBORING PROPERTY ACCESSIBLE LOCATION i 1 TAX4OT 206 STORMTECH SC-740.CHAMBER---- / i' /L --.... • PER'ATTACHED. I DETAILS / / ' 1 r ON PLAN (SUBJECT TO CHANGE) / . i i . /.• i . • , i . . • i TREE COMMON BOTANICAL NAME DBH CANOPY CONDITION* STRUCTURE* COMMENTS - TREATMENT TREE NO NAME (IN.) RADIUS PROTECTION - (FT.) RADIUS _ (MIN.FT.) 0 46.:: Douglas-fir . Pseudotsuga menziesii : 6 : 5 r' good good , ' I remove for in/a iI I • iconstruction - : 47 Douglas-fir i Pseudotsuga menziesii ! 8 5 1 good good !remove for 1n/a m !construction ! . ;.__ 48 Oregon white t Quercus ganyana 20 15 . good poor i high crown remove for in/a o . oak construction _ 49 Douglas-fir ' Pseudotsuga menziesii 16 15 good good remove for !n/a construction 1 _ Douglas-fir . Pseudotsuga menziesii • 6 10 good poor high crown remove for 1n/a 0 i !construction , '---- good _ . p 1L5D Douglas-fir ; Pseudotsuga menziesii ' 20 15 , poor 'high crown remove for n/a iconstruction ; . .. • it - Douglas-fir , Pseudotsuga menziesii 8 10 good poor ;high crown I remove for inia , 'construction 1 _ ._. _ _.... _._ . _. . . ; ' ftw'\ kDouglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesli 4 ' 5r good poor exempt due to size, high crown !remove for in/a ;construction ' _ i! f5- Douglas-flr Pseudotsuga menziesil 4) 10 ' 5 good , poor .... , ._ ,high crown -- lremove for 1 n/a ; , 1' tconstruction . _ . . . . ____ _ _ . _ . _. -- -!-; - - 55 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 12 10 good poor !offsite, high crown I retain , :dripllne . . _ _ ;equivalent 56 Douglas-fir , Pseudotsuga menziesii 10 5 good poor :multiple leaders, high crown 1retain ;dripline i t __ _ . equivalent . . ___ i s -- Douglas-fir- '_ Pseudotsuga menzlesil 10 . 10 'good _ poor ;high crown remove for !n/a :construction . .-.1 .. . _ .. - - 20_ - good ; . ' o 0 bigleafMaple . - -Acer macrophyllum 18.. poor ,codominant,extensive branching over ;remove for :n/a future structure ;construction 1 . 59 Douglas-fir • Pseudotsuga menziesii 18 15 good poor :offsite, high crown :retain 12 ! ,-• ,_ 60 8 10 Douglas-fir i Pseudotsuga menziesii good good ;offsite I retain :dripline 1 .equivalent .... ___ . -biglea.f maple — Acer ma-cr-dphY Hum 10 10 - good poor , ;suppressed :remove for In/a • I ,landscaping • _ _ ---- -- ----- . 't -- - . _ . 0 ei) Oregon white , Quercus garryana 24 25 good poor 'one-sided due to competition with tree,remove for .n/a _ . oak i .63 'landscaping . _ e Douglas-fir 1 Pseudotsuga menziesii . 14 ; • 20 -- good poor .one-sided due to competition with tree iremove for n/a ! 62 landscaping . _ ; . . ..... . . . --- bird cherry : Prunus avium ` 16 15 - good good invasive, photo ;remove for in/a ! ;landscaping _Oregon white --- Quercus garryana ' 16 15 good poor !offsite, high crown,one-sided 1"8124.elzi;:oevecoki ky • 66 1 Douglas-fir ; Pseudotsuga menziesii : 18 . 15 good • good property line I retain :dripline ; 'equivalent •1 -; Ii 66.1 Douglas-fir : Pseudotsuga menziesii 24 20 good -. good 'offsite,approximate location added to !retain 1Z I 1 !site plan ' _ .. .__ . ,. . 1 ---------- - 5.' Douglas fir - Pseudotsuga menziesii • 14 15 good poor ,one-sided ;remove for in/a , - ! - :construction - -- -- - -• --- - • — 3 • TREE COMMON BOTANICAL NAME DBH CANOPY CONDITION* STRUCTURE* COMMENTS — TREATMENT- TREE NO NAME (IN.) RADIUS PROTECTION (FT.) RADIUS (MIN. FT.) i i 68ti ^Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesli 8 10 poor poor suppressed 'remove for ;n/a - _ 'construction r 69 ; Douglas-fir I Pseudotsuga menzlesii 14 15 • good good remove for ;n/a ;construction '"wndition and struiure rating includes excellent,good,poor,very poor,to dead/hazard • • 4 Photos showing the grade of the slope behind our home and large trees on our property that will be negatively impacted by the proposed building plans and tree removal on 17918 Kelok Road. The pink flag is the property line. The trampoline is just on the Fleck's side of the property line. (Please note how close our big firs are to the property line). � li � Yillie f, + Iltii r,t�r ,. .._r-..- -rte rye• err It • � � r . 8.111M. • -x .� , t ^ ..1..t. t'- 4 I.' '11101101101., t7...., ...,, . , 4,y , f , .:- .. . , t, . ._ i ii 1 , %,1 -.... . ..., . . . ,„ • ., _...„ , , 4. ., ./. 0,it •' • . rvr•' Q ! tr. ( j ,yttyi• ,ii '• r "R J ,M' r xdie {.': l t• , - ,« yam, •� 011P ....r o. 7' - ' '..•::::..""%trA:.*-1 dr,*::..7.tikr:: 1‘- 44 ed..- ....„ • „ -',......::•'-'4`tiliirlri.......'tt ,i.,,,..e, ::,, • :� p� . 3 / , i 'Via . .,,,e.P• ..'L -4, F„ ~ • 11 AO ...'