The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 08/02/1994 :}'an a CITY O TIGARD OREGON i PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the !Mayor or the City Administrator. Times noted are .fit k it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7':15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-!n sheetfl6slrtfB¢~18 ItBl ow be bra . saa~rd~se` Cer 7:30 p-m. Asslstive Listening Devices are available for persons w th impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meedni by noon on the Monday prior to the CouncH rnaeting. Please call 632-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684.2772 (TDD - Telecommunmations Devices for the Deao. Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: Y Cuali fled sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing Impairments; and 6 Qualsfied bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your weed by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 654-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Pevices for the Deaf. SEE MITACHED AGENDA COUNCIL. AGENDA - AUGUST 2, 1994 - PAGE 1 i Y Ir I AGENDA 1. SPECIAL MEETING (6:33 P.M.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 1.2 Doll Call 1.3 Council Communications/Liaison Deports 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-,kgenda Items 2. CONTINUATION OF COUNCIL DEL.IBERATION FROM JULY'' 12,1994, PUBLIC HEARING - (LEGISLATE) a ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 92-0004 (TREE REMOVAL) LOCATION: Ci WAde. A request by the City of Tigard to replace Chapter 13.15® of the City of Tigard Community Development Cade with new code provisions pertaining to tree removal and to provide definitions for the following terms: developed commercial and industrial land, developed residential land, hazardous tree, pruning, removal, tree and undeveloped land. In addition, they proposed amendments are intended to: 1) Clarify tree permit exemptions; 2). Add a section explaining code enforcement actions for illegal tree removal; 3) Clarify criteria for the issuance of permits; 4) Simplify the sections pertaining to expiration of approval, extension of tunes and revocation of approval; 5) Add significant natural areas end sensitive lands to land requiring tree removal permits; and 6) Add provisions for replacement of illegally removed tress. APPLICABLE RwaV CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Coals 1, 2, and 5; Comprehensive Elan Policies 1 (General Policies), 2 (Citizen Involvement), 3.4.2.b (Natural Areas), and Implementation Strategy of Policy 3.4; and Community Development Code Chapters 15.33.120. a. Council Deliberation b. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 94- 3. ANON-AGENDA ITEMS 4. EC E SESSION: The Tigard City Council wiil go into Executive Session under the provisions of (SRS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 5. ADJOURNMENT ccec►SM94 COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 2, 1994 - PAGE 2 W~ e Council Agenda item MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 2, 1994 • Mosting was called to order at 6:37 p.m. by Mayor Schwartz. 1. .SQL- CALL Council Present: Mayor John Schwartz; Councilors W6ndl Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff Present: Sill Monahan, City Administrator; Dick Seviersdorif, Senior Planner; Liz Newton, Community 9nvolvernent Coordinator; Ty `Nyman, Legal Counsel; and Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder. Also present were the following Planning Commissioners: Fyre, Holland, Schweitz, and Wilson. MESS MEE„ 2. CON11 NATION OF COUNCIL DELISEr-0,TION FROM JULY 12, 9S94, PUBLIC HEARING - (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Z®A 92-0004 (TREE REMOVAL) a. Council Deliberation: Mayor Schwartz advised the purpose of the meeting was to review the proposed tree ordinance and that no public testimony would be received. He advised the Planning Commissioners had been invited to attend the meeting and would also be asked to participate in the discussion. Following are highlights of the discussion: • Crunclior Hawley said she wouid like to determine where everyone agreed on issues, and suggested Council come to the consensus on "who we want to regulate with this ordinance, whether we want to regulate just developers, or whether we want to regulate everybody." • 'There was discussion on fines. Mayor Schwartz noted he was concerned that a private property owner may not be as aware of the code as would a developer who works with ordinances can a daily basis. He advised developers should know what the ordinances are, and have some familiarity with them. In response to a question from Cour:cilor Hawley, Mayon Schwartz advised he thought there should CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 2, 1994 - PAGE 1 Y' I ~ be a difference between a place of property that is being developed and a private homeowner's property. There was some question to how such a provision could be implemented. m Councilor Rohif said he agreed with statements made by Councilor Hawley and Mayor Schwartz. He noted he would like Council 'to, review the notice provisions. He advised ho would like to see some provisions with regard to general public notice in some manner; however, not for every tree permit. ® Mayor Schwa advised that Washington County should be made a aware of inhat Tigard is doing with regard to tree permits. -ffils would be important because of potential annexation and continuity between the County and the City so that in case of annexation, a de a`eloper would not be tempted to clear-cut property before the annexation would occur. ° Senior Planner Seviersdorff explained the developer would have to shove a proposers plan of development. A tree removal permit would not be issued unless the City is given a plan which indicates where the public facilities are, where grading is to occur, if there are improvements involved, where those improvements are going to be, and then the tree removal permit would be issued for those areas where the improvements would be IoWed. For undeveloped property, a design review process would be followed. Senior Planner Bewersdorff described the current process. -frees cannot be removed from property within the City which is developable unless they are registered as clear-cutting property or registered wood lot or have Christmes trees. There is a penalty resulting in fines for illegal tree removal. Presently if you have less than three acres and a house on it, trees can be removed. If where is more than three acres, a Code-specified process would have to be followed. There was some discussion on fines as they relate to potential profit made on trees, and past enforcement of the tree ordinance. There was discussion on process. Council reviewed the proposed ordinance in sections. Senior Planner Bewersdorff reviewed the first section. This section is related to "Purpose." Legal Counsel Wyman addressed issues related to Coal 5. Goal 5 requires the City to inventory resources. An argument has been made by an attorney, David Smith, that this ordinance relates to Coal 5, even though the City of Tigard has not inventoried this resource. ±a CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 2, 1994 - PACE 2 a_ DLCD is reviewing the argument as proposed by Mr. Smhh. Therc may be a problem with that. some of the terminology used in they proposed ordinance is also used its Ooal 5 wording. The reference in the proposed ordinance is not in the same context as that of"Goal 5, which causes some of She confusion. 'there is argunrient that ft. City needs to do a Coal 5 analysis, which would be to Inventor g trees throughout the City in order to institute the reguletions proposed in the ordinance. • fir. Wyman explained options before Council. One would be to eliminate the duplicating wording to lessen the confusion. The other option would be to go back and actually do a "~91 scale Coal. 5 analysis prior to implementing this type of regulation. The City Attorney's office has looked at this issue and believes this is not a Coal 5 regulation. • Discussion followed on the options with regard to the Coal 5 question. • Discussion followed on developed and undeveloped land as defined in the Code. Councilor Lunt expressed concern-, that there be a better job of definition in order to assist interpreters of the Code. • There was discussion on what the ordinance proposes with regard to tree rernoval; especially anything 50 feet or more away from a home. On developable residential, tree permits would be required on trees outside the area of 50 feet from the home. • There was comment on large developments, such as those on Dull Mountain, where developers have clear-cut areas. • "There was comment also that with a 7,000 square-foot lot, after setting aside area for a dwelling and utilities, there is not much rooms left to save a big fir tree. • Planning Commissioner Pyre noted the Planning Commission's study of this issue. He noted the difficulties in balancing property owners' rights (small/private vs. large developers) within the context of the purpose (saving trees) of the proposed ordinance. • Discussion followed on making the ordinance fair and equitable, noting the problems of protecting trees while protecting everyone's rights. CRY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AI. GUST° 2,1994 - PACE 3 Mlij ® Mayor Schwartz noted the tree ordinance should be applicable to everyono in the City. • 't'here was discussion on whether or not the types of trees to be saved should be defined. For example, should a walnut or chestnut tree be distinguished from a fir tree' Commissioner ~Vilson agreed that not every tree is equally valuable. He would advo e with corning up with some type of list. here was concern can the detail of the ordinance and the cost and burden for staff°s review. Commissioner Wilson advocated limiting the scope of the ordinance. • Legal Counsel Wyman cautioned that being as specific as naming apes of trees may cause some problems with Goal 5 language. -ine ordinance should be generally applicable across the City. bore was discussion of the need to be careful to put wording in place th-t would get at the Intent of what the City is trying to do. m Mr. Wyman noted difficulty may occur if the City places significance on one resource over another. He noted he would be hesitant to give advice or. this issue until he had heard more from DLCD. • There was discussion on the purpose of the ordinance. The ordinance produces language that limits unnecessary tree removal and to protein the resource. Commissioner Fyre noted the ordinance does not address the planting of long-terns trees. He also noted he thought the City should set an example and plant some fir trees around City Hall. • Mayor Schwartz advised it was his opinion the tree ordinance was to encourage people to leave as many trees as possible, and try to develop around them. • There was discussion on the need for ciarity of the purpose of the ordinance. • here was discussion on elements of the ordinance and a tree removal process. 'free removal permits could take into account different criteria, such as economic hardship, or diseased or dead trees. CITY COUNCIL MME-71NG MINUTES - AUGUGT 2,1994 - PAGE 4, • There was as suggestion that a certain number of trees be allowed to be cut clown on a calendar year basis. Discussion followed on this Issue, • There was discussion on the recentlyr-adopted heritage tree provision in West Inn, it was noted there is a tax brew for this type of designation. Suggestion was that the purpose statement for the ordinance would be for "planning and preservation." • There was discussion on size of trees which would need cutting. One suggestion was that every tree over six inches would need a permit. • Discussion then turned to working out language to describe which trees should be protected. Isar. Wyman advised he would have to consult with DLCD to determine if there would be any problems with distinguishing types of trees, • There was discussion that the cost of the permit would not pay for the coed of implementing the tree permitting process. Additional expenses would includes having an arborist look at determining whether the tree should or could be raged; documenting the location of the tree; and determining whether or not it is a heritage tree. • There was discussion on the merits of the ordinance and why the ordinance was being proposed. Mayor Schwartz notea~ that in looking a aerial photographs in Town Hall, there are many more trees in Tigard today over what there were in 1953. • A question was raised as to why a tree ordinance was needed. One comment was that a tree ordinance is needed in order to get developers to preserve and work around old staarids, rather than just cut them down. • There was discussion on whether or not an incentive program might be more effective in preserving trees. • With regard to public notice, the statement was made that the public should be incorporated into the process. • Mr. Wyman reviewed the work he had done to clean up the definition section of the ordinance. He reviewed some of the wording that had been proposed and some suggestions for claariiying. CrJ-`Y' COUNCIL 1AE NG MINUTES - AUGUST 2, 1994 - PAGE 5 1 NO The follov4ng discussion represents Council and Planning Commission noWdons on spe cffic hems: Tree City USA - future efforts to attain such an achievement will come through by adoption of another ordinance. This would also regulate the City's procedure with regard to removal of trees and planting of trees. m There was discussion on specific definitions and suggestions for clarification. It was noted there was testimony during the Planning Commission meeting that dead trees are significant to wildlife. It was noted the word "dead" was taken out of the definition because it would be more important to remove a hazardous or diseased tree. There was discussion on who would determine this. One suggestion would be to have a property owner have an arborist certify that a tree should be taken down. 4 There was some discussion on what should be done if a neighbors tree was encroaching on your property. Essentially, Legal Counsel advised that is usually an issue between the two property owners. • It was noted the 50 feet perimeter would be subject to interpretation if a detached garage was also on the property. • Thera was discussion on fines. O 'There was discussion and different views expressed with regard to whether or not a detached or attached garage should be part of the consideredons w1hen determining If trees could be removed within 50 feet, a 0 There was also discussion as to what point you should measure from; i.e., from the foundation, or from a cantilevered section of the house. • There was more discussion on economic hardship. It was suggested that a definition be added which would document the cost of tree removal as compared to existing improvements, and a review of alternatives. For exaiiviple, if a developer carne in for a permit, noting there were two trees where he could demonstrate that to save these trees would require additional cut and fill. This may represent an undue economic burden. Also, it may be a proposal that if a tree is removed, then litigation steps can be taken; for example, planting of additional trees. CI'A' COUNCIL MEE-'ING MINUTES - AUGUST 2,1994 - PACE 6 11115 1 1101112 !!1 • There was discussion on trees which require a lot of maintenance, such as a chestnut tree. Mayor Schwartz noted he has a chestnut tree In his yard which requires several weeks' worth of raking every yea .r. He noted If it came to the time when he wasn't physically able to do this work, or if a person just got tired of maintaining the tree, would there be a way In which he would be able to cut this tree dawn? ® This raised the question of fundamental property rights; the public goad versus property owner's rights. One option would be also to allow property owners a mitigation option in certWn situations.. ® There was a good deal of discussion on mitigation and "in-lieu-of options. It was noted the Director would have the ability to use judgment in the mitigation requirements. There was discussion on what latitude the Director would have if a person did not meet specific criteria, but the circumstances were such that the Director would be willing to grant a removal. "there was lengthy discussion on this point. There was some concern by some members of Council to tighten up the discretionary ability of the Director for mitigation in the language. ® Sections on natural areas, greenway, and landscaping were reviewed by Legal Counsel, with some comments noted by Council. Recessed 9:05 p.m. Reconvened 9:15 p.m. • Mr. Wyman noted one of the concerns for this ordinance was to develop incentives to get development to take place in a dtfferent way so that trees can be preserved. Section 19.150.045 was designed to provide a "general incentive section.