.s#�., '4• 49'9• ,,r.•Jr a� •.• • " " .. - • ,. i • M1 1 w :1000e ,s., ' '4.' ' • too: y s w "7 a• ♦ r? Tar 40'1, •.� • . , 741ItY ,. r 4111 y� j• .10! y ' a ._ '' it...'!: ' i'6.E"�rr 01 ttar 'Mig.t _ + �• �rfl i. • • r rye:. l {' ` -��• „,.�- -"~"��.: •�.., '•ea ter "'1 . .. 4 r ,It, .Y: • 4 • 7 .. _ ; },Y,_ 1,..'tea Y��t w `_ , �� ' r 'a C 1 ,.....4. • • - s , . sae+eAI . t. iJJ�'L! i } . A e C q t,� . k." r•yr ++a1r.fS•wIY'!/A; " }, Yr`t `Y++�_ Y•� �' �•. fY y.,f { ii . • ' t Ya ,-.1....-',8•"A. •t{aiv\+ t yl l t Y ,1,i." i .4, . ' Y 8 *• ` 1 s t • ?'tc �.i • �°)• '.; .fl - l +iti ti. 7 'F� • .�y t i, 1221 .�{ yi;r's l . „. Art ..at lit, 1114 42 0 ' •: �.. , C 41 ' � _1� • 41611 1 iv* --. .. ., . ;` .E« ° .. • iy • awla w 7' l: - • - ate. 1 =Y • ' _ r=_- y i i. , •� ' ' �, i., ^` 9 �� ,' f 111111'{ t � 1'777� '`r tet: — --�.� .. tea` • y\ • *V• r 1 . . -0i. �'^, t rw. • te ��., ,,a r 11111 . • ti ... • _ , . . . . • ,r .., . k...,....... ... • - 001 iLk .•.'• R t• - •' , jam. '''' 4.0.1111,Wilb••' ' • '‘41,..;.11:14 r 1 ':, 7-_---:-----: -. - --• sem, s hA.k s x y. . a . 0 ' -._ - _ _ 3 x 'c. f �" y / ri --- . , 40f If lir \ ' .\ 4 . . 4 41111101 14111r - i • r s I i aiir i a { til ' m #' 'l 4 ge '„ i. 'I n �' k: ' 1 •Al s n .•a. .,:,....:7 -7 ilbi-.:77.,..-....7'.-1-•,.-7-..7-:t I':-7- -..,;_1`... --(..,,44.4::,---;--404.,..4, ••••=-•.?,,--7. ':44,1--- --47 ••• - ...'-7. ';- -• ,-: - - — . - ..- --—pi) - y . .*.:,..,- , -. .,. ter_g-s.t. .--.:,.,i'... . .t.t. — ..... s 41w-'..' ......"-. • : '.0 4. '' `,AlOW:-.•.t.. ....-.....,."4. ...0... ••. „ . ••• ,•,..° A . ....f--- , . .ik ,• `..„„)...4.., .. VI 1,h `• - •••. ., i',,,,,„.. .. I,-, * -..:30,.......4t;...4A0.0• 1,41,„, -tr ....,....•..sr•tc.,.,..'..,,,L, • . •. 4::-.•.... ...." ,, , 74. _.... , , 71,.„.,"—r,., -,I Y• . ' 44 ',.•••• ih,6...„..'1414. '''-' 7.- '4.-A.'-.'r • • 2.:.* ,.:'.-a „a'." ..."4-, 1:4,.."4- A...LI:3,4,7: • 4'.X,_,twallit- , ' . , . ' ,_ . , 1 itl'ti . 7 77.1.--'7'lT.. ll :.Th.l'ir.644di,4,,,,-2.i, "17: . ...;,;--41_,2-...L.. ;'-;'1.4.64:.A.itto4::7:7.„ .•,-.:.--. -...7:,„?.- ..,-,,,. ,—.L , ..... 'tt,p • I ,,„_ ,,Q00.... 0.... .. 1- , , 14. +. 15..•..1, IIP . 1 ,1114111114p id I...' ...e .r.!. • ' ill•., ,_..:F...,.. , '-.. .*,7.- -. ''''.'N't v‘,..,,,..4.44. -., - . -:4..1 40 ,. . ..., ',. .. . '7*-....-4. ''' ' . 4.:_k-, "Ark."4,-,'-:•:'-'‘' - 4 'lit iiiii...r3e-r-lit-. - 'Ir.' -:,-.,:"4111•:;'- ",.` : - Nei' "\* '..."!'.4."' ... * . •- ' - '',t4i-d..,..• -'". 1 ', --iriv"--.. ...."...- - . • °S ,,,,...., ... . , ,„...„.:„.„ ..,.._ , ,,,,,: ... . „..... —.mt.; t -...,,,, .. . .4......„.,01, —,:.. ./. ,.... ' • . . t., , ‘ r45115,15 -* ''1 ":".. - —.at,.. '1,,.--4..i.7,;):o -1,ft. 7 7 : , . _ '•-'. *,,, •-• - -49*,At; ._ • - •••, -- 11,•.. _ • 1,-4,,, : . 141,,j ,.tr '....•.4../D' •'......Z.1....-...:1.t ..''. : . .Ilk& 4......, ',.._4-e) , •• ,,,,- - ,1 .t.' '.':44•4. '''''.... I. ' .. ,..,.-:...I r dli% ' '''• ... • .1.4.:.: -... . ""1'1 I i 7, .1.M... ... 1•,..,''; frer,•. ".1* l!'f. .*•;, .l' , '''-,t,/,;,-- ell '-•;. a- el , 4 l'.'.:7- ',..-•- .. . • :ft, f •• '-• A*'4., ...- .-.''''' "...,.... '.. )--' " ;--ar 0 - _•-, , -• _,. -*,• lc -...,‘,..„..711 7, - --i.r ,. 1 —4, . At',,. . -.... . ;- ' 7.-. '•• 'If„ t .••• ..--• . '_•9;,,,A ..,77 . • 1 tialr`. .-- *.j.••• .- °:•••." . r ' '4111441L... ..--...." ''''''' . • .,* af... - ,' - '.--v''''-'..•- -7 .. - ..-- , • ••' - ''' . ._. • ,. ' i -- — . • - •-•-:-`. ' - - '-'5, • i- .r.i. .."'ll.... t-44' • ....kit:. '10,.t • •-- -.."`'' ....- ,,2 ,-:-,: .,..'':--,- • ••II:' s';*1- ,. .: . r., ,... - • 111 . , ...... - ._. ...4* . ' —7.'-!V••:4• ' —' ..- .* • 4. • ' .‘, ''1 ,,, . -loic-ii . -.4., .. ,. . : .P. ---- - c - " . - --::•. 4.,.:`,.--,.-ZI.':•4411.:-1-74,....'":. ...' ' ''F:'• r''''' i .. .41/ ‘ ,,t, :, •' •, 0,'':), . • . , i . . - 1 •/%:' ' • • ' y, , , • .... .. • s i ),,' ' • ,i, . ., . -4 li,, . . .';, 0 \ . • , . .• , • , -. . . . • ,•••r. A.,_.-4 r., ,-- -' '''-•."*.101.4•11-1 .i$ .411•-.- .,a- '••;•:«1.441 fr... ,....,.;tiel !SVS4 l' L _ • -; .. ... ...,. !,,,L....-•-.4!•• . - ' i .c,.... --J ,. • ..,..,; , .. .', ., , (,r'i,'• ... ,J. '.. .„'..:--'''.. . ..i- '''':.- ,'..* "4'. 1,..." .,• •r. „.. • :A•:., .,.. . •/' .) 4,, -4; '. ...?,,,g,1'.:,',„.. , ,.,:e.,, I. .. . \ , )ele.., 1 7 ' ....2.1tie .11.. ',4404,b,• . f...• , , '"0, -.. .t.,...,- ,ii•; 7,1it. ier..141% • : .. .• f /4 . ..., ' . • ;6',.. '.i..''.ir i. .,4:.'-2;.•':-: 6 . ' • •. • ..4 •‘ 9 ' •?‘ . •;./''.1",• ; .. " • ' '• • - .. ." •1`.'