- For example, one incentive would be to allow the Director to make a lot line adjustment if it would mean trees were going to be saved as a result. Other areas could be density and setback adjustments. Lengthy discussion continued on incentives. It was noted that in souse areas parking lots are quite large. It may be that incentives could be provided to encourage developers to limit the amount of parking spaces if trees can be saved. Presently there are no maximum parking spaces required. It was noted that Oostco and Cub !roods developments have provided more parking than required. FCRY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 2, 1994 - PAGE 7 ;al MIX a. • "here was discussion on reducing the street standards which call for smaller, narrower streets. This could also result in saving of tress in areas being developed. • Where was some discussion an whether the permitfees could be set aside to give to non-profit groups for planting of trees. • In response to a question from Councilor Hawley, staff advised a sidewalk would be allowed to go around a tree in order to save the tree. ® `Where was discussion on current code requirements. Concern was expressed that street trees may not be removed by honieow,°ners arnd whether there should be Code requirements for this. There was discussion on exploring monetary incentives to investment commercial propwty for saving trees. • Discussion on the perrniitting process, including length of time the permit can be out. O There was discussion on where the Director could weive requirements. • Discussion on making the permit process easier for the `everyday citizens." In addition, the assurance that criteria are met bore trees are removed was also a concern. o There was discussion on staff process and the need for the Customer Service "Technicians to be trained to be of assistance and to help in tFying to figure out a`ternatives to save trees. • The subject of notice was discussed, noting that this is a land use decision. It may be that the requirements can be satisfied by posting the area. • 'Where was a question of timing, noting it could be up to twenty days before a tree removal permit could be issued, because of notification requirements. It was noted the Lake Oswego process has been in use and their experience has been that there are not many appeals on tree cutting permits. • There was discussion on the validity of limiting the number of tree removals per year automatically, without meeting criteria. CITY COUNCIL. MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 2,1994 - PAGE 8 MEMO R There was concern by Commissioner Tyre thast the land use process would be lengthened because of the need to satisfy conditions of the proposed tree ordinance. The process is complicated because of the fact that the footprint of this house roust be known before It can be determined which trees could be removed. 'Where was discussion on the need to be concerned w4th the enforceability of the ordinance, witthou,rt adding a great deal of staff expense.- Councilor Hawley noted it was Important to remember that Tigard cNL zons hold trees in high regard. Thera was discussion on the two-trees-per-year issue. After detailed discussion and further comparison as to the dMerentlation between developers and single homeowners on developable property lots, Council consensus was to propose wording that two trews per year could be taken dowry without needing to meet criteria. A permit, however, would be required to be filled out for these trees in order to track the number of trees that were removed from the prcperty.. "There was discussion can whether or not these two trees would set up the process for hearings (notice requirements). With the automatic two-tree per year provision, there would be no charge for the permit. There was discussion on the size of trees, with some Councilors supporting the concept that a person would have to get a permit if the tree Yjas outside the WI-foot zone from a the house, and was at least six inches in diameter. Anything over the two-trees per year provision would fail under the notification process and the rest of the criteria. During discussion on size of trees for diameter, there was some support for twelve inches in diameter. There was concern that this ordinance still may not protect trees, and from the clear-cutting scenario that has. been of concern to people. -there was also concern this ordinance was going to place restrictions on the citizenry who have been good about saving and planting trees. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 2, ; - PACE 9 Rim, !:1 11 21:16 • It was suggested this current ordinance pretty rnuch ai a developer to continue to remove trees as they are doing now. There was a review of what this ordinance would do to protect trees, which included an incentive put in place for developers to adjust I0t limes, allow the Director to review the plans and to use discretion to make adjustments to save trues. Discussion returned to the diameter of trees, with an apparent nonsensus that 24 inches would be the size of tree needing a permit. There was a discussion of violations, and some wording changes that were reviewed with Legal Counsel. • There livas discussion on fines. It was noted the size of fine could change the type of violation and the classification of the violation. • V th regard to two free trees, it was noted that if son°eone did not get a tree permit and cut the tree, that there would be a $50 f6e if they get caught for nc t coming in late for their permit, and if they do come in, voluntarily, for the late permit, it would be $25. • There was discussion that the fine be up to $500 plus the market value for the tree, if a tree is cut by a developer. • There was discussion on hove to determine the market value of the tree, doting it would depend on the size and type of tree. It was noted that in such cases R a sturnp is removed, there should be an additional $500 fine. If a larger fine is imposed, then a jury trial would be necessary. • There was discussion on perhaps placing a fine plus some replacement conditions. It was suggested a fine and replacerent could be irnposed, and replacement trees could be determined from a selected list of trees which would be required. • There was question as to whether or not anything should be entered under the penalty that also includes damages to root systems. it was noted that perhaps some provision that for up to three years, a check could be done on this. CITY COUNCIL N:EETING MINUTES - AUGUST 2, 1994 - PAGE 10 There was discussion on a More meeting to come back with a re- draft of the ordinance. A new hearing would be scheduled for some time In September. In addition, it was suggested this inform on be shared with the CiT's to obtain comment from them. There was also discussion on City policies for plant rig from a suggested list of tress in pathway strips and in City-owned areas. 3. EXECIri' VE SESSION: The Tigard City Council wont into Executive Session at 11:05 p.r.n. sender the provisions of CRS 192.660 (1) (d), (a), & (h) to discuss labor rayons, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. ADJOURNMENT: 11:15 p.M Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Ides: oord or, C. of Tigard bate: L esr .9k CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 2, 1994 - PAGE 11 Ems= III H! I MIAMI COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PRONE (503) 684-0360 AtLB$.sCeTT 7 9 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 ' i 1~ E Cil"f notice Advertising 11994 a 13 Tearsheet Notice City of Tigard 613125 SW Mall Blvd. jjj of JIGARU ® ❑ Duplicate Affidavit Tigard,Oxegon 97223 'Peons'' P e s xc~y~tz~e~x$~ a ; AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) sti' COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, 583. ~ . i, Kathy Snyder 81S.f n~ being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Pi rr7--msza let; n_ Times ~c~tte:~ ~te~~ Of CcfQ€06 {frttstb eJa.~. fs~Y~r a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 )(~ermA~i and 193.020; published at- Tigard in the aforesaid county, and state; that the a ~'0192 {?`rt~bA S•oecral City Council Business _ ,r- skr li 3 8i ix~ 3 • _ - TPft1Qa~°OSS~~`it`'ai~~~ {~~11t3SpSlr` a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the seen ndi r the prtasasxcas ef, 0113 92,60 (,1144d entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and Iaor'€ep~on's; rcal'~isprr1€a~ect,cartiw€taz-sg~a', consecutive in the following issues: 4Sgttl3• _ °a July 2 8.19 9 4 _ '°P793 putsbisFu A0 2& I99. U _ Subscribed and savor before me thisM-h clay of JLly,1904~-~ OFFICIAL SEAL MOWN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON Not Public for Oregon COMti:VJ. N0.0.455 2 :XPlRES hiAY lE, 1987 td`f C0M.M1$51 P. My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT- - Imam Em. ~Nznmzmll A r t }h , i - , V 1. 111 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ll Now !I! lglliljil~~ 1!11:1 1 g 1111; 1: Council Meeting of 8/2/94 Continuation of Council deliberations of July 12, 1994 HA: My concern is this, that over the past two.and a half years, we really um; you know, we've been considering ? and I recognize that there's a real concern for some immediacy in terms of getting this um, at least getting something on the books that protects trees and, and I think if we can agree on several things right out that outset. First of all we agree that we do not want situations happening where developers cone in and say and I'm going to do this, and then they end up doing that. I think with, that we can all agree on stiff fines for disobedience to whatever ordinance we end up. I think we can all agree that uh, I was just trying to go through things this afternoon find out where everybody had common ground, um. We agree that we don't only want to regulate the taking down of trees, we want to be able to say which trees stay and which trees don't. We need to come to consensus about that. Um; we need to come to consensus as to who we want to regulate with this ordinance, whether we want to regulate just developers and whether we want to regulate everybody, uh, whether we want to regulate those people equally and under the same mandates or whether we want to treat different segments of the population differently, I don't know where everybody on the Council is in that concern but it might be helpful to get two or three of those points figured out before we start going through the ordinance piece by piece because it will tell us, give us direction on those pieces. I think we've got agreement on stiff fines for disobedience both on taking down trees and on damaging trees. No. ' HA We don't know what those fines are. Not total agreement. You know I would, for developers and people that should be really aware of the ordinances and work them on a daily basis, then have stiff fines for those types of situations, I would disagree 4.56). Have stiff fines for a property owner, now most citizens out there I find themselves in a situation that they would by chance cut down a tree on their own property without having any knowledge of the ordinance and looking at some of the proposals of some of the fines that could get up in the thousands of dollars, I'm not sure that I'm agreeable to that. No for developers, they know what our ordinances are, they know what our codes are, they should be familiar with them. But I think for an individual property owner, ignorance is not no excuse for not knowing the law. But I think you can go above and beyond if you, if you would happen to have that 'kind of penalty and distribute it even handedly throughout the city. HA So are you suggesting then um, different fines for different segments of society, of different types of property owners? 1 t S I MEN= in other words if you own more than two acres, your fine is stiffer than if you own one single lot? No. I think we could find somebody on the I mean if you have a person that has a home on piece of property, whether it's a 5,000 square foot lot or its an arse lot, that person, just because one person has a larger amount of property doesn't mean that he should be more knowledgeable than, the person that lives in a 5,000 square foot lot. Neither one of them are developers. They're just homeowner's, property owners. Developers? Yes. Absolutely. I don't have a problem with that. HA So then where do I fall? I'm a homeowner but ten years ago I bought two acres of property I fully intend to develop. I'm living on it now. That's a thought, I don't know. HA Where do I fall? You know obviously I'm aware enough of the tree ordinance that I'm not going to go out and create problems for myself but I don't know that everybody is. Can I propose that we get into that kind of ? later and just go through the overview first? HA: CIS. I agree. ? Um, I basically would, would agree with the things that both Councilor Hawley and Mayor Schwartz has said. I think we also need to take a look at notice because part of the reason that we're putting this ordinance into place is because we have a perception of how we wart a community to look and feel to its residents and without a notice provision we're going to basically let individual land owners and the city or individual developers in the city ? up to these decisions. Um, that's probably the primary thing that I would throw in addition to what you're saying. Notice concerning? HA You mean public notice or notice 7.55) Notice yeah, general public notice. HA For every tree permit? No. But again, I won't get 9nto details, I'm just saying that that's in addition, and I haven't heard you two talk about it. When we get to the appropriate place we're going to talk about that, what we want to do u-ith it. I thinlc we're better off, you would suggest that ? we start, enforce this and go right through 8.16) Then we'll pick up all those things as we come to them in the section. Well I guess that was my only concern, the reason why I even brought that up is because 8.27) not here. We're bouncing around through different sections of the ordinance. HA That's why we need to come up with a basic feeling for the direction. If I may Mr. Mayor, I want to make one point now. There are some areas outside the city limits now that may be in the that's in Washington