•K., • -,• ^ • ' .! . '' "1'0 i „4 ii--*. c Iff - •,'...'-• • : ' , •-.')i - '' -- •• - t'4.-'• a t -0,•' ' ....,; .i., , ... -,.i 0...'..fr. ,Alk..•;+"',T, '- r• •.. .- c- , - -1...'^..... I jt.. •1.. ,t. 's : n I • .....• / , t--*kitcsof ••- it ‘ek , .'ill4 . • ' '' ..... . !.7.;• t ....f.,..4• •,,.!• ..,.,.... ',..- 1?"1"ti,4.1. .,° . - .-f.r .4; .". .•• *': :V 0 T•sies'4.1 - .1 ' P ' ••- -X • ,• t,!',.41. ' ;• • :.I% iii A 0...'44.. ...:.f.12!I,e.t.,r...syx es,.,.•,e.......r,.,K i .<7;:' ' \ '.1,,.. ; I I .:. ,...4.,,i,•;;;:,...s."? 4 4t.;., ,..',4- • , .1t---,,,,,,J,2 , . ‘0,iyi , , • .•-,,p• -. ,....,_...,.,. )1 ....';-•-: i.T.-I...4— . ••?', '- -•,•• , • -'0, .,.•-‘.' 4,:• 4 , • • ..,...„.,.., ,• ,,.. . ,,,,• . . • rPi • ' 1 •-45,t.n0 ;140 , •• . ., . , , . • ....., -k--, ....- 4.VI*• ',. 2... 4, r......1 e „ri,,,e^3' ;.,- i. — , e , ' -,.:4 - ,..,:-, , '.-*. • . . : . . ' , A-,w 0*„ T•• I:. '. 1 1 i • . A.:,4114..V°. s'.' ::'.- -- 0 • . A ' i, .6., ; i./1‘. • .•• 000 - • - ' • • ,.. r -A -. - • i 41-• 0 i t,. _ . i , - ." • --.q': •' . ' .. , • 'v A • 4.; ...) I 1 ' I , :- :',. .. •. t 0 e .1e. , . .._ ...„. ' N ailliall -,-.. - 0 1 17 i, A III " ' 's ' • . , 11.;,"4• ' 1. ' / )11 4 i t , • f . ''''M .'i,.. •• t's , ' . . i • L ii.`' 1 - . .• ,I 4, 1 JIM ' i 1 -, , , , : ,', '':•11, ''• 4 , I • I • 'Tifi*: ' :i t,•a41110 ' 111' k't 1 1 , I I I 1-'' — '• '' V • i'' . 41. 1 I 1111114 •/',, •'? ! i ', / 1•1 P.4 ti' I 4 '•, i I II I 410 .t • ,, ', 1 i. 1 $ • ' • 404 / ,• 1 ,,, :. , • : ) •::14# . ' ' il, ..,01% - - • ,, ,,,,iiiii'; ii, . , . . 'i ',, • . , . ''. f. , ._ tf,tuf /, • ' / j1014) ! Ili% . if, , ii ' ' 1 • :: . i- ,..0 , • ,. .•, 44,i " I , ,,,V. .1 • ,' i 4) - , • 0, ,, 40, . , .• , ' , .. ' ' ' 14,411.,alktil 11114041.• ,:.''''i ' ' . . , q * ' g‘ A IN; ° III 4..646 '' Ilfii , P i , 4ti ! il# y ,1/' 10;6 At OPP 104 tt,cr, , , 1 ..v.,41WN ' • -4111iik 4 / ' afitiVit , 1 ilif 0,40 41 .•,'',r'i q1,4 .34,, lgrill1111110110010- . ........,....• . rI At• . V cil I "' '' ' •hk, . , ,.,A.., '. • Ali -- -••• , ... 4 , „.;1 • e ,u i , k _ . V, all if, 1 •. I '' 7 111,1-14111, • • .4 4.. • %Alt , • + '•'1 I, a On OA, '. .,,211 ,,,,o,•,.•,.. ,,,,,,• • frat WOO 4) . •• i".: • ' 4.0 ' • i ! N41414;7 .4' A 4• ki.!‘ ,J1 - o W 5,,,,IV' A' iii ji , • teg,r, ./!,, , • , AeriS''' i:li?, .... ,ovir . .„. : , • • .,•,:,;s , ,. •,...,41", . ..., n#1100 .: „ ,•*.4,4, .0,.., . #. AV. ,, I-.,,,,,, • . :/00...41 .•ii -,4t, • 'tie' IN ,,N, .4.„....,. .....-..,.• : „I -. . 41., . . , ,it. fil 4 k .AIV , '',, ' ' . '4.,:. 1.,I ity. ,1:00,.,•,t ,.,0!..1.. .4 ,, _ !r•... ../,, ,. . ,' ,iik , 4 ',. -fr ,i lr Ott! ,4P1 1 • :' • •. "V,A... • •• .7 J,.., • ! , • ',t,,r....., ••• • ......;,. ,. . ,tr, 0,41 .. : s• —.1.•11 , . ,;„,-! . 44 T:t. Afr •1' '''';..j";7.10,41140 !;• if 41 , • ' Aar . .....4 P&.;10ho 4, / .,,iii; _42 , , # :31k° . , ivirk •‘°IF.• , ' ! "Ivy& • .- :* .0,4, Ili* ... k., f•- -. • . , . ,,, , t ,. • . I. 0.4IV. i*' .t.,e •,-.. '.0.•',,k. . t . • ,,!: . . , 1.. : •i. t,, ...„..,:. • ::,..-, •., 4: •• 1. ,/,',", •,- ., • _ • . . . , •P L'.' 1 ,,,'.4.-'•, , ,, ,'14.',.' '411°,." . • . '' ', •• " 1,.. r w:c'44 414:' ,, tod,;de 04 _.,.‘ • 11....' , .1 , , . • 44: '114 . , , • 4' ii, :• „ ' •,•. . .. fiteifie4 44ifir ' 114,‘ ' I' -^ w ,• . ft AA . •or s ' ,i• 7.. , . ,: ...4.14, .P.' Ap1,11450 • '1 • . ''.. :' • •-,p, 7• ,,11 - •-••• ., -;•,4,fr• • .arOp .11'.1 p • ,I" , ,.• . tp, . A' .,• • , _ . 0:. ,..,A•••,,,,, „ , • .1 •, ; NAtfl,„, Air.,: ,-..., 0,,-.,T.. • , ,, ,'"4, i i'. „Ell• . , ,, . , . • ' '.'2,/,''ill',.• 1 ' .tif • , , , . ,„„., , io •-.. . ''': '41' l•-'' : • ''' .''.„:•',/'.... '' -• •• y-4,,t, 4111.* ;00 tito, U-IV .: - "•.• • , '.... : '•- ,... ..., -'": '' -,;, • .., , .1w,A •,I.• I. . k . • 15 I i 9,a 4 ,..V !'! '. ‘ •.'1,.; •'. .',II.•,.e, t`.41,(k'"1- . • 1"1. . 4. • -,. . .14, . r. '. r ".• Ilk."'" •'t fl; .'r • ;,t,',.- : •,..'; ,,,;!,, "-,., A , ,.••••ir . •.# wr. . t „„,,,,t :, , ,, i.,,,,•_,...: . 4,,i, _ ::, 5,,,,„:,,,, ,. •, • ;, .: ,o,.- ' :i " ,1 i •i., ' t '''' . ... - .. ,... , .; . • 'W i'44,A, '''.". '' 'f.'itif P.- • 4 :•. ..•f,••••.' :. , . , . • , .',/,'4 1 ," r.., , ,..,,,, -', n, ,:in.4..,30 . ,,,i, . r ' ,r I r i I 0-` -a* r 0l 40 r • . '.r r '. I r 1 ' i * sot:• I,A:- , ", . I '4;111) Al ill 1 1 0 t` •., i, , , 1' 4.,, I i ti 4111 IV 1)0 A I ti A 4 I 1 " 1 4 in 041 t'ii 14 0.if /4, t .4,..... , 4, . t. ' 4 , ,., loll ii; 14 4 - ...61,4'r• '. '.• r'' , 1.4 •/. e • .1 Fr, . o' 1 , , I , I , , . or, Dl ,, k„ % ' lo I'16 8 1410 i• #,•' I•" 11 . . ". , IA' /av 11. .. i • ' ' . 1., A 10 I . 111 *1 4 41. )17 t'., ,10., , , ,4011',1 1 , '. 0 ‘''," St A a .t 9 tt* 4 /i , ,64„, ,, • • r,f 1.; ,. , , ,, ,,0 / l' sj -1' I* 1 * !poi6., . t , • 'el ',. ' 1 ' 4 '' ••,, i tiki , tat 46: • ,E,rii, , 11? 1 r 414- 4 4.4 , ig i f 100,4 i,' ' , .4, 1#.4,: 2 044 ,111, , ., „. , . . • • , .WI 4.ul '1 ,r ,''' 1 9' ! . . ' s . w' . J. p • , .. .."1 ..- ii.-• ''r 1 • , ,k 7' '7,4 ,,I ;i• ,. ,, ., ',AV/4 ,P....i, .4 : .11,6 it I NI „ ,,,,,,,,,k 411 i 1'' " ' . 'q'''.. . ; ,I • t 4 ' .. i I , .1pl d ili .....t ,,. 4' .1 '' , '4.4m, -. t'l';'40' ' ' `5, 1 ,,,.. i 1 711 • 'poi. i ,, 0 ..„.‘,4 .. 4. 4 •••••• 1 • , ._ ' ,( • 1 . 0 ,. . i. .,, • ", ,,. , .., ,iib .1 Y ft 1161.14 a , ot - v• .. ,,-64 ,,. - , ts • . 00i,,,.1 v,,,, • i . . .• ‘ • • " .11 ' .11,A;r , . 1,,, , , i ' ' vr '1 ' ' 'LA ,, , • .1.,,,,,,,t. Us!, .66.6,,,, ; .. . 4 s);# k , .11 . • . i, „ 4 426 ..4 . , 1 t 1 f Ilk'billagillb II. A„0. I, '..".. ' !' ' 16bq k• .; . , , ,' t. 1 I . , • a„.. A . 6 , . , 0: 1. ., , i - ‘ i t 6 . x ,7 , . , ,, , , , 1.4., i k Ir. • 4, Mt . my* . i ..,... . • • ,),. ; t, .. i - . • ..'. , . . , . 4 , i • I . e ' , . , ,•, ,..• di.'11., r..... VI . ro r• I . ' . if brtf' '.k‘• . a „- ,b VII r 'I 1'' 9 4 , i •I 4V. W 1 T 4' .4 4.• 4 , . '1,' • , ••,. • , - • 0•• .1 4 ,, 'V I *4411 t 0 . 44"1141, t ' Ain' 4/1:0 . I' •V 11 1. • 0 , ' At i / . IF- , ti . ''',.. - ,‘. , •i. .. :., , ./' 4, V 1 • Ar 4 t * / • '.'' 11‘1 44 4 ' 01.. • '' '' 46' 10,'.:6 I '.. %,11 \ , , 1,' 4 • t I ' •,,',' , fc 4 I , ,r,1 „ . • -, , di.,I,, i, .) ', A . , I,h. 11, . '11, , • ,,„„,,i ' 4,, ,,,d 4 ,4 64i . , We ' i 111° A .. i ,. . I •; a/ t ' .",,:•••44---tir ' 'fl ' 1;,' . `!. , ,, . 4 sk k 7- ,6- I 'it • ‘ ' ' ,ri li ‘1 ''0 0 4 r ••• ' IV 4 ........4. 4 11/4 v V • *,,,, .4 1p itc k ,,it,• I, '$$$$:1 1 . 'Mel' ' 1 '4,i 'VI), •., t V • . . • . of .1,, ..i • . . ., , foo • 1,01, I.< , ,41• ,. , ., . , . ,111(1 • I • 4 .°- litf .. 4 06,,,, - tl ,L, '41 :'.:04.4 • <A ' ' I' b ,I A A .. / , .1. , - • • , ,, ij ,,f. .. -. I •-• tc, b , f.* • ;LA, . \NI1f4 't fr. 'l 10 f.:if r r• r "1 .. r . A . . ko,•,, 1 1 ,: a it ail " `• ' lib Ak` . ' trial t I ,,k .40, , • TA, Wall'• l ,1, ohv i'tI,14 114 4' '' 4' ,7:. n • '4'' . '',1111.60111111* _. ji irt. •-• 1. /1-,1. 'V( ' t ' '''' ' I 41. ‘. a 6 .,,, I • „.. at, s ' •6% , 5.. i ' ° 44 , tit, ,,a., . ,,, ,Wir lir...--,;,-.1..—"••.--v.--1---- , i . , ,, ., 4 , If* .'I, 40 . • ...4..6„ .11,3, ..., .r. .1,, , .,,A 0 ...I . r, , tag 41-4, ..1' ,, 1) f•I .. 'X' • "''',... '''k: 4. 910. ',I,. , ., ..\ • P, 4 , ' . f • ID -'.. :. ' • i ' A .. 4‘ *IV,Itt t •‘•1. ' 41 - •lf, * ..:" . • • , bialiLr. • 0 • %. ' ti .: . 4!..s, 40 1 4, . --• • • . ,, 4,r —..:..,. .. ,. ,4,4113 0, ,, 4 . • „. . „7"... - . — . 414- -. • - '%...'` . ... . • ffrt e' •'VOIP• oile • al AP 1114 . . •' 4,;• • • .6" ,,. 6.,1,,, tt. „.,, , , r. • , ..'' iik' ick .414417 .- . • ''''' ' • ''-:' i'l , 1.'44, . , ,, , , ki' .II, " •' .,llii y?,,• 1„..:‘, ' *' , ' a,.., .:'. • 12 A ,A •'4i. ' V I• kr„, ,$.4i v• - . ..,. . ' A cit 1‘11111 'i' . • 6. • -4.....r.,4 . ..,..,-. . . • 66k• ' a. ita,41;, '. it •. ,--.., , . 1 ,, ...... ., ,„.. • , . . V . 11.;.';•-',0 „ .,v. aati .+11 v-(v. A, '111 ,t• • a . 40' litii '' ° v ,I ,.... . -..,..,, .„, ,„,f ..„.: , . ‘. •„, , .,;., ... ..,.., ... ,...I .„,. . ‘ %,-,,..' ...-•'• - 4 "I*: ..*•Yilt 41C/V *:.% .' . L. , ..A's .1 . .. 4 I1 a , ..„,,,, .... ,.. ... .'!‘,4 ,.- ,..., ..,.• - -1. ).•‘. , - _. iv,' '4.i.,.,• . •. .., : 1.:.- 14. • i- 4 1 ' ' ,_ , ;, ...,: . v4 ., 1 , ,. .. • , .4.,:" s.,,..,,,,, i-v-,...„,, .s ,...%. r k .. . ; -,, . . : . '-'4` -4••• 40C,,, '.44^ \' ..i - •- — •C• '4„..•7 , . ' '.' • .: •. . —) , ..., i ,..1v . 'Iv' .... ••* . )4 \"•A'kk • •4110 ,i • t A I?46 '10,, '4.2,\ • I iir,a 1, ,/ '11.\.,„ b g•— ' .I.i ' r •• , ‘, 2 2 — . •2 Photos showing the steep degree of incline from Cardinal Drive up to the Fleck's property line behind our home. „,,,_.4t.,,,,,,,.,,,,.:,._?.,,.,,,:. .,,,,:,,,i,t..17.1.:-.,:air000tlitl., A • . \ , \ „,,',.../. VA.. 4' . ,e• i f4/4„„„,, .. i. 4 f ----' , ,,,,, :.,, • „, . . -4.i) ,. ,iti,. .,.; ,L. . ,,,..„ , . . 44 - )... •, ,02141641‘1111.',! '-'411111 , .. ..-7',41,'4,40;40 ••C. *k 4:: , : ,,, - ..‘iiiipor* ... - ... _... mit„. • -‘,. ._ , .., . .., , . .„1/4. ,.,. •4I 4 . . 1 y ;l P �Y• t- . ' ,,, ..,„-- .. ,t. , ,,,,, MA !' 1 %".. 1111 �-- t j}I '''l 1MM4• ' •� f s" 4010/6 4 ‘14%, • • e tia< •• - • aupipp0.10 ,,, a ' , ., .0. lit ��' ' 0., •;. .. .. 4.. . •,,,,,fi • � v ” • *r • ; �^ ' ;r yf re . ' d < Ya• r• �. il ''',.