County right now. Whatever_ we do tonight, I'm not going to has nothing out now, but whenever we do hash in terms of that agreement with Washington County, whatever we do, nake sure Washington County is aware of what we're doing and they are able to work with us to enforce what we do if that'd be possible. HA I agree. I don't agree with 9.19) individual today that there's some property is being proposed to be annexed into the city in Tigard, and because of their fear of what this tree ordinance of going to have, I understand that 9.31) HA That's not unanticipated. I have a question of staff.. What do we have in the ordinance as it's proposed that would keep us, keeps a developer-from clear cutting his property? DB Basically the developer has to and a proposed plan developed. We will not issue a tree removal permit on the development unless they give us a plan which indicates where the public facilities are, where grading is to occur, if there are improvements involved, where those improvements are going to be, then we would issue a tree removal permits where those improvements would be, we would 10.18) a subdivision or ? on individual lots 10.26) that they would come back and 10.29) tree removal permits with us. HA OR, so basically right now unless they're in for some kind of a design review or... DB On undeveloped-property they would, we would ask for, if its undeveloped property within the city we would ask ,for 10.45) HA Bo essentially um, ok and it's my understanding that now have a tree ordinance that does require permitting under certain l'- t,, conditions. DB The only exceptions are wood lots and ? HA Christmas trees.. So am I to conclude properly then that right now we have no control over an individual who owns property, clear cutting that property? DB Well we do. They shouldn't be clear cutting property within the city unless it's registered woodlot or Christmas trees. HA They are supposed to be coming in for permits at this point. DB And then we'd ask for a development plan. HA And without a development plan they can't get approval for the removal of trees. DB We can't 11.38) HA I guess my question, I'm not sure I'm getting my question asked properly. Um, do we have anything now that prevents people or penalizes people from going in and cutting trees down on their property. DB The penalty, if we have illegal 12.01) penalty and civil fines. HA ©Y, and illegal tree removal is? DB Not reviewing, not getting a permit, taking trees out where 12.15) HA So my understanding then that on my two acre piece of property, if I wanted to remove a tree I would need to go and get a permit first. So that's already in place. DB Right now based on interpretation, if you have less than three acres and a house on it, we would let you remove trees. But if it's more than three acres, you would have to 12.40) Based on director's interpretation. : I think it might be useful for you to relate what has happened in the past when someone has violated the ordinance related to Waverly Construction. DB I wasn't here when, but we have fined. I think we had one case on Bull Mountain something in the nature of $17,000 fine for illegal tree cutting. HA How did that compare to the profit made upon the trees. Any idea? DB No. It wasn't based on that. It was based on our fine system hum 11 1:1 1 011 that was in place. HA OK. Cathy, I was looking at the Community Development Code and it gives an index tells where the trees ? was a blank in my book. is just happen to be my book, or is there something in the Community Development Code on trees now, on the code? CW I believe so. DB Yes. CW Community Development Code is indexed in Title 1-15 book so.... HU Well I found the index.. CW Oh, okay HU But there wasn't anything in that... CW Specific to trees? I just wanted to know whether there was one and I didn't happen to know. Where would Council like to go from here? I'm ready to start on 14.18) OK, let's do that. Where are we starting at? Page 1. HA We're going to go through every single item of this ordinance? Is that what you're talking about doing? Every section if there's a question in it. Would you like staff to explain what's in a section before you have the discussion and perhaps they can also give you some insight as to suggestions to address the issues you've already raised about.... I don't think so. We've all studied it. We should know what it is. AD HA Well I actually like that, because this is a public meeting. And I don't think everybody's familiar with code and I think each section should be explained at least a little bit so the audience can know what we're talking about. ~r III Mfll' 11", OK, let's do that. We'll take Section 18.151... I have a question. Sorry if I'm out of order but there are four members of the Planning Commission here and I was wondering whether or not we would be called on to spear: or answer questions and the direction we're going it sounds we... You will be. OK. It's our point that we'll be asking you for input. For this part of this meeting, this discussion, consider yourself part of staff. So if there's a point brought up or a question that you would have while we're discussing this, I'd like the Planning Commission to feel free to step in. OK, And bring it up the same as a staff member. OK. Because you're not considered public testimony. Do you have any extra copies so we can follow through what you're doing? I don't know if we have extra copies or not. I don't. I think I have one here. I have my old one. Hers:... (Everybody is now moving closer_ to the front so everyone can hear) DB The first section is related to purpose. The purpose is outlined as regulating tree removal on developed commercial, developed industrial land and all undeveloped land in the city. 19.29 limiting removal of trees, protecting significant natural areas and sensitive land. Now we've spent some time and I think I'd like to move in real quickly try to give you some comments about some issues relative to significant natural areas 19.44) and I think that's come since the last meeting and we need to address that so we might as well move into it. There are numbered sections within this proposed code that have sections that relate to significant natural areas. In one case that we've been advising, I didn't know about it, some of that should come out and we've got some other suggestions.. I'll let Ty talk a little about the framework of this and relative to goal 5. Yeah. Goal 5 is really what I'd like to address up front because that relates to this designation to govern natural areas which is in the first section 20.25) There's no way that I can give a real dissertation on goal 5 right'now, but generally it's important for you understand. Goal 5 requires the City to inventory resources, inventory basically natural resources, natural 20.45) resources. The argument was made by David Smith I believe, his letter was put in the packets, as to goal 5 and that argument is that goal 5 relates to this ordinance because, in relation to this ordinance even though we have not inventoried this resource. 'T'ypically applications of goal 5 are when the city or municipality goes in and attempts to inventory a resource, that's where conflicts occur. This is sort of the flip side of that. What Mr. Smith was saying is that the city is regulating the resources without having.done the inventory. And what it seems to be pointing to, particularly are references that we have to significant natural areas, that's the current graph, also greenways and sensitive lands. This point being that we're looking at those areas and we are putting particular restrictions on tree removal in those areas and yet we haven't at the front end gone throughout the city to inventory trees in all these areas, pick which particular resource you want to protect. This is a little bit of a novel argument. It's a novel way to 22.24) ..shield against the regulations of this sort. Tim Ramis, City Attorney, asked me to contact ELCD to present the arguments to them. I did so and they reviewed it and they're a.little bit leery of the wording that's used in here, significant natural areas being the particular one because I believe that goal 5 itself makes a reference to significant natural areas. Now, we don't make this reference in the same context, yet you can see how there's room for confusion. So there is this argument out there that we need to do a goal 5 analysis which would be inventorying trees throughout the city in order to make this sort of regulation. No prior jurisdiction has been presented with this argument so it hasn't been tested before and we could be a test case for this application of goal 5. We've got we think, two approaches that the Council can take on this issue. On the one hand what we could do is first of all, to eliminate some of language, significant natural areas being one reference, is it really not useful to this ordinance and can be taken out. Also greenway as we believe can be taken out and we can just use the reference to sensitive lands. So we would then be more highly regulating sensitive lands. What we would have to do at that point is we would have to make findings, we would have to go back into our Community Development Code, show how those sensitive lands were designated and show that they were not designated as part of a goal 5 inventory. Show that they were not, goal 5's considerations were not part of the designation 24.38) sensitive lands. That would be one approach and that approach we could keep this ordinance basically in the shape that we have 24.50) or we can change some of the warding. Or the other option is to go back and actually do a full scale goal 5 analysis prior to doing this sort of regulation. Since this is really the first time this target/argument? has been presented as far as being 25.13) it's difficult for us to say positively that we could prevail on an appeal of this ordinance based on goal 5. But I do want to say that we have looked at the goal and believe that, we know that this is nota goal 5 regulation. We're not trying to regulate based upon goal 5 and we feel that if we do go in and make very solid and ver=y detailed findings, that we would have a very strong case. But I want you to be aware that that argument is out there and could be made. So that, how does that relate to 26.03) As I pointed out it mainly, as we go through this, and just look through this, he is going to discuss some of the language that we would like to take out of the ordinance, 26.17) natural areas and greenways being one of the main culprits. You take those out of the ordinance and how do you regulate, what happens in those area? Well we still have..., We still have our, as defined in the Development Code, we have what in our Code defines sensitive lands and those are flood plains, 26.39) over 25`x, wetlands, and 26.44) and those are not various specific sites (?26.52) generic areas where we regulate sensitive land and so that's how we would refer to sensitive lands as defined in the Tigard Development Code. Not a goal 5 issue as per the 27.14) Out of those sensitive lands over weigh the areas where the .trees were found today. Depending upon where, we would basically still regulate trees throughout the entire city. Vrnat the concept was when we drafted that section that dealt with significant natural areas was, that was a precursor to doing, have the tools in the Code when we did the goal 5 analysis, where we could 27.50) I would assume after we did goal 5 analysis and we designated various tree areas as being significant or whatever else. We'll probably have to come back and do this code and deal with those issues. Next question is how big a deal is it to do a goal 5 analysis for the city? It is very, very difficult to do. I don't know that anybody has a real handle on goal 5 right now. Carol's been working on it for two years and pulling her hair 28.18) I can't remember, I think she's gone over some of the process that keeps going through to deal with goal 5 and it's a long and detailed process. And that hasn't concluded (?28.34) 15 OEM F S Right. Is, that in fact saying. we're never going have a goal 5 analysis? No we will have to goal 5 analysis because we will not comply with the new State guidelines. As you say nobody has completed a goal analysis.... : Well we have not in the City of Tigard completed a goal 5 analysis that complies with the state statutes. Other places have. The other places did it prior to the regulations being changed. Those regulations are being defined, have been defined more stringently. It should come you back for a periodic review to meet with the requirements so a lot of other places were doing that, and all those issues are still hanging out for a lot of communities. But some communities had acknowledgement on goal 5 prior to a lot of the changes being made. Now they're coming back and 29.31) the new definitions. 29.36) HA Isn't there a time requirement in goal five itself, language (?29.47) July 1990 something? I'm not sure. I couldn't.tell you. 29.53) periodic review. Probably by 29.56) ? 1996 is, put that in their own code. HA And we do have 30.09). OK, OK, move on? Uh-huh (yes), ; Next section is Wait, before we move on. They want to ask questions on these? Yep. Help me out a. little bit on 30.29) This talks about develop 30.33) and developed industrial land. it does not spy anything about developed residential. ~ IN Mil ` Mil is it your thinking that the developed residential is exempt for this? No. And all undeveloped land in the city. No but I mean developed residential. Is it exempt from this code? The way that the code read or the way that we were, anything over 50 feet or more away from a home, from a residence would be subject to a permit. And that exclude most of the residential area. I can see that if you're in a residential area/lot, when you have one that is outside of the residential lot. I guess it still bothers me in here, that it is not saying that a developed residential is covered by, this code or it is not. It depends on he big the lot is. We struggled with that and kind of drew a line, correct me if I'm wrong but we said some people live on big lots, 2 acres, and it could have a stand of trees, one house. What happens if they come in? Are they subject to a permit? So what we compromised on, and you'll have mixed opinions from the Planning Commission which probably doesn't surprise you is that if a tree is more than 50 feet from the house and it's bigger than 6 inches, that person has to come in for a permit. If the lot and another way of approaching it is if the lot was developable, in other words, if the lot can be split into two lots, they would be subject to this requirement. I guess the things that's bothering me a 'Li'ttle bit on this is that when we talked to Tim on a lot of these other cases that come along why he says we have to go back and see what the intent of the Council was when they put that in. And I, that bothers me. I think that we, that we're not doing a good job of defining in here where the residential, developed residential stands. Well that's where our intent was 50 feet lies in that the intent :~f the Planning Commission was not to penalize or to hurt the residential owners as far controlling the trees on his own property. What we're talking about, and the reason for this whole thing I think is for developers that don't live in the city that come in and decide they're going to develop in our city and clear cut. You take a look, example, right now up at Bull Mountain. If you take a look at Bull Mountain versus five years ago, you