• i �/ ' T �J� r y ' `j f• t , r .."."44,4 ri 9 ' , 4 f / .,I r• .pi A ► SI t y 4rI' 4 �t14gEki i r y, AL � „ . la' � - " ' C' :� ', i n /' '1 , h 14414° p, 1 il 4. ,44, A. :,4, ' ' r, w. ,� ,, • Ai ariaor I._ 1,' , 11111 ; 'i • P i ISO edity 41...a .it • ,/it, •. .i , µ L+ ,'• y, f "P. 4 i'„ 11 ~I �' 1L. , n., \k L� �I� •4�y ir,iiiikl• •j n . T IM 0 Nit .� C ,�•”a 0, • f - ly •�. t 9, •1 • r • es, '*!iJ ' ifrI ++^..• ' pry •' t �I' -' tip ' f a.•P ybx • )! � 'f: t ir y T `� �rl ' - ffltr ► .41I n i i I .w , ,��♦ r 1I ! 11Ii $ i R 1 — I f. +� • ► I k I �,. 1 �' +4 i j ` 3f .1, ' f 'II „'� 1 I., I • t lol .f.,,i- . ., .4‘; .. 1,.;,.;. i, ,,• -.. .,• • v px ,', , • �jy e ..'?t" \ '',...1.+V ,i * , C� t! �'f•w fl �# 1 1 4 cr 1J' ,,� ' + 46, i�" 0 1�4, ill t4•;, C ,,;.f ) w,�y� '3 41i�, •�w• 1 1 I4`i is .r; -4 • i• .. y. 4 . ,r . ` \ t .1f e + .1. is ,• �, Air t' • v k tt ° 1 '�_ • rF,i If-t .1• 1.µ.'.t; a `i �„4' •'' , • -' 1 1 1 '; '� 11«: I.x ..4 xi' u', r , ' _'�l•1 T / 7 ` • Ili ` ', .'•'31 ,f , I t „{• � \`1 , ,d ..• 'II.♦ „, 11 n rl f�', .4 y, v T ,:-'� • 4 1 '4 i • ,, 1 4 11 , , 1 0, t• i itr n1 1 tf*,P '` 4 11f tft , 1 3111' ' t�4'`�' tt' ' t t ,\'\\ � 1 ' {V�*.i, 1 1 , ,1 ~:j13i61 y ,1 114th d' ' " 1 •410 'F _ ` 1 j f r 16at� 1 1 ,104A 1\ '1 Aie. . 1 4 n /7/4/,///1/,,Illoie.S , • .. • • Law..•••••• . ^.'" ' • i V d . :14• 'I, 4 , */,.' , / •,.. ,.... 1, . ,,, , , ..',4.,. oi tits— i4, r cot, , , I. :1010 "4 fr i . ,. ,....• • ad ' •,I ' , • ' ‘ ,• , ., - 1, . . Pif $ , , . ,, , • .„; .., • ' j... ri . fioir, /f4g )4. , .. ......,/ .. , . .... ,.t.. v. , , , • , _ ... . i, • •//t ,. 1 : '. • . • '''' ' ' r.4 0 ,,.. .. , •• • ,, •41, ,..4'i . :,•: $1, :'..r-II ' . , . J,.V r, ,, ,_ . , ..,. ,.„.,,. . , ,.... , A, ./ / 1 ' " 'I •I i ..,6 , 1,4 • *or f .1 Ad , . A r• ,... '0 '' 'it t''- f-rter' ,, • .3. 4, ,!.- , . A .i.,..4 , •i- 4, . ! , • 00 4, • •, , ., . •,,.•,4 tg4, P ' • r / 1 • 1 , , i •: . .., ...e.--t '..,. tip ' fr' i , • . , ' - bfr4ti . , 2 - • ;(105, ?...„. 1.,,. . , f , • :,„,I 1:':,,41 i'V 0 I*, i .JII • • ' • ,4 . • ;24'. ' • ' ' '-'— ..! • f. ' ."• ' ,Ore ' .4-- • ' , f .-.• •••." ' . r• . t . 41. .. 1 tt,' f' .' $ „:. •I . •• 7 54i.,44:.,,_,4 •; l..,-, - A. ,...., . P ',-- • f . i, . ., ' ••..",„...._4",;(`. t.- , • / •-•.** ' • 4 • • i Milt. •A'''''• .f. A ' i . - . T ''''''' ••• .1.1 4. 1 . • 194,....-4, * •Y ol Apt . . . ..,. . • ,,....... • • ....be . . . .,4,4?ril.,,,,. ••• ,. ' -, - ,...4:461 , .:,_ .- f J r,,ir..,,,.,0,17.-, .1,_J : e _, .. ..,' ;4,i!' '•I ri, ''''40 ' I , •• , ' .. ' '• t weV' • ' 74 '• . ___.... , _ . . • '7 , ;•*1'. , 0° -.4..* ... .......Mi4d, • . 5',41,r11 -..0, . ...... . • 4.,..... ,31,.; , .. .. e _ . .A . A 4 • r •• . • ', -, ti • P. .• - 1F., '4' . ... - . 44 . , . . ••46,"*" ' 1,, • . je ,•:- ' ' a. ...,,- • . , A ,- , i • ,. :L ,..:.• ./ .• , / r / '..• . ''''' ••• ••• i 0 itt f 1- ..'' .{..• .W ..;•.''. ''' . • ' I . • ••• ', .' i. "'', -' I.'r...'. ' • 0,' .it ti!'1..*".'":i .,7 1;4144. 4•4W"? f' t . ,. .... ... - .. .., . , ...... A..., ,. „... .„:„.,,,,,,., „. .,...,(.:. . ......4,.. • - , of, , . , , .., ic -- '.- — , -. ,.. . 0 . . . i r •• 1_,4 4-0 • . •,' . • .r.„ - . , . .-..41' .... 1,.. •o.” ....,. . ' 0 I I 1 ., _. ';,.. •-• ir —'•7 ;IC ,.. ' C. fr• fr A • • .:. Alt _..... ,, : r) • • .., r i• ;.,• * ,,,,,,, -„,, _o, ',. i -4 - • . .-,..e.,;..4. , .• •k, . ' 1 ., -- -,.... - ..... ii. 7:0-:., • .. . , ...,,,,,,, •:- ,...,,,..J•„...., .._ .. . • „.. 1,,,,--..1.„ 1,„( ..- • 1 Ale 11 e , .10,, ,s, to ...,• '' 1' 1 , .... .4 -.0 • ,,,..f• . ,-,,t• ,, 4 . t ' 4r .... •• 'S I t • ,, / • ,0.,•••tr, . • .r.L • 41... , . • • ••..-.". - ' • '' • . ' I t '') i .. .- .4.- • ' ' '.• - • 1 , t'1 1-'""it U'itillair,aii: ; 11,11, , •••'` •tr _ , i' ! 1 i`g '' . ..J •. • -,' ... , ., . . 4 i Xi i ti I i I •I I ! 1) i .b t ' #1 j,•11 . , .• • , ,• ' ''' • '. ek4, I i 1 1 ''ill ./ "/ I iir—ri g• I 1 I . • 1' ' CI ,1 is I I ': I Hi t‘r J 'ji 1 f" 1 'Ilkl' • - . • , I ' i 4 ... '" . '*• /* I '1111' ' lig .. „...,,, . - , • . . , ,,,, .0 II . ' .. -; . 1 i ' 44* 0 •0 f'l i i' t• i it 1,61,1 's it I if f I '..-42.: , 1 ' . ; ,A '; il 1,1 I .1 I 10 orri 'l It . . . ,, 41 , II it l' • 'II VII . 1 1 1 0 ! ' 1111 i'i).,' II l' -'° 1 .,, 1, t V • . • 0 _ ae- ' CI).1_,, _ i_...L I Photos showing other homes that would be in danger from slides and/or falling trees. ,\Cii,... 4. , . , • l ,6- 4 . ... t • I- :.* 1. -1, , -y'. ,,I a '. ,f ,• ' , ` : • r, - cy16. - s". 4 • • 1-4: ' 7�:t 1„- .. . ,. .