can see the difference. There's hardly any trees left on Bull Mountain. Because there's no control. They, come in and clear cut. Well now, can I say something about that. ,When you limit density to where you can only have a 7, 000 square foot lot and you have utilities going in, there isn't a hell of a lot of Ran MINVISIRM I= 1: y room left to save a big fir tree and particularly where the developer is, having done a development right in my own neighborhood so I can watch the progression while it happens. What happens is you save as many trees as you possibly can. An arborist comes out to gat a hermit from the city, you kind of mark the trees that can go and the ones that can stay. So about a year, year and a half later, two years later, like you can see up on Hillshire now, you have to do cuts and fills and stuff, some of the trees are going to die. It costs a, hell of a lot more to take that tree down afterwards and the burden's is borne by the homeowner, most of the trees are within 50 feet of the house and it just seems to a lot of developers who have seen this repeatedly, that it costs a lot of Lime and effort. On the other hand to an observer who just comes through and sees a big stand of trees and come back and they're all gone, that doesn't sit well with people either. So we wrestled with this on the Planning Commission. Property rights versus new developers having property rights or just the residences, you got a big fir tree that's less than 50 feet from your house, well then you have a right to cut that down without coming in to get a permit. Arad if you have a big lot, and the tree is 52 feet away, you have to come in and get a building permit. So you're question is a good one. Where do you draw the line. We wrestled with that. I guess personally we have the tree ordinance. And I think it ought to be 35.30) if you have a big lot, then you're being penalized for having a big lot. y you have a smaller lot and you have a particular tree you don't want any longer for whatever reason, you don't have to go through the process and I would think that to :Hake it fair and equitable that an ordinance should cover everybody in the city. You're right in a way because there may be significant trees on a very small lot that people would move in and say, gee I'm going to down this tree and since the law doesn't apply to them, they'll just go ahead and cut it down and maybe a significant tree 36.19) One thing that bothers me, and the reason I'm all for some type of an ordinance 36.27) environment is that it seems to me there's been no effort on developers to save trees and I think uh, sure you want to come in and make a profit, you want to do things as quick and easy as possible. But I think we need to have something in place that forces the developers to take a second look and try to make that effort to save because I've seen other developments and I've travelled to Gresham, Cornell Road, Durham, all over i this area and other cities are doing it and they're forcing their developers to save trees and these developments look nice. And the people are, don't mind 37.06) and these are steep hillsides on Cornell Road and- You need to know that in preparation for this meeting each of us wrote down to each other things that we thought were important in this ordinance and I think three or four people §1 01 are in agreement that we should have strong incentives to get developers to leave trees and I don't know if they'd go so far as to take my point of view which is we should knock they so strong that it's more appropriate for them to be able to have setback changes, or density changes or that kind of thing that the staff can actually provide for them so that they can leave the trees and it'd be more profitable for them to do that than take them off. How about a combination of two... I agree. one is incentive, another is penalties for Absolutely. And 37.51) Everybody on this Council wants to make sure that there's some teeth in this ordinance but incentives to balance. But they were talking about Paul's point, um, are we going to include any reference to residential land owners in the description of what lands you want to regulate with this ordinance. In the next section we'll go right to definitions and define what developed residential property is that would be exempt 38.17) similar to the way it had been done previously in the old, the existing ordinance. I guess my point, you're defining a developed residential on number 3 but you're not saying anything about a developed residential in your Purposes up here. You're making the definition but it... Because we're not regulating the removal of trees on developed residential properties. I guess my point is maybe there should be a line in there saying we're not. We can do that. And Ty has already worked on simplifying that definition section to put it into a different kind of order, taking out the, we don't really need a developed industrial, developed commercial designation.... ? ? : Just the tree that's more than 50 feet from the house and subject to the regulation. ? ? : Yeah I was wondering if we could just simplify it, just say that. We want to regulate every tree that's not within 50 feet of a residence. Certainly we could. So the average person would have 33.15) : Would just read it and understand. 39.17) Instead of 39.20) of the law Could we do that? Yes we could. The other question I have, talk about saving every tree.... I knew we'd get caught on that. ? ? : Yoi i know I Six inch tree or... No I'm not talking about the size of tree, I'm talking about the type of tree. Should we have some kind of a definition of native trees? I mean if a person has, use m<y own property for an example, has an old walnut tree out in the middle of the yard, it's more than 50 feet from the house... Or filberts... Or filbert trees and these type of trees, you know is it really necessary to have go through a permit process: and all that to cut down that kind of a tree which are usually a nuisance tree to begin with. We discussed that in thr Planning Commission a little bit and I, I'm a landscape architect and I deal with these issues all the time and I would agree that not every tree is equally valuable, and it seems to me that the things that people.get most concerned about are douglas firs, ponderosa pines, western red cedars, the things that are the natives that kind of establish a character in the whole city. Look out the window here, you can see the kinds of things that define the city and it's not the purple leaf plums or the palm trees next to U 40.46) It's the natives, it's the larger ones and I think just to put a blanket on everything does not serve the city well. It adds to the burdens, of the staff, it's going to cost the city money, it's going to cost people who purchased homes more money. I would advocate limiting our scope. As a certified arborist could you come up with a recommended list for our employees? Yeah easily. Basically you just say significant trees, make this tree applicable to significant trees and come up with a list of significant types of trees. If we do that then we really kind of fall over that goal 5 li K! jell amp= 1. 41.47) using exa.c'Cly the language goal 5 says we're saving ,this resource ,is significant and so if •vie want to do that we can but we've have to do it very formally through the goal 5 (?42.00) process. One of the, what we thinks insulates this ordinance from goal 5 is that fact that it's generally applicable and we can say if we're not going out on any sort of particularized basis, going out to this site or this site or this site, and picking and choosing. That's exactly what goal 5 is. Instead we're saying blanket across the city, this is a regulation that applies to all trees. ??s But you know that the developer goes into a filbert orchard and turns that filbert orchard into a residential development. To me it doesn't seem a whole lot of common sense Lhat that person would have to carve out a space for a house and leave the rest of the filberts sitting there. As soon as somebody buy that, moves into that house, the first thing they're going to do is cut down the damn tree anyway. Anybody that's had a filbert tree in their yard would know that it's not the kind of tree you'd want,... Oh sure. A lot of people do that with fir trees. Because they don't want the needles. Don't want the needles. And they're not 43.19) (Side 1 Ends) (Side 2 Begins) So what was saved? Uh, we need to be real careful here that we put something in place that gets at-the intent of what we're doing and it's really tough and difficult to do. 1 think that's the goal of everyone is to... ? (4.25) What we have for a. solar access ordinance. I remember we struggled with that five or six years ago or whatever it was and I can't remember what we ended up with. Did we have a solar access ordinance? Yes. Now how did that effect that when the solar access ordinance you can't block the solar access. I think you can with a tree. That's another thing the developers, see they'll have to move the house 5,05) a : Well if it did John then you have to have a tree ordinance subject to 5.15) That's one of the things 5.20) Yeah but what if it was there originally, but you wanted to build a house. You got to cut that tree down. ? ? : Uh-huh (yes). You don't have to but you may remove it. May choose... Unless it's on somebody else's property. You can't do it to somebody else's property. OK, that's what I'm saying. If your neighbor grows a tree can you sue him because he grew a tree and blocked your'solar? You're talking about the... Personal property rights. Right. And you're talking about not raving any trees in the city. ????(7 6.00) Trees that drop leaves. ? ? : ? 6.15) x ? ? : All this says Ron is that you can take down trees on your property to improve solar access. That will be a reasonable and acceptable reason to issue a permit to the landowner. ? ? : ? (6.42) That's right. But in development is also some of these filberts and what not I've seen in a new section of Anton Park and they've left the filbert trees. They're ugly. They are going to be pulled out there I'm sure, so what maybe we want to incorporate here is take them but put back something that's acceptable. We should require the filberts be removed and.... (much laughter) I'm just saying if that's a selling part for them 7.16) replace them with smaller things that juste grows in the area. Kill 1!,illlil!l ill RONNIE= I We're not trying to regulate goal 5 with this. But while 07.30) goal five is you did put definitions in there, the type of trees you 7.36) The argument that would be made is that what you're doing is, you're going in, you're regulating goal 5 resource on a particularized basis, you're calling this resource significant versus this other, apparently filberts would not be very significant whereas Doug Fir would, um, but you haven't complied with goal 5 by going out and inventorying throughout the city, 8.08) conflicting use analysis, identifying conflicting uses 8.15) It's not that you can't do it, it's we can, it's that we would comply with goal 5 requires an arduous process. : What's the alternative? Write a bad ordinance? Can we say it applies only to natives? Is that being too specific? Is that identifying a resource? It'd be hard for me on the spot to say what identification we could make which doesn't go over the line versus Nahich does. As Dick said this is, goal 5 is probably the grayest of all the goals. It's just the least defined. And it's just kind of a novel argument. You're asking do we have some ability to go in and say these listed trees create some sort of a public safety welfare problem that we want to regulate, I'd say that that's possible. But without going in, frankly going back to DLCD and working with them and trying to get them to give us advice on that, I'd be hesitant to say in particular what we can and we can't do Using the approach that you have now would define 9.44) there are some other options you can think about and discuss those and one is the trees and the size of the trees 9.54) decreasing the size of the lot possibly or just dealing with a foot around a developed piece of property. You can also, another way of dealing with that would be, I'll come back to it later, I got another 10.20).. 5o is a filbert trees generally don't get big enough to fit under regulation of this ordinance? (10.25) {various voices in discussion) I want to go back to the purpose if I may because there's something that's missing 10.38). It talks about the trees 10.44) limit unnecessary tree removal, protect 10.47). There's nothing in here that says let's encourage the planning of long term fir trees, whatever trees it is we're seeking to protect. That should become an integral part I think of the purpose. It's not just protect what we have there now, but let's encourage that the city should take an active role. And one of the pet peeves of mine, the city should start right now at city hall and plant some fir trees around instead of those 1 pretty city trees they have down there, and set a tone. And :here's a whole bunch (?11.78) so I think that should be a purpose. Now if that had been done 20'years ago and everybody had a 20 year old fir tree in their yard, and Tigard isn't that old 11.33) pretty big stand. It's on its' way to becoming old growth. That's a good point and you're right. The purpose I think of the tree ordinance isn't the thou shalt not, you know, but to encourage people to leave a tree and try to develop around them. You're making this strictly a negative. Good point. purpose of is to preserve trees + Not just to regulate people. Something bothers me about the notion that we have, according to goal five we have to clearly identify the pv.blic health safety and welfare issues involved in order to regulate specific trees but we don't have to identify such things to regulate all trees. It just seems kind of ridiculous to me that we're doing this without any really clear understanding of what the purpose it. And I think ? about the issue of reforest areas and significant trees and most cities don't regulate trees necessarily in Lake Oswego but mostly they look at (?13.05) The white oak is significant, other major trees, but they ended up backing off in their process of (?1.3.23) they were looking at 24 inch trees in front yards and 24 inch trees ? the ordinance (?13.27) And some will say the issue is not necessarily every tree in everybody's yard but those trees in significant areas of the community, could be stands of forest, could be stands of trees, trees in wetlands, trees in natural that has not been the approach that Tigard has used previously. Tigard has across the board process. We start out, this was only a minor 14.09) including definitions for whatever a developed residential lot was, so ,ye didn't have this 14.17) question, and a few other things 14.22) removal and some other things. We've now gone beyond that'to a much tighter definition of what lots are, talking about increased fines, we're talking about 14.36) and a whole bunch of other issues.', 5C Back to if I may, what happens when somebody bought a house, the tree is about 72 feet from their house. 15.02) beginning to uproot their driveway.. Now they would like to take that tree down, do we have any recourse for something of that type of.... They get a permit and indicate why they need to remove a tree. t And if they could meet the correct criteria, we would grant the permit. ' I11 ISM, Does'that meet the criteria? it very well could. One of the things'that you talk about was economic hardships and I'm not sure that we could define economic hardship but we can indicate that if there was additional costs to the improvements on the property, we should be able to remove a tree. But I don't think the tree removal permit process should cause an additional cost to the property owner 15.51) and that's probably how we would deal with the hardship (?25.57) standing entirely, or put some wowing in it 4 f it was 16.01) If leaving a tree would create an additional cost to the 16.08) So that in the situation that Councilor Scheckla was talking about, if the tree roots were causing him to have to repave his driveway or something like that, then that would be considered reason e~iough... DB We would look at it and try to see if there was any alternatives to it. Normally the bigger trees, we'd spend a lot more time trying to figure out ways to save them. But if there's an improvement involved basically, trees come out. The only thing that bothers me about that, Dick, is the fact that there's nothing in writing that says that's what we're going to do and you as a person will now, but someone else in your chair two years from now, why it could go clear the •other direction. DB That's what criteria is though. And if it means ? that economic hardship criteria and say specifically it relates to cost of improvement, then I think that's there. But in terms of written example, like the one discussed here, it'd be easy for somebody to see that. 17.13) information sheet which could be provided. 17.25) And I can't remember the number. But in their tree ordinance what they have is that a property owner can cut down this amount of trees without a permit. I don't know what it is... Is it a percentage of the trees on the lot? No. 17.52) A certain number of trees. Size? Five trees, I don't remember. Did it have anything to do with zoning John? No. y , :1 112in; MINE ON` DB That was one of the other suggestions what we could do, 018.09) if that was a major concern. We wouldn't know how, ? measure them, but you could allow a certain number of trees on individual properties 18.21) could cut on' a calendar year basis. Obviously we wouldn't, (?18.24) I think they allow four or five. But we just can't do that with this. That's giving away a little bit of the control that you have in the regulation. That's four and five trees on any given property per year? Yeah. How does that get supervised, regulated, recorded? I don't know other than they don't really regulate residential trees. It sounds real .loose. They have generally done some cutting of four or fewer trees within a single. calendar year from a single parcel of property or if it's contiguous property be the same ownership. (?19.13) Have you go through that (?19.19) DB Uh, I don't know how far they've gone. 19.24) various speakers speaking unintelligibly (?19.44) heritage trees That has significance on it's own. West Linn recently adopted a heritage tree provision where this process 19.54) significant heritage trees. Once they've designated as such, then the city takes over responsibility for maintenance of those trees. Is there a tax break? Yes. Tax break. And that 21.12) Well just to kind of move things along weIve got two suggestions for revisions in the purpose statement for how to encourage planting and replanting of trees and the rewording on which tree on which land. I would say planning and preservation Planning and preservation. Then instead of saying regulate on developed commercial, developed industrial, you guys already have that one right? I'd still like to see what you've done to it (21.01) Maybe that's it. 21.04) section. Did you want to incorporate from the philosophy section anything about application and cost to the city that you were talking about earlier. Oh, everybody..... (?21.25) to regulate trees outside the 50 foot around the house (?21.33) or something. I think it should be altered. 21.40) Even when it's that close to two or three houses? What are you saying (?21.46)? I would say probably there's a good chance that you're going to have more trees removed city-wide (?21.56) Are you suggesting we 022.02) every tree then? Over six inches? Over six inches or something like that. Over six inches or.... ° You're going to hire more staff and nobody's going to apply for it. I wouldn't go for that. I think you're just building yourself a big problem. A lot more people, (?22.23) you going to go out and look at them, you going to... that'd scare me. Yeah and I have a concern.... Who's going to police it now? I think the purpose of the ordinance myself is for the big development 22.41) that can be policed. And I'm not 022.48) 51 feet away. : What are the chances of working out language to get to the native trees that we really want to protect. I mean basically we're kind of catching you unprepared to answer those kinds of questions tonight, but Frankly I would go back and asked.ELCD (?22.14) distinction of certain types of trees, how do they feel t.h(,y being people who work more with (?23.22) than anybody else, how do thay feel about it. And 1 don't want to overstate this whole goal five 1 1:11:105110,11111 111 .a. issue because of, it's just kind of a novel way of abusing the goal but it's just something we have to be aware of because somebody sent in a couple of letters and that... The problem is the decision there has it's ramifications for everything else we're talking about here. We'd probably get very much more specific in our language if we knew what we were protecting..... He's right. Yeah. ...versus protecting everything. 23.57) OK, who 24.01) written right now? You know within ten feet of my house. I've got a cedar tree there that's probably diameter, probably three to four feet. I can cuc that down tomorrow. I've got a walnut tree probably 60 feet in diameter, can't cut that one down. No you've got to go get a permit. Well what 'I'm saying is to me it's ridiculous. I would hate to st::e somebody go in there and cut down that cedar tree. f You can kind of draw an artificial line between a residential lot and a developer, developable line. Aiid so if you have an area that's 50 feet from' the house, chances are you can subdivide. And I think that was part of the.... the other part of the reason was to 24.50) Well changes are though, if you've got a lot that's only a quarter of an acre, and you can subdivide that into two lots, you're going to do it anyway, divide off the second lot and if there's a tree in the middle of where you're going to put a house, it's going to get taken out. Right. But it won't get taken out (?25.13) Let me point out another one to you. The cost of implementing the tree permit and people coming to the city, and now you can do what you want, you'll have probably ten times as many tree cutting, you'll have a lot of tree cutting permits that are going to come in. The cost of the permit doesn't cover the cost of the process. The cost of the process is, I would guess just straight processing, is $150 or so. You're going to require the whole works, going to get an arborist, is the city going to pay for that. That's another issue that would come up. Is somebody going to go out and check whether that's a heritage tree or not? Somebody from staff is going to come to your house and look arid see the tree. And so there's a „ l I w!:, in; 11 111! ~ ill! 11 r cost associated with that. I'm not suggesting you raise the price of the permit to cover the costs, because we can always stick the developers. You know raise their price. I•'m just pointing out some of the conventions here that we wrestled with on the planning commissions discussion. I personally think, John, that this is.... 1 agree with you that all lands should be regulated for the same, but we have to balance this ordinance to meet the various personal property rights issue that exist in the city. And the 50 feet that we vd, that some people do want to control their (?26.42) believe that we can just say-you know, they city owns your trees. We can't just do that. I think it's very important for us to recognize that a significant portion of this city wants to have control over at least part of what they ovm. It was a compromise because if you think, if people don't like government (?27.05) they like to think it's otherwise, if you put an ordinance like that in place there's no way in hell people are going to plant any trees next to their. Or when they get 5-1/2 inches, diameter, they are going to take them down. Yeah. : 'T'here would be people that once this ordinance is passed, they (?27.20) and cut trees down just... No I disagree with that. I'm sitting here (?27.28) said you know, (?27.33) behind the council bench, we got the aerial photographs (?27.41) ten years, and these people looking at that and he said you go back to the first one about 1953, Tigard was basically all farm land. It was all farm land. No trees. Nothing. No trees. Very few trees and then if you take a look at the next ten years and the next ten years, and then you take a look at a current one, there's probably I don't know how many kinds more trees today in the City of Tigard, or what's in the boundary of the city of Tigard, of course in 153 was.... It wasn't a city then. It wasn't a city but you if you look at the area, there's (?28.20) more trees today than there was in 1953 so I can't believe that people literally like the trees. I just can't believe that most people are going to arbitrarily go out and cut down trees when they get to five inches. Then the obvious question is what the hell do you need a tree ordinance for? Emig Right. We've got this point that, far. What you need a tree ordinance for is to get developers to preserve and work around old stands rather that just cut them all down. Those particular trees that were here back 50 years ago, on the hillsides and ravines that weren't farmland.... well if that's the focus then, then to get developers to do that, when you've got property zoned seven units per acre... : OK, You know the city has got to let them build 7 units per acre. Or you do modifications to the setbacks to allow there's a lot of things that you can build into an ordinance to entice developers to do those type of things or add a type of incentive. It could be a reduction on development fees or VIIS charges. There's a lot of things you can do for developers to get them to take the extra effort to do what we're wanting do in the first place. We've really got two groups that you're interested in regulating. You've got developers and you've got timber harvesters. Yeah. So that's, you just answered your own question. You really don't need to do away with the 50 feet because you're not interested in those folks... Right. Those are the flat landers that planted the trees and are going to keep them. Yeah. ? ? : They may cut down a tree occasionally but really what you want to focus on are trees that 30.23) some sort of.incentive (?30.25) penalty. ? ? : The reason I question 50 feet is because over in Bond Park, which is near my neighborhood, when (?30.32) there was a lot of larger trees left. Not to many of them were fir trees but there's a lot of larger trees. And over the last few years 030.44) there's been a lot of trees taken out. It was left in there when the development went in and then the property owners didn't want that big tree, for whatever' reason. I don't know. But they've been taken out. 1, W Right. And smaller trees have just kind of in there place. Right. Because the larger trees are, and that's what I'm saying. In the area that I live in which has Bond Park and some of those, plus a lot of large lots, you know the only really tree removal that I've seen has been on the smaller .lots. Well was there any consideration by the planning commission on this idea that you cut down two a year, two trees, I mean I don't dare say six trees over there, but was this discussed in consideration? Each year you could cut down X number of... No. ..trees within your property without, regardless of what size. I don't agree with that. Because it might be the big cedar in front of his house, might be the one that he decides to cut down. Cut it down anyway.... We had a long discussion and came up with 50 feet. I guess.... I could see somebody, a neighbor of mine has a cedar tree like I've got. Go in there and cut it down. 52 feet away from the house. No, I'm talking ten feet away from the house. But maybe he's tired of cleaning things out.of his'gutter and all that. You get around to the parking rights issue and (?32.12) That's right. Because he'll be in court. -I can almost guarantee it. ? 32.17) Mr. S,ni.th will have more business. Look what happened next to 32.24) lot. Somebody comO in and asked for a minor land partition so he could put additional houses on their place. Then when they had that granted to him, then these trees become 50 feet from him. Before they were maybe 82 feet.' Now he can put that house up and slaughter all those trees, correct? That's right. (?•32.49) (many voices) So why fight.... By the time you get the sidewalks in, cuts, utilities, put the house.... That's where incentives could help you out. Because (?33.09) incentives to try to keep those trees then we're going to be less likely to want to whack them out. Well that's why I think that that's why 33.16) is taking a long (?33.22) at some of this is because. ..I think we can save more by doing an incentive program. Doing something else then just having just strictly a permit and fine ordinance. Now you 33.39) Carrying stick?? Advocating carrying a stick? Oh, carry it anyway. We're talking about small lots. Something that was brought and I think the, they can do it now with the zoning. Is that, let's say, like mine's 34.00) No one says you can't be 4.5 34.05) lots. A developer can come in and he can put houses on smaller lots. If he uses the remaining parcel for (?34.15) save those trees. See and that makes sense. And if we can encourage developers to look at it that way, instead of just everybody has the same size lot, look at it as okay you're giving them smaller lots, but you also give them a greenway or some form or way to save a significant amount of trees that might be in a corner or area or something like that. I think it makes a lot of sense. But the main idea here I think is not to penalize the average home owner. I think that's the bottom line. If you can do that, you've accomplished the work. : I e,gree with the Mayor on penalties. Depending on the intent. If you have a developer coming in and putting all this stuff (35.07) behind ny place, 35.11) trees, and as soon as he got his everything okayed, then he clear cut anyway (?35.18). That guy, that was the intent. But the residential owner and inadvertently cuts a tree that falls under a regulation should 'SOMME E- MENEM be penalized. Do you guys know anything about what he's talking about? Most of the trees were (?35.34) substantial number because it was a street (?35.39) There wasn't any trees there though. It's not significant, it's clear cut. And the day that they came in there, they told them. We clear cutting all of them. Not entirely. : Hm? Not entirely. Well they need to know the facts of that one plot plan to see snhat.... Well a large portion, they had a plan that indicated where the trees were.going to be and where the utilities were going to be and then put the lots into the topography of the (?36.05) and good portion of the trees came out because of the grading that goes on to build the lots. 36.10) and that's what happens when you have cookie cutter subdivisions.... You're going to carry these high density ?