\. i . 4.- . :4t ' -,. .* ' --7- •- Ir. i ,,,, ,, 4ir , ...es ,'777,.,,, . .. ....._r....„,ep .-!'.” 'A. ', ••'{I* ... ,,, „. „ . . .. ... _ ,... . _ , 2, . 2 , ...... , -,,, ..: , _ ,,...... • „ . . ... • • -__,44,i41; - . t -- 'It”' ...•• . .. •• ith-1 ."-, t `',- • - 1,...:1,4',‘,.:it . .4' '—`• - .IV, 111*6•1".4 Sill ........1. # - ri A` ,.• A /i31 t. •• t 3 *, • • Ai- .• _ _ _ { ,••• '1 .11111111MENk ` y y ill ..., .1,.. ' it • - •,.-7, .. ,:i-. ?c," ' L .I • • a I' ��F 1�`. ��i, jt,-•fig- .4 _ h • ` V. .4 ,/„. • ii. , 4e, t: 1 ♦ ayy r !llfff/TT y ' ' ''. 1 4, ,..-0.,„ii., , ,, . , ma ,,„ . . , ` 47 �..4 ''� ' i ` .` ... 4 ,, 0 ' +�RRRiii ,!II ems. .• +k¢ y�.Y t y, �J'�y� • y R • +YS �R'.i ,s ,, . .. v. .,-. 11L. t. • , t. _ tx., .trty11111H. .• .2'.,411P ,. 10110111".. '1: ' 'HI:..1.111r' .% . - `. NISk: ` N. i,4r w-7 '• `'. .i - ♦ - r.a •�- , flOil 441C4ilr-'11*1101.!,,, :, •$ • + AO Ow Or ~ • is'tM1 ''r `N•,' •V - qq Le 5. . : ♦1 ;:t.... ♦t ir1 • / , R �` �T i—I--1.1 41111 • lit 4111, F" w •�. , fib' ..' _. / j.` . .4. 11 : .1 4'. ', • J , • h • • QV*. !' +M� t Er •yr.�� r `.• ') M 1a . ` • ►* r 3 .. '4-- 1. ' P ' 4. .)0.0 l . ' '`4 . -.-' s '.(0V.- . s.+',Vit, ., 110 -0' .1114r4` w �` iic. ```��t��� • • as' f ° � .; ' i .,.' -' i. J . ,f IM %' . ., , ... .... • , ... . . . . .... • ,.. .., ite ., :... . .4 liak - P ' , .... i '( . * 1 ‘. ,A, 4 .-• '' ' •e,.I,'ii.11,i } a .. no, I'wef we • . . . 4 w. ---'• ',/ • L ,,t'!1•':;,I.1. '' e „... ee .•., : •. •.1 , 4 ,.nr, • fir P • .- ..- r. - - - -41 t. • --•- . • , 0,..7.-4 ..4- • r • 'IC .' . L . . r•• • . . • -. I" 4 ".- P. •4 . 4. , . , s.r..4 4• -.1; ' 4 .. •' ''- • . . .. ., ' ' ' - . - • t ; _''. . N..4 • • . •••.' 'A ,7;•• ,./• • ' . ' *4.5 . • `. • ••11t1. 0 It '," ' :o. a a ... , • i' ' ..'.' • : - ) 1 1 i . ' . . I - - ' l• ' ''' • . , .:, • ''.` ,.... ''' •ii•A! 11 ' , ' ' -••••' '',,. '. •• ' . • ; • 'I; lirttio* 1'.' .- %Ail 11 ' / ,' ilffiliw ,.., .;-....._ .,.. • . . .. , • .,, . .. . ...„ . ..6 • /r'4.' r,- • - la" i A.• ;.. . '. I . e • •.J ' • - - • .1.• • X .- ."''''''.:. V• . , 0 . ' • 16 - • ‘.4, 4 , Ai•4, , . i : , • t•..„ - . .. ,'!;.0.•17.' l' . : . , , - . • 1,7- - ,. • . . ' • if?.• j i cl' . • L..,,. - , ..1h} 't 1...' ' • ./ ''Ø44 ' 1r .. r • I , . ' I ' • . • "re 4 • r e , NO. '' •' •alt • /•. LO o'SY;044;', , 1 1 1 , , • • '''••.. V., t••''. #f 'ilka , . i.'''' • ' i 7"• .'''•• ' '' •it .•,a, ,,, allf .. i, I .' li : . -• . „,... e. , i. ,. . W• _,,,,„ 1 . ,,i ^'1111kr '':. ' - ; '7411 pitilurrE •r-i4. - ', , ,.. ...., ,40, .. . ...,PlOdpelIer ' trip i . f './ a ,s•V i ,-,- . ••••••44,10., , . 1,!' 4- it . . -.., . ,,' .4:,. ° It- ii -, ., . .. . :4, ' ;•.11,•4....,....-....,-„:..,,,,•. ••• .,A. • "No • . . . • y. , .. ,,,,i; -• .- . - . - . . . . , •• ... . . .„..a. • - .1 '-''' ' '' ...-% • ... . .,..... .;.1. .... ,i,A\ .... .„ w . 4• , °'4 jet i e....'IP l' -- .•4, ••••• , 10. 44094P $ • O.: - ..• • ., _ . ., ri d,- '•/ • -4' 1 I li rn k. • - rdi %f.AVii.,..• •. ' . - ai ' ' , , t _ • li 'Or , . • . ,, • . ; 1. - _ Pp4•Po ...-.. • , IIL '4% " - `,. .3). -; • , : ' i 1 , At "/Mtliii.' ft\ 1;*t ' • .1. Iht- . . . . . • - . • -_... .., • e --,Itifor4t a ‘` .' • 'Ak I. 41) , ,.. ..4,1.,, II, : -',.. 4 4,01 „ I . , . a 1 , . , .• . - , Ilp -- • ,„,z -• ? .,4 -. ' 'IF ILI; ii-ril i•tt , -, L- • . -..\ 1 . •-4' 4 41WEekiI!..• ,,N. •" • ' t • . .: ..... , a• • ..• • _ • .1" ' OP NM.... ..... • ) - • • 1, • t• III a ' 4 ...r. .. ay i t.. ... . r 9 .% - • • . ..... 41 • 1 4., • , ,,, it kV.!.i. 7 * • • ,r5;-1_, . r . 4 t 4 .1, '41" . i,..•• ...,..." , . .)1 6. ,. r, i. •i 0 40 •'4" •••••4 ' t 1 II. 4, •., ,4 i'‘,,,• , • .. 4 / .4144 . : • s: . ,s•'--. '• i h ,• • 4 1 , , • -0 . ••• ,./. ... • , ...• Illv , jilt . „ . , . • '-' . .- r..i.jihi ir • .,:•, 'el., . . S. :V. . : 4. ''' ' . iL; i • ije *' '..-' . -.... I..• lt.' ...1 •• '• •. , ;16 • .. ‘• i • j 1 k"".' . t. ...7--, -..: .. , ,e• :•,) . •. . , - ,. _ r . •...27, 4. vor "fpoo.'.4,4 41.• it, '. .4.c - •f• . ..- .• IA,-o, t''' \ . s. 4 • r•- I' ..s. , ....'ir.. O.:.- . • , .. , -t -.: • ' r iieVir, . ' .. ...., . . , .., .• • -4-: i . ' ' •i -• 4 -. .. • • fr /.. - ... .ri . .. , " . , -.:, , _2. i1:41.•• ' ''''-- ' 6-1. ' 5 ' '. i i L . A • • ivh.-. ..-:).` ' -0.. 4 . -i 4. • . .. ..)-- , 1 e :,..... . :. . . . . . - ...,..-4., ..• - - 8‘ ? ''• • ' ... -.% • 1 ,..c% ,.9 1 .',.. lk '4 •, #4 . . ,.. . . . . . ..,... . li;:'• / 1 ;' , 0 111IC•". l • '• 4 0., • --: • ell ...lr.' .9. . ..41•VI. V......,: '•Iii# ... ' ' ... 