(36.19) There's not a tree standing on Bull Mountain in that development. Well there's one but that's because it's on a bill and the barricades.... Is the 036.32) It's on the street. It's right in the street so it's got to (?36.40). I think when we get to setback adjustments to preserve trees which is on page 6, then we can talk about putting some more incentives there. Well let's get...try to move on. 36.54) to incorporate the changes that we talked about? Under purposes? The positive language about protecting the trees, encouraging to replant trees, preservation of trees. n r 1151 11 111 1 1111 JR1111f,11 Jill 1115 1 al And check on the type of trees. 4 Type of trees can go under... loo we want to make any statements in there about involving the public in the decisions? If we talk about incentives, it's essentially coming out of the public pocket, we want to involved the public in terms of this. Well that would mean there's another (?37.21) In terms of (?37.23) Is that an approach to think about? You talking about public notice? Essentially we're trying to (?37.31) statement to incorporate public into the process. I think that 037.40) OK, let's move off the.... Get off the first dime and on to the second one. Let's talk a little bit real quickly. Ty's done some work to clean up the definition section basically, run through that. It's a lot easier to deal with basically. Yeah, there seemed to be a lot of confusion about these terms developed commercial land and then there are two long paragraphs and developed industrial land so what I think we may want to do, and the comment was also made frequently that we should start with the premise that we're regulating everything and then specify which trees are not subject to the regulation which I think if we can do that, if we eliminate one and two completely, and I'll show you why that works out in a minute. Also for the reasons stated earlier, I think greenways easy go. 38.43) Page 2. Number 5. On page 2. 1 and 2? And moving One through five would be doing it. : We go to page 3. One thing I wanted to point out, there's been a lot of discussion about trees left damaged,-being the equivalent of having been removed. We can do that real easily ill 'III, if we incorporate it into the definition of removal. The definition doesn't have to exactly correlate with the dictionary at all. So even if we're including in there things that aren't really removal. In fact we've got resulting in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability already. That may get at those concerns. We can discuss that. And also, undeveloped land and significant natural areas can be eliminated totally. Then, and I know that I'm jumping ahead a little bit but I want.... Well wait. Excuse me. What, which one are you saying Ten, ten and twelve. Ten and twelve. And then I just do this because this is the context of what's left to discuss the definitions. The permit requirement _ section which is the next one then, we would just delete all of those numbered things, the developed commercial land, the developed industrial, undeveloped land and we just state very simply except to set up subsection B, removal of any trees shall take place only pursuant to a tree removal permit. So we're not specifying certain types of land for which you have to get a permit. We are saying, start out with the premise that you have to get a permit except if you can fit yourself into one of these specified exceptions that we have on the next page.. OK, that makes sense to me. It makes sense? That's a little easier. Yeah. It gets us away from the whole contiguous combination of (?40.40) Urn, also I think even that, speaking of that phrase, developed residential land, I think at least as the ordinance has existed up until today, we would keep that in there, but I think we can have that just say, shall mean a later parcel in a residential zone. We can get rid of the contiguous combination under the same ownership. Which one are you on? I'm sorry, I'm ;pack on three. I'm back on three. Back on three. OK. ? ? : On page 2? ? ? : Page 2 number three. N, i 1, V1111111111!11-11111f 111 L Developed residential land, I don't believe that having that contiguous combination is going to make any difference because if someone has got another iot over there which is undeveloped then that already falls under the ordinance. So what are we striking? We're striking.the, that phrase "or contiguous combination of such under the same ownership" under definition, number 3. So you leave in, "which cannot be further partitioned or subdivided, and which contains an established In, "established, existing use" and then we, we were going to drop "allowed in the zone" too. OK. And obviously that definition can change. You can, I know that there have been discussions from Planning Commission level, 3 acres, 2 acres, 1 acre, that type of thing. We can change that because I think we're going to keep it in there as, we're going to have the exceptions for those, for small homeowners, small lot homeowners, we went wit4 that. The point was brought up during public testimony that the city itself is not under any regulation for cutting it's trees. Do any of the changes cause us to have to look at our actions with respect to trees? What we try to do is on city property is (?42.49) Maintenance Services 42.52) qualify Tree City USA and in that we would have to develop an ordinance probably outside the (?43.03) Even Tigard Municipal Code that regulated the kind of trees that go in the parkways and how to deal with trees within our own public land. That probably should be a separate ordinance. I'd like to see us do something on that. It seems to me if we're telling the public that they have to regulate their conduct, we should at least keep our house in order. The goal was to basically qualify for Tree City USA and to do 43.33) specific types of trees that you will allow in parkways and (?43.45) public properties. (Side 2 Ends) (Side 3 Begins) Along Bob's remark, down by the path, by there along that bike path, there about last year, the city dropped a whole lot of trees along there, for to get there equipment through and. $J :-,V, x whatever, and now some of those were, these trees here, a bunch of trees, I believe some of the would have been able to be saved. But, I would like to know who determined that issue on whether a tree coming down in that area of a bike path and how it is being left there. Who, in the city, make-s that determination and why? it would be related to the same process we would relate it to the need for public improvements, basically. And I'm not sure if that was an easement or, in that particular circumstance there's utility, as long as it had to remain 0.8) and what 0.8) is they cut through, so, I mean I couldn't answer you specifically about that 0.9). 1.0) -residential property owners, right along the fence, and they really hated to see them go down and, yet when, supposedly they told them that the water 1.2) through there and it had nothing to do with that. So I'm just asking how we 1.3) is. Where that 1.4) is. There's one other thing that, in the definitions, I think, I would hope that we can get a sign off on the size of the trees. I mean I suggest it to the present options of making the size of the trees that you're regulating larger. Twelve inches, 18 inches, 24 inches, 36 inches, or 1.8) inches 1.8) just now 1.8). it would eliminate some problems...(? 1.9) I think 1.9) really, ??six inch trees is kinda 2.0) person is going to go out and 2.0), or even 2.1). You can use that as a 2.2). Yeah. 2.3) we're not holding on to that. Yes. Well, we're in the definitions of trees... 2.4) trees. ...basically. 2.6) The initial regulations on what that, some of the other ones 2.8) go on, but Forest Grove, 2.8) 24 inches or greater and if they were in the front yard, they lzad to be 24 inches. On developable land they would take out the 6 inch trees. And trees on U 3.0) were technically the 3.1) maturing size H 12 and in hake Oswego is...(? 3.2) plant having a trunk of 5 inches or more in diameter 3.3) ground level. So they're a little bit 3.4). (pause) They range all across the board, I think, in some of the other places. 3.7) 3.9)? Beaverton regulates 4.0) trees. HA: How does it define significant trees? There a whole 4.1) they had to 4.1). HA: They don't do a 4,2) study of the whole city? They have historic trees. HA: Yeah. They have significant natural resource areas, significant trees, and the board had negative 4.4) seek the size, shape and location that had exceptional 4.5), the tree was significant due to the function and aesthetic 4.5) natural resource 4.6). HA: This... 4.7) tree in it's definition of the tree in Beaverton is 4.8) trunk of 10 inches or more 4.8) 54 inches above natural grade. (period of various people talking unintelligibly starts at about 5.0) HA: What are you'guys talking about? 5.4) we're having to look up some stuff. That's it. That's the meat of 5.5) 5.5) HA: Yeah. 22, 24. HA: Fine. I'm looking in the PSA 5.6) There's a question whether 6 inches is adequate enough? :.v Yeah. We think it is. We looked at this a four feet above the ground, you're looking at a tree that's that big and, believe, I've gotten 5.9) ground all 'the time 5.9) and it's a pretty good size tree. 5o I would say 6 inches is sufficient, I mean, it should be. I think 6 inches is good. I was thinking 12, but I think 6 inches is 6.2). Well, I was think of the fruits, filbert trees, that kind of stuff that go over. They get up to about... They get about 6.3)... ...6, 8 inches 6.4) in that category something that would be large enough 6.5) 6.5) got short 'fat tree, tall skinny trees, you got 6.6). Yeah. But you know, if some goofs and cuts an apple tree down in the bac% yard 6.7) they're not going to City Hall and saying I've got this diseased apple tree I'm gonna cut down. I mean, neighbors aren't going complain and so, I... 6.8) takes one. ...Right, that's true. it only takes one 6.9) fine. But like I say if it P 6.9)... ...it will happen. ...I think the fine ought to indicate, it depends on if, for instance, 7.1). HA: How are yov, I mean, you just cannot expect somebody who sits behind the counter at the city to determine intent and then levy a fine. Yeah, you're right. HA: You can't administrate that, Ron, you just can't. We haven't gotten to that. We need to talk about that when 7.3) part. We'll get into that. YAM Alright. HA: I think 6 inches is fine. I'm not motivated one way or the other to change it. Anybody? 7.5) You have a comment? Under section 11, we have a big cross reference to section 1820 for the 7.7).. Just for purposes of clarity, it would be really helpful, I think for the public when they read this, just to have that there, instead of making the cross reference, you can maybe put those under it? That's a number of pages. Is it? Yes. It's not one section. That's all the regulations for wetlands, all the hearings officer regulations for 1.00 year flood plain, all the regulations for permits for 8.1), all the regulations for 8.1). There's no way to just to 8.2) guideline for the 8.2)? It would take more than this ordinance. 8.3) HA: So, now we're at.... 8.4) HA: 8.4) I'd like the wording that one of the, which ordinance you had read, which read in developable lands, whether larger or smaller diameter, but in a residential land it was a larger diameter. For a flood plain? And then it's specific about the 8.8). 8.8) for the significant tree 8.9). : Leo we have, excuse me, do we a definition of residential land? ? ? : In the ordinance? . No, (?'9.1) ±'t P - ,v Yeah. Right here, number 3 is 9.2) OK, sorry. 9.2) If it's in there, that's fine. Yeah, it's in. What would you suggest, John? 5C: I would say 8 to 12 inches. In residential, and 8-6 9.5) or more 9.6). Yeah. I think in developable land, the one, I think you save some of the smaller trees, I think you're going to be able to save some of the smaller trees easier than you would be able to save some larger. Because of clearing street systems and anything else that was mentioned by putting those in, you might 9.9) larger trees, may 9.9) root damage on getting the streets in, but there might be some smaller trees that could be left there. You know, what would remain of the roots 10.1) so I would suspect that 10.1). They could be close on small lots, you're absolutely right, I think that smaller the trees, small lot, and still be next to 10.2). 10.3) developable land 6 inches and... Then once it became a residence it's underneath 8 inches if they want to cut it down they can. Well, if it's under residence, it's probably within 50 feet anyway, they can cut it down no matter how big it is. Fight. But at least 10.5). HA: 10.5) But they won't because they've been saving trees in Tigard for the past 20 years. Right. 10.6) HA: I think... uu Do you have something that 10.7)?~ 11:101''ll, HIM N11111 II 10. 8) (Several individuals talking at once, trying to voice their opinion, none of which can be heard speaking a complete sentence.) My opinion, I agree with you. HA: And I thin: that if this council is in favor of, basically, treating every land ovaner in a similar fashion then singling out developers for one size tree and home owners, land owners, residential, owner occupied home, however you want to define it for different set, I don°t that goes along with the intent to treat everyone the same. So it should 6 inches across the board? We're not treating everybody the same anyway, because we still got a 50 foot 11.3) so I mean depending on how particular you want to get with it. HA: Yup, you're right. Voted and 11.4) 6 inches. HA: And I agree. So you guys 11.4)? I think some 11.5) to have a compromise... HA: Let's have average numbers. 11.6) HA: Let's have an average numbers. Just don't forget the concept here. Average numbers isn't 11.7) t OK, Paul, you're comment on it? HU: I would agree with you where, the developable lands where you have a 6 inches, and we have 8 inches 11.9) developers. HA': Wait, say that again for me? HU: That there is 6 inch on a undeveloped land, but there's 8 inches on developed. 12.2) your comments. 12.2) land 12.2) 12.3) IN: -0 In 12.3) HA: ?My conment is I think we should have the same for everyone. I think it-'s confusing enough as it is. I think it should be the same. I 12.5).. 6 and 8? Yeah. 12.611 6 and 8. OK, moving on to the next section... Wait a minute... So you. got something else? I did, there was a question in the materials we got from the council in regarding hazardous tree and whether that was defined well enough? I just want to make sure that it is. Where is that? That's number 6. Tree which by reason of disease, infestation, age, or 13.1) condition was a known and immediate hazard 13.2). Do we want other to define a little bit better or come up with a mechanism or how we define that particularly. How would that work at this point? (13.4) 13,5) someplace else. 13.8) get there? No. HA: Well, Ty, this isn't a side, I'm wondering if you're... There was not withstanding above 14.) concession where it came up was sensitive lands, significant 1 14.1) what the tree 14.1) specific wording about hazardous trees. What's rage 5. page 5. We could do that in terms by a certified auditor possibly, but that's something at a cost to whoever has to do it. HA: Yeah, that was my concern are we going to.... And normally we ask if somebody 14.4) determine it. And if ~J I'll, MI I Ill ME gli IMI there's any question, we ask for an 14,5) to come in. Well, who... HA: Who would that... 14.6) HA: I did. Who is going to decide whether a tree is diseased that needs to be taken out? That was my concern. And does that mean that they come in, they apply for a permit to take down a diseased tree, a staffer has to go out and decide or do we hire an arborist, does the city bear that cost-? We would hire an arborist. HA: And so they'd get a certification from an arborist that 14.9) it's part of their tree permit docur^ents? Is that what's being advocated in this ordinance? OK. We heard testimony in front of the planning coi-mnission, an arborist and developers 15.2) concerning dead trees and some of the dead trees they said are very significant to wild life if it's not... HA: They are. ...a.n a complete developed area. They should stay standing. Just because deadness means it should be taken doom, snags become homes for a lot of different types of wild life. That's why we took the word dead out of the definition. Right. Because it has to be hazardous or diseased, not necessarily 15.6). 15.7) I'm going to ask one other point. I know of one property over in the 15.8) they're not getting along right now, the reason being is because a fellow has a tree in his yard, right there in his fence line, inside his yard, and then it's leaning over on in the other guy's garage type thing. Now, is that a hazard or not? And how do you define it? Is that a hazard? There's a lot of trees that lean. I don't know. We'd ask an arborist to tell us whether it was a hazardous tree. But, can this neighbor have that tree taken down even though it's not on his property? That becomes an issue between 2 property owners. ; At is . 4~ ~e REM That's an issue between 2 properties. If you have anything that's approaching someone else's property, which includes air space, you could go to court separately to get some sort of an injunction to have it 16.7) by the neighbor. ; They can... So that can be taken care of as between the 2 property owners. Anything that bends over you're property you can cut. 4h, is that right? 16.9) (laughter). 17.0) I can tell this fellow he can whack off that tree 17.1) the neighbors. If it comes to pulling 17.2). Pardon me? What would happen if a guy did that to his neighbor... 17.3) 0 17.3) when the tree goes over, yeah. Without going to court first and getting an order to do that? Yeah. Actually... 17.5) the tree legally 17.5). I think that there's a good possibility that, yeah, that's an encroachment on your property and you're entitled to self help at that point, but I 17.8) don't advocate self help. You don't advocate going out and cutting anything that's you're neighbors 17.9) The problem, what happened if he did do that, then the tree dies, then what would happen, then we got another whatever, right? ? ? . Yup. That's called night patrol in the arnry. (laughter) r;~, R, 1110jull! If the tree though is within 50 feet, you wouldn't need a permit to cut one that's on you're side, I guess that's the only thing 18.3) . 'But if it was past 50 feet then you need a permit to cut this neighbor's tree. Bo you need a permit for the top half or the bottom half? (laughter) HA: I think we should leave this to the courts to decide. Yeah. HA: I don't think we could regulate that with an ordinance. 97 - OK, let's continue. HA: So, did we get down to permit requirement, right? Yeah. Yeah. We did HA: OK. ..permit... HA: We took some of it out. Yeah, we have permit requirement, need to take out the 6, and you just have it, section 8 is 18.8) set out of subsection (b) 0 18.9) trees. Shall 18.9) HA: Period, right? Period, right. Wh. don't we Why go down to B which is where there are some kind of important choices to be made, because these are tree removals that we're totally exempting from the permit requirement. HA: OK. It's important to realize that a person looks at the code and says, you know, my tree fits into this one here or it's for removal as a nuisance, I can cut it down without the permit. So it's important that we recognize that this is totally exempt. HA: OK. Is number 3 in conflict with what we were just talking about a minute ago on hazardous trees? L EPA mom Yeah. And that's a good point, what we going to have to do is we're going to have to move that one down if we want to have the hazardous tree subject to the permit. So a person that comes in has to make a showing that the tree is hazardous. We'll have to move that down to under the permit criteria. That will just be an allowable 20.0) shaking your head? I want to think about that a little bit. What that does 20.1) I think you got a conflict 20,2) HA: Yeah, it's the same one, the same question. 20.2), You have to tie the 2 in together somewhere or another. HA: You're right down to the same 20.3) A person's got a hazardous tree on Saturday they're not going to wait to come in on Monday to get a tree cutting permit. I don't think they should have to. Well if it's that kind of a hazard then yeah, they can cut. Dumber 6 is probably the, based upon what I've heard is maybe the one that we should focus 20.8) HA: Yeah. Start... There's a difference in the 20.8) OK 20.9) Yeah and then we can... How does number 5 read? I've got a copy here with the first sentence crossed out. a HA: If they're used for Christmas tree production, but do not stand. 21.1) not eliminating significant natural areas and 21.2) '.Chose words all the way through. w: All the way through are cut out. Yeah, 6 can be changed to read, this is just based upon the draft of the point. With 50 feet of a residence on a developed residential lot 21.5) earlier. ' HA: On a residential lot? A developed residential lot. ~1 11111110 11 1,11 14 111 HA: Developed. `hat's as defined in the ordinance, right? Yeah. Right. Wait a minute this structure on that sentence bothers me a little in that you got, put developed in there, let's say that a house along 22.0) subdivided, but that means that they ' can not take a tree down. Within 50 feet. Even if it within 20 feet if the land can still be subdivided, they can't take a tree down? That doesn't sound right to me. You're correct that is the way that it reads now. I mean if you're going to have this developed in there as Wendi was saying in her example, she couldn't take a tree down then if it's within 45 of her... Yeah. ...if you're going to add developed in there. So you're thinking it fit within 50 feet of any residence? I don't see why developed 22.7)... HA: 22.7), yeah. ...should be in there. P OK. 50 feet of any residence or...? Which one's... HA: So we want to strike B then? Yeah, B is totally out. Residence ah.... what's the definition of residence? In residential... let's see... Yeah, we don't have that in here. Are you talking about a residence? Some have attached, some have detached garages a good 50 from the house itself or they've got a breezeway and a garage at 50 foot from the garage or... U It would be subject to interpretation. It's good thing if you have feelings about that, and rentals came up last time, you know, we can go ahead and you just tell us what you want rather than... Well, I thin: it ought to be defined enough that a person knows what they can or can't do and don't you know, don't get in trouble for something that they thought they were perfectly legal to do. Well, sure. OK. I've got a garage 125 feet away from a house. But it's not a residence. Does the council that these detached garages are not part of the residence? HA: Part of the purpose of allowing somebody to take trees down around their house is to maintain their buildings. Maintain their buildings or 24.2) I mean your garages will cover that 24.2) on this also. HA: You bet. Maybe you want to think about decks too 24.3) but extending a 2 foot, 5 foot deck 50 feet so they can get that tree 24,5) or what? (laughter) You're right. Might want to stick with letting the residential structure itself be in the 24,6) attached garage. We 24.6) after the residences without 24.7). HA: And one thing's for sure, we're going to try and catch every wrinkle but somebody's going to be more creative. Yeah. It goes without saying 24.8). HA: Yeah, it's going to happen. So want to define a residence as a living unit or buildings on a residential lot? We could do 25.0). HA : I know. r; 25.1) Buildings, I don't know if you had a shed that.... MOW pi§11: Iffin- ;t MOVE -0 t WHOM- 0 An abandoned shed. 7?: Yeah, how does that... HA: A horse barn. A significant structure, a residence 25.2). HA: Subject to interpretation of the staff at the moment. Right. Significant structure? I would say 25.4) structure.... Structure 25.4). Attached garage or a garage? Attached. HA: Did you say attached or detached? Attached. HA: Attached. Yeah, because you could have a detached garage 25.7). And we allow accessory structures of up to 528 square feet and depending on what the size lot 25.8). HA: OK. Probably get a tree removal permit to put the structure up. If they're 25.0) that they're going to cut the tree down and pay the fine anyway. For $500 it's cheaper than building a deck half the time. HA: Oh, it's going to be more than $500 if I read this 26.1) right. The penalty for a 26.2) are very stiff. It's often easy to kill a tree. You mean we don't get a vote here? (laughter) (Many people talk, goofing off and zc:t:t~:~ :ing.) I guess one,... - r 'q~ f _ r. Actually do we have a guide, cause I don't know if there's a consensus on that. 26.5) attached garages, all buildings? Depends upon the circumstance. HA: I was going to have this attached. The reason we wanted to leave the 50 foot buffer around residences was because we wanted them, each property owner who lives on his property to have some control over maintenance of his buildings, of his landscaping, of his or her landscaping. I don't see the difference between a garage that you drive in and out of everyday as part of, you know, you're using that garage, why rte,. should you be barred from keeping the trees from falling down on it or keeping the trees from filling up your gutters, just like you would do for your home. But how far do you carry it? Help me solve that. Help me solve that dilemma. Because I understand... Well, if you get a permit... The planning commission unanimously agrees that it would be a residence which includes an attached garage 27.5). And not a detached garage. Because people...,there's a lot of homes that.... HA: Well, yeah, I know you can have a permit, yeah. You can even have 2 garages. One attached and one detached. And you can say that's my garage. Yeah, and I also have a barn on my property that needs maintenance. That's a hard one for me. A What about... HA: What do you guys say? To take care of the attached garage, did we have some wording in there that a residence and/or garage 28.1) or a garage that's going to associate a residence. Something along those ` lines so if you don't have an attached garage, you fall within that, but you can't use a shed or a barn as reason for that. Well, John, if you could put circles around 2 buildings like that, you can cover an awful lot of 28.5) property. And then what happens 28.5) 5b feet. 1'4 These are total exemptions we're talking about. d : OK, talking about where you cut at. Does your dog house count too? well, that's what I'm talking about, I mean 28.7). HA: I could take out 15 trees, huge trees. I think a primary residence ought to be garages considered part of that building, that structure. You put a structure and a primary residence. Attached or detached. HA: I'll go with the attached garage. Just the building itself. No, I was just looking at what really.... If the garage is attached it's part of the building. What's really that we're talking about, the normal person 29.2) 50 feet want to take something down 29.2) garage because of 29.3) of stuff on their roof and gutters and moss and all the rest of that. I mean we're talking about the repairman doing repairs and upkeep of the home, the exterior of the home, to me a garage is something you maintain just as you would your house. What I'm saying is you're not going to find that many situations that if they're really that concerned about 29.7) come down and get a permit. That what you told me? HA: But what direction do we give staff through the ordinance on making that decision? 29.9) (laughter) Get to the next section, it's going to be directive, I think. We'll be making some decision, but I think we should keep it simple. HA: Just to residential living unit. : Just from the residence and the attached garage that's part of the residence and if there's a breezeway that's part of it. HA: That makes it an attached garage? Right, anything that's one structure. And it's always this contiguous structure. mc, y ,5kh~i HA: Well, I don't have a problem with that, for the sake of getting this... (Several of the,guys carry on a mumbling conversation.) HA: That's a good idea. I like that. SO feet measured from the foundation of the 30.8) the house where the residence ' 30.9). Said front of the house? No. HA: You got to define it. Let's 31.0). No, I think from the closest point of your residence. Closest point of the residence, that's right. HA: So if you have a cantilevered living room... Right. HA: ...it's OK to measure from the cantilevered point? Yeah, cause the foundation could be under 31.2) or something. HA: Sure, 31.2) mgr house. Why is my house always coming up on this? : The reason you wanted to take the tree down in the first place is it's too close to the house whether it's a gutter that sticks out, some use hang up 31.4). HA: Or maybe I just don't like the 31.4). Closest point is probably good enough. Now is that attached and detached garages? (Several people say "No..." and say different things at once." Attached, OK. HA: Just attached. OK. HA: And we're not going from the foundation, we going from... Like they said, closest point 31.6). HA: ...the structure. 4 31.6) garages... 8 If you chose, this would be 31.9) if you chose to exempt a certain number of trees like all dougs. This would be expressly 32.0) number of trees in a calendar year, and we would add that. I think it's going to be tough to enforce and I think that it's just asking for folks 32.2) cut the trees. It's 32.3) the rest of this ordinance is all about. HA: And I don't know how we'd regulate it. We'd have to go out and inventory every tree on the property before you could say, yes you can cut this tree, no you can't. 32.4) HA: Yeah. 32.4)-determine by carbon dating or something like that. (laughter) Do we have a carbon dating specialist on staff? (laughter) Well, 32.6) Oh. 32.6) HA: Right off the top of your head you know that's not a 32.7), 32.7) OK, let's keep moving. HA: OK, permit criteria reconsideration. Basically, it indicates an area where we would allow tree removal. One question carne up. It was under 2.c., concept of not placing an unusual economic hardship and we, frankly, can't measure economic hardship whereas it depends on the person's social standards such as a widow maybe something different that a developer in. revenue to do that. I think with-the concept of having that in there was something that would not add documenting costs to 33.6) or some wording to that effect. HA: I, would accept that. Does this apply to a tree cutting permit? Single tree cutting 4 permit or does this apply to developers also'? OK. No alternative exists. HA: And I've got, if no alternative exists, kinda keeps it real tight. You take what's C out of here then? Replace it with a something that adversely causes 34.1) of the improvements. Well, if a developer comes in with a permit and there's a couple trees on there that he can demonstrate to save these particular trees would require additional cut and fill or something like that and convinces the director that that would be an undue economic burden, then the director would have the latitude to say yeah I think these over here I think you could save those so those have to be 34.6) that's what he's 34.6). With the developers, basically, what we do is, now, if anything 34.7) would be approved planning that this development with utilities, the street, and grading and basically, we allow for 34.9).... 