13). ' • ' ' .7 , wPAR I- '''''' °Pi'..411-41 • .1*..:%;#k . C.- ,..... IN q - ..... . ' /Pr*_4....1.-• , ?", .140 ' e W -Vii 4 Nz..., ' 1. '1• - ' • lit. 4 f •, . . . ,--!, , 4 .. a. i 40 : ip. .1c. t: _4 • . • ,. , ‘... . V-. • ' '• I' .4, ,c., • # . .r. ' ' ••' 4...••''' . a .. . ' .-' w} . - :-(0 4.. . .' 'W. t.• .. 7 ,' ' .0 4- '!;„ ' • . . k •, ' .11/4 1 " Wir • -,..., ,•, • _ '...)____ . 1111 , t k" . * . , , - - .1. .,.',.1,D,N014.%. ..- '. n- Photos showing the area that will have to be graded or filled to create the proposed backyard of the Fleck's house. Adding more than 2-4 inches of soil to raise the existing grade or conversely removing more than 6 inches of soil to lower the existing grade could cause irreparable damage to our trees and threaten our home. Either one is necessary to make this ground level. fir .irk - --4-- .. _ . ,,,,, , ,,. 1, •• p. `.a F P \ 5, �� I c�. - s^ i` t t. • e• .iit,A'. '' 44400, , , ` N : '#.'• f '*Ie. - ,r......,..' .. A. '' lik . ira , . . . r1, • vo Ige, , ,.. , '. r... , ', i 41 . , , • F c eta \ ! Y . 4 tr. , , \ * Lilt . �# ' , V , • ♦ i 116 7. 4 rilio \ tt i 10 , 1111 ♦ f•l } ,rat, ' a• \ r 1 1 .•Nf yd, tr -ter. - t ' e • bol'• !' .. + r■.r."- .j k. fyil Ald �, . # it t e PaL. , i... 1 ,.„ +, 4`e, a ,,'hiy�P • ' lM.. \� �, ` 1. • 40'.ege41,11111k - i •7 IPS:al::tk ,, , j ., ,, , ,, 'A ,i•.v.„ f•47 Ai ..4.S:.4(k.4 qr.*44: , • • •1 0■•4 �: a •' a ,Aa )\� ■ 1 '. ejOP k 46211k-ii - alt:w♦ �•F. '. •' M . �c• '•...1;44 • �1 :fit - 01 If .• . , &*fliiitaTii404.14•: °^ w Ail 0 0 II 1 I iiii.; . 1-1111Wrkit ' - .' 1 .. +rd ,Ie e w� , it t1_ e , ' Al is i � � R ' . • j t •L ` , xok ell i ' 4. k} � � � � \ ` , !1 a , . Ilt� a 1 I \ • • I, 4 „,„„ 4,,.4' MIN 1/11111.1111M111PellAr i •\ . \ . • . * 04 , - •• 41. - ,,‘ \ • . . ,...it . • ... ... , ,' • - * .*s. .4' t - .5 '41 li liile1411ftwill 44 tV.k -, 3.., . , • 1 . I . •A, , 1 f , , * i , .1, ..si• -.•• -.:. . 41 id i t 1 4,- . ja•„, ors / .o t, Nik 1411 • i, ••• 1 .• Tt* •' A ' ink. 4 ,. r _ 1 . •41i ` ,INOli. . ' a •.4 :t.1. 4. 0 4 k . ,P1110 t. , ' _ ;lc .4. ,.-• •. , a i 1 . . '' 4. Aaliffr ir ,4 \ * • .,' .0 .1" i \ it'A. ..7 a in , . , ,. .1;„ ,, . •. • , ! 4. A ,,,,,,,„r. , . .., ‘. A k i. ,.. ir w : • .. I. )9 . I IF ' i , ',•,• P ' I' . ' 0 411ft .... . . iii, • . s.'. ,i =.., \ ' .10 • , 0. , , „, ,,v trtrl... xl- i ," .i.• .!.A file .. ,.•.4.. . 1 '. 1 1,-/i ' ci.,7'..',.' , . , 1011,1 04 t,'11 .‘4% • ' '''i -• 1''', k -1 % '6 • ,. , 4 ' f% '• a% b' 1 A ' .., ... Mt - .•. -.',,,kt+. ,;,, • , ,, ,•••• , . , ilt• 4... , ' '' , 4 , s 1 • `- ) \ • ' - • , . s ., ' t-, - _ • ,11,4 , .. • .• - -.. -'- ... ,i4.. t -t,,,--,, "fit 4,• . 4 ife*-- _ • • , ,`, . 100 iii. . 4itvai i 11' a .4;70,1 .41,4#1014INW IIR,•,, * • ' ,.04 4.• ,.... . . el 1! .,Wir • *) • ' \ ....' r •''• Ai ZI V 4n....": . , ,•.„,,. SI . •u_ icil.,jiii- 4, , WI144.4 ' . ', . „.' •,• - i . ' 41$,,,,A 4 -• • $ . ,.... 0 ... — . \ 41 , .4 . . ,v,,,14'iik r \,) . • - , . ,.. ,. • - ..r . . - 4 • . , , •,..;\ s, '. VA ' ..sri.Oltit % i lit 11, • • ' liPti'N t ' . \ t % . .., % , , -,‘it? , '''' 1 ... 1,. t .04 ' II ' - - •, • :. 41101 NI% it' ,,\ • v L % 1 , Ituf ” "V •/1**-1-: ••• .. 1Y.A'A ' i ". 4 • or • vs, • lit ,• .' • . ,C 4t• . i 1 - - . -!. , • ta k: , . , , t• . -', ,' .• . ‘ ' ft4- 0 1 \ kA 1 • • ,V a . . . . f: • t , 1 • - 4k 1 ,11 { . . ' 44j, 4, ::A . ', ( ‘41111Pk•,•,,1 ): •; , t• ilit ' ''' .; ' \i• 1. ,. ' 1 .' tti 1 I •,,r , t , , t. ..* ‘'t • A \ i ' i ,:_. , '4 lak„,.„ • k "44- l'30/11t, t '1 ' ' ' -. •tV , , 1 * r - 4 t. - — . - I - 1 "'. • 41 ... N .. # - i itilkic ...A ,, V . i ." ' A , 6• il . 4 • )4. ,. .116,. t law t I,4 ,A. ,. . 0 nefilk • .elf 1 , yip 1 7T • l t 'II. till11100 I'. , . % tat , * v i I I i I kil litt%04 " .' .* , . 4. , ... A I N. I i Vit l• " ,. 4: • 1 4S. 141• , IPOP ., 4 t . . 1'.:#4)A4... t# It 1 1. r , , . 1, c' - '• - •,.... t ` 1, 4.,...• . . '" * ' ' ‘'‘ell,, y• . tit , 4.,. • . ' I I'IF' 10 .. .e. PP, Of i§ t 1 r 1 . . 4 -,...44 -- . iiiiiit,,, ,"..... . r-- * 0, i' . . 110 * ' *.',0 4. 'I b ,— • , $ 1 rlit .11111r - :*t . - 1 , ' i 1 0,4407‘4, it 0 , kik i 4 ' ' 1 1 It 1' ' . ' i. t. A • 11 tl lib '''' i i I I'r I , i • , /h. .' \ -k•i i st t i. I ,, I li I. f N t. A .4, t , * • i k ' ',. 1 • 6 .0 .., t r iI ;1 I 8 t' t II k JI i, lik.t , ,r, ,i. ....... . , •-,..,,.,... . . , % ' , , I - i' ' 1 - $ * , i t : I . , _ ., . Photos showing the view from our home of the Fleck property last summer. The removal of 40 healthy trees behind our property will have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics and property value of our home and the homes of our neighbors. • . .' f, �: � � � ' d � 7c- 4ar� _ _ �IC� i.ny'� �,.: ':�'V3�_ :Q ' !;'+' o�:�^ 'Y -.s, ` .:ra`' T ry, '' y:r`f 4 .•., - .+ z - . • i.•:.....,. ` ^ '' ` ,�a,ti w''t° .. R 3� ' . '. k; :-V• •-......,41),...W-1-7..,,i p�' / ..-....,...,...,,,,..,-.-.„.•• - ;ir= "•-••:"-fa.y '^^� a ''Nr,-,-.,- vy r z , .^ •} ..ii�� +•I Sri,�, i• - It • `•�" '♦/rF1 1 a> - (� '%' w:.� .rr 'Ir. , ,..1 -, 114 . -. . - / Iiiitill_. .. . r,f.: w�. .. �.,�, ( ,., Irr • liiihoditi_ ",i' ./" f _mfr.. - r.. {� it •s. . . — i. t . f ; ry '1J1.1, , 4 , ti t .s • - -, .44,114 .; • *'n om ` •:•• • ,(11.1., {.:{ ; ate. .,a -'�. - , - } :%..��"PP^^ • •' ' '� - p f,. -._. 7. .4 11101 x,41111114:46 ( • 1,'!F �� "�k �': ♦ _'.»t..�' may., ytt c_ ` �1e 5�.1' •Y� F:+1 `� •a• lam: 4Y� go. y• I :_ ',r *w. 1• .a. ,,a ��- _iY i y fq l Z;: ,.•♦ may. • 1 '�d!I - ° ` :o ..3.+. } V T. r ' .f f• �. / rye"' \'4.' - • •+, p. " ', !• :Y , +A :. h/ • 1 '" r r Vii.. .. M1 • ipt 1 ‘. I, ... r li, • . ., ,' • .t � •t . a /• C:41. • 414 ',1a. . ' ..w.!, • • ' • F' y loft- '-•t, {�j�f�''P' , ., ... 1414 ear: ett" • ' .. ; + ,.V yi ` fa '% " ••••-• y M • a ,4.,1. 1 :._1 . . , )1 _ , ' roc • .'a tSs 7 . t: • , t tic { t ^ ,�• `4•. ` • \i"f /'.. ` 4�• / tilt . {, # ;,' •r Y.. j`i d •t r' c' t t _,.....s..,.. . 4 V is /.'+ -V S_. i 1 -S-t' ' '. •ti- L ; +1r. • '.'•• :-.„4,14.• .......,...4:2_ . A. ... . . 1., . . ,,.I. _, . • , .. ,,,.,c,.. li.:. ,„.... •. . L.:. .. , 4 ,v t *3420-7-‘.•':••,.--•,' -- • • r ` ••,`•�v i l • . • • :' " AK6.- ',... ' '• • - .,4 •-• - • 1• ' • .' , 4,,.., , -.0 -...„. 1,..,4 • 44//r.<",1 - ..,,;"•"' foArtt -• I., .‘' ..,;,- •,.4,.0.\\,\Ik. . _ „. „ .,. ._ ,I i,.. , , , ...0.,.. , ,.. ,..c. .‘ . ''...,•:i ,•••••;.,, ...' •,-,,,,;„<: ,,.,.... , ? p . , ., ,,,,it., ,, .k.,„. . Itte•yS • ,•( ;-,.t, .-r j" e1Y ' t y *tLYJb"�'• 1' a ' �x� • N JA t , •r ! , t � +' � '* E +' ' ' x• r -*t sl'. � ''y '"` •14,..1011,,,.._•4 10i• / p } ' 'c., y\ •" t. � , A --• , ` a '. ,•,, !S r • '•.‘•-r I ' I • .1114 ',II; i • • Fk ;41 ' #w ir iiiq > til '„' t K \ i, '444 �.ilk • • , + .` '-'-:.1t,.;:•1.,1-`,.4...9.,-;i ' � 1, I`•\S .k. ti • 1l . ivit, . • , . •,:‘ . p.,,I.,•••••,„. . . : . .. ,A': i lit. .a ::.,, i.0 • tit. �'! r� `'!;•b i, S '. r ; r'•' f..:°:yam, • Lj. ,` ., 4• 'i9 r• ,r �t r' ,4'i , .4 , S'R�.'•.1'Iwerf ,aY'•'s.,' '' i xa ,`± '4•114hz7,,:: - p• • ''• - - , _ .-...., k ..,• !N .,. • --.•-134.:,,‘:44.:-;;;','„--i...;' '01 '4l ly'' Ally,. i 1, 1 ' •, • .. "4 • ' A 1 �,' , r �1`1S 1, �,� ' ••-may' a' i y . ^. te ��y ''', II ,t,,°.•. - `',' ' 'A•si jt. ••. T�'L�' !`; ;i.�- �' ii i .19 '.4 "r . i� •tip • • ' r •- �}'� 'IS 'v v•r!fliowooltil i Al 'M #>F / •, ., • ' • 5 ,/ '' ' icy,, 91 1• 't: a : •F .. .d ,, ��_7. -'ti \ . •• ' ..� . , ,` "a '' ilik:, it.. 7 ..I.',..II:::',tr... ' 111 • t t,1 4 'I rt.. • lY y `y'{ • ' '. at • •I....• ,1/4,000160610 �r- --. �- .. m '.iwirw1iC, ' —- -cam ti � • •f{• Wit, ,. t.- i4 • w .—... ct .+ ' • +{ • J ? •1 +•, 4r; bay_ •4 4 :!d :'....'_+* ~'*'•..meq , ,.„1„...,•••, 411'' • r te' �Ji • '"f!' • ` ' _ .! 4 ,: , , • ` • ,1.. .``�� '\. \ ,r • .. ,4t " ( .Art '4.1.‘..... ' ' ...': , ; `„.. 1:1 11, a .. ri 4 411'71.1 i • a,• • 4• y 1 ,, ,. ,_ l 1' ,a ! •i, J .h' ,.1• "t, mak,.. of ,may '�1. q t ''`' ,�h., t k .�., y i i ,•1 0. It . ! it r1 i.. , • ,�i ' �.� M w { 1 M '. •`,' ' . '7.1..4: .- 4 , fir 1 • F^ • E'u� •r ,` pu• 'IC r.r Jr } r ,!, }� •'L ,.�„ ,1 J ! 1 , ,R, .. f J ' Sf „� �1. `,!�n� q�`r re'. • �' ` . , •F , ••1,•, 'r�! r� 'i,7r �A 1 , i . li ,',' .t 7 „ „c. , Iblp „, ,, , frii ., ,, , �'' � • ., r PP , ,tY; • , �wn. y4 r y n , , 7 4.' 41 : - V'''' '`" L. •Ir' .4 . .. , . . ": * 10.1.. '' . , • 'At I * * • 1 ',.4 . . . ,... ., , i„.. ...,.. , .7, ?,. I , „,,., „. . ,.. .•70-'' • !,' , s. 'Pi . v• w r tv ,, �RJ 6 r- 5 r ''• 'e,'I M /'!�-'[gR•,r4 + '. . . . , ' !��., tM1 :I& • I • R�• 1 I ' ''r' i .P. '; ' y ,,,,' • �t+ ii\ ' • Fns Ali' T ,#' +,041; ' v r, • ' 41.0/ i h r', � . + v 1,1 ++'* R' ,.v'•' : 'y'h MSV . p'+ V io_ Pt,rtig fyrl ! .j d r r+ r f • '"�+ '!r�-, s '�44k.'•” , . d�' j�. r'{, iti$ . , �4 yI . •' '• .•,_ r x' • • ' ,ph •1 ' jj •” .n ` - ndop f R ' A , r % . „ilk• ,,,,• . , , . * r , < t ,.` .� , J4 11 ih p1 1 q' 11 .'* ,, At •� ref . • f SIFq i, I , ' ', ir• 4 . ,'''''' '7104.. • at ii ,. - • :, f R, r•, •vR. d ' n, * ,�+iY v T J .✓, •( a Ira l ; , r " i{ .d � R,. x , r 4 f + II .•y.. + ' F • ",,it 'Ilf /pp��! .• y.� �q f �' '1 V. #, 11 f rYrH.� /� •r,�_�. • 1 it