34.9) so it's cut and fill 34.9). HA: And aren't we taking out words like unreasonable or undue... Yeah. HA: ...so that discretion is not necessarily applicable? Yeah. HA: That was my main concern. Putting responsibility on, you know, without council relegating which direction. Is there any room with this section to add some kind of a mitigation clause? Essentially taking out the tree that exists, and that there may be a good reason for doing that, but and require some kind of mitigation to do that? 35.4) to do that? 35.4) submit an application for reconsideration and could mitigate the adverse affects as such 35.5) a proposal to mitigate the affects. Planting additional trees, specifying size, location, number of trees planted and is that basically 35.7)? Basically gives them an option of proposing mitigation 35.8). HA: So that would essentially be on approval with conditions on reconsideration. 1110 ? ? : Right. ? ? : 36.0) cover that 36.0). A person's got a tree, he just wants to get rid of the darn tree. A residence you're talking about? A home owner? Yeah. I'll use myself for example. HA: You want to get rid of that chestnut tree, we all know it. Just 36.3) chestnut tree. I still haven't cut that thing down. Every year I'm out there raking leaves under it. I mean it's a big tree, I mean, you know the base on it is.... HA: It's beautiful. ...is huge. You know, but if I wasn't physically able for example, to get out there and stand 5-6 hours a week for 3 or 4 weeks when the leaves starting falling under that one stupid tree, you know, and a person just gets tired of maintaining and... Donate it to the City. 36.9) tree we were talking about. That's right. Let the city take care of it. They're not going to cut that tree. It's going to become a heritage tree as long as they do the raking on it. If this passes you won't be cutting that tree. Well, that's... HA: Cause it's more than 50 feet from your house. Could be what it is. Not see, that's a concern of mine, is you have, and probably there's other people have a tree which is you know to me is sort of pretty when it's full of leaves, but the rest of the time is sort of nuisance and a nuisance tree for me as a property owner. You know, grass doesn't grow under it. Because it can because it's so big. So where does a person like that have relief on those same kind of circumstances? They don't, it's a fundamental property rights issue. It's the public good versus the owners property rights. 1111 ZONE s 11 Then that's where I feel that in situations like that, then the city needs to take liability for that tree 37.8). HA: Give tax credits. Pay reparations. Maintenance or whatever. HA: Have the maintenance guy do the rakes, I don't know. I have to, as long as we're kind of touching on this subject, I kind of agree that if the city is going to say, no you cannot take that tree down because we've designated it to be important for the public good, then there has to be some kind of compensation. I agree. I think we should talk about that when we get into the punishments and maybe put penalty and incentive sections together at the end. HA: But I think mitigation... That's something that started it's way down is the incentive section. HA: Yeah. So, Ty, you're feeling like um, litigation is covered under B on page 5? Yeah. HA: Did we get enough direction to say that mitigation is a possible in this. It's something that's approved of as an alternative? Yeah. Well the problem I have is that it says where the director finds that one or more of the criteria contained in subsection A is not met. Then the mitigation kicks in. There's no mitigation if there's just removal. And so, again, we're not 39.0) basic spirit of the ordinance to protect and preserve... Other than the ability to put a condition on people. Yeah, there's no mitigation on these things which are exempt under the prior section. So those trees would come out with basic 39.3) and also if you fit directly within the primary criteria 1, 2 and 3 you showed that the removal was basically necessary for 39.5) and if there was no alternative, no least cost alternative, then you can take that tree out without 39.8) That's the way that this is stated as. I mean do you want to make the mitigation broader than that? Do you want to have mitigation covering.... I think maybe... (more than one talking at once, unable to understand) I think maybe when we get down and.... 39.9) talking about mitigation, and then you get a situation like absolutely got dirt being leveled at the moment and if they put a building in theme and it will involve asphalt 40.1) maybe if we encourage that through some kind of an incentive. Well part of mitigation is.replacing and it can be on other sites and public sites or even on a private sight of the owner, that's part of their replacement tree sections 40.4). HA: OK. OK, I'll hold off till we get to that. And maybe we do need to tie this back together, but it is important for you to know those trees that will be taken out for which there will be no replacement, there won't be any kind of one for one. HA: Yeah. This was from page 4? Yeah, the list on page 4, that's right. Those people don't even have to permit. Yeah. And the other ones those people who get the permits without the conditions. If the people meet the the criteria under A. 1, 2 and 3, outright, without any 41.0). HA: You don't have to mitigate the 1, 2, 3 or the exemptions on page 41.1). Right. You would have to mitigate 41.2) or if you had some people who were in violation. HA: OK. And that's the 41.3). HA: Consider 'this out? ? Oh, yes. t.. 41.4) ,fi. That are more than 50 feet from the house. 41.5) A person could get a permit under A 41.7) 41.7) HA: No, you're supposed to meet all pre-criteria. You can get a permit outright if you meet all pre-criteria. Before I have to agree with that, there's got to be something in there say on a certain situation there's some trees, a person on his own property can take the tree out. I'm not talking 42.1). I'm talking about those type of certain circumstances on that. 42.2) I'm going to be dead serious about that, I mean, that 42.2). You've got a tree like I've got, you know, probably a lot of people are a that 42.3). Because it is a messy chestnut tree with those big burrs on them, you know. And I've put up with it for,-you know, the years I've had because it is a nice tree. But god dang it, if I've got !-mime.... (Side 3 ends) (Side 4 was left blank) (Side 5 Begins) W OK, what are you looking at? HA: 4, right? We're on page 4, permit criteria? HA: It says reconsideration in here. Well, that's what I was wanting. HA: 0.4) coming up with? What are you coming up with? U 0.4) you can't cut it down, right, you can't get a permit. Well, we would at least, B says 0.6) meet any of the criteria in A, then we're going to turn it down or you know that they're going to turn it down. and you can come back with a mitigation proposal. And that could include planting of additional trees or specifying 0.9). And that's kind of that judgment- call whether or not mitigation is equal to the removal of a tree. You're talking about 1.1). HA: Well, and what was it that I read that there's some kind of a multiplier or a divider if you have a 10 inch tree and you can plant five 2 inch trees. Yeah, that's back in the replacement of trees. HA : OK. Yeah. HA: I think it should be tied to mitigation. Yeah, I said the replacement of trees which is in the back, I think you're aright, should be tied to mitigation, but the decision which the council has to make is when it wants to allow the mitigation option in lieu of cutting, in exchange for someone cutting. You go in and you say, you don't meet the criteria. You're not an exception. You don't meet the criteria. We will let you cut under the mitigation option, which is you have to do these things, plant the trees. A tree with a 4 inch diameter, how many trees would that take to make up for that same amount of trees? A what? A 4 inch diameter. A 4 foot diameter. 4 foot diameter? So 48 inches 2.1). HA: Well, it would take, twenty-four 2 inch trees or it would take 12 2.2) 4 inch trees. No, I don't think that we use the, they would have to provide the largest the caliper of the largest available trees available and then 2.4). HA: 2.4) checks that tree, you wanted to replace it with a chestnut tree? No, no-no-no-no-no. No. HA: The chestnut tree can be replaced with any species tree? We may want to define what that would be. It may be deciduous tree. It isn't where the impact doesn't square with the intent. We weren't out for residences 2.8) say we give chestnut trees and to have somebody do mitigations because they happen to live a big yard and a lot of fresh air that benefitted the community for a long time, now we're going to make them pay M 1! 13 v° i r. A MI for it. That wasn't the intent. So may if we take mitigation again and shift it up on to the developer and, but I'm not sure how or where you draw the line, because earlier the reason for the 50 feet was to separate 'residential from developable property and we're trying, it's getting blurred. And you wanted it to be treated, equal and so this puts you right in the middle. Well, you know, it's a problem. But I do believe there should be.... So, another dividing line that's come in here into play and maybe you want to say, OK, for a residential area over sized we have another consideration. HA: I believe that B works, at this point, I like B. I think we need to tall, more about- the replanting of the replacement trees under that particular segment. Right now, I like the fact that if one or more of the 3 criteria are not met then somebody can come back and say, OK, I met 2 of the criteria, here's my proposal for mitigating taking this tree down. I like that. But mitigation may' not be necessary. I don't see where it would be necessarily where you would need to plant another tree. I'm using mine for an example. I'm sure there's going to be other examples that you're going to find out there. Within 20 feet of this chestnut tree, is a redwood tree that's probably got a 24 inch diameter. So that's maybe about 4 4.8) feet up. Within 25 feet or so, there's about 3 or 4 more fir trees that are probably a minimum of 30 feet in height also. Go back there, you wouldn't want to plant another tree or a dozen more trees... That's a circumstance that the director would have the ability to use his own judgement. Common sense says, hey, you know, you've got plenty of trees here. You're thinning them out basically is what you want to do. And you're going to thin out the ones that you don't want that's a nuisance. HA: So, giving the director the option then to say, you don't have to mitigate this? Right, I think what it needs now, replacement of trees, everything that falls under that is on illegal removal of trees. Now what we need to do is have a separate thing on the replanting of trees if it's deemed necessary by the director. Replacement of a tree that he finds, you have a tree that you feel is a nuisance tree that's on your property, doesn't fit into the neighborhood anymore, the director should have the right to say, OK, I'm going to 1st you remove it and since you have plenty of other trees you don't need-to replace it. HA: So they could submit a proposal that provides no mitigation when they don't meet all. the criteria. Right, I think it's... That's not the way it's worded now. HA: No. So if it says that if you don't meet the standards then you have to plan something and 6.5) where it is and come up with a plan to deal with it. But 6.6) suggest to change that. Then Ron's suggesting you change that. We changed it to, I can see kind of a problem with that is that then basically then the director's going every time and going Ito be stuck with, yeah, well you don't meet the criteria, but we'll let yDu.remove the-tree. HA: Yeah, you don't want to take the... Right, because the developer will be in right behind him in the same line saying you did it for him, dq, it for me. HA: And maybe we could put a number 4 under here, we've got 1, 2 and 3, maybe we could put a number 4 in there that somehow deals with a situation like what John has. I don't know how we would word it. How about where... Even if there was an appeal process. HA: This is all under reconsideration, right? If you don't meet one of the 3. HA: We could add a 4 then that deals with a large tree in a stand of a large trees or something, I don't know. 7.8 - several talking at once, not understandable) HA: I don't know how you could word it to accommodate that. But I don't want to take the mitigation option out. No, I don't think we should. But why can't we have another stage, add a 4 where a person 8.1). HA: It says right here the removal of the tree will not have a significant impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, water quality, wildlife, noise pollution, protection of adjacent trees, or existing wind breaks. Your tree falls under number 3. It won't have those impacts. 4. 112 :1 i;i VAN It's a huge tree providing a... You have to meet all 3 of these? Yeah. HA: In order to automatically get a permit, so you don't qualify under number 2? I don't qualify under 1 or 2. That's my point. Can I ask, do you want to allow the cutting of the chestnut tree outright or do you want to allow cutting with mitigation or do you want to totally disallow cutting it? I'm not saying require it outright, I don't have a problem with a person needing to go through a permit process to do something like that. Linder certain circumstances, mitigation and replanting would be appropriate. In some circumstances I don't think it wouldn't be appropriate. ? ? : What are the circumstances,? ? ? : Pardon? What are the circumstances? That, o what?. That you would suggest. HA: Where it would be appropriate. What would make it appropriate to cut that tree. Well, what I was talking about was it wouldn't be appropriate to replant trees to take that one out. Because obviously, I mean, it's almost 9.8). You're thinning. This is the same thing I was just talking to him about. I've got a situation in front of my house where it all natural. 10.0) knows where I live, where the trees are just right on top of each other, you take one out, you're not going to notice. You're sure not going to plant another one in there. OK, but if you want to allow someone who's got the chestnut beyond the 50 feet, they say I want to cut this tree because it's messy. Goes down to the city, the director comes out., the director says 10.3), and says you don't meet these criteria, but we will allow you the mitigation option which is basically replanting and you say, well, I don't want to put another tree in that spot, that's why I'm taking the tree out, and you say well how about a planting on this public property i I! 11,111 !1 Ig'' !!I Igi t! All 111%11 or on this other person's That's good. HA: And that's in the mitigation., it's in there. And that's covered, and that's is incorporated... That would work. HA: OK, so B works. B works. 10.8) away from it. That would be number 3 we have a list of factors to consider. Under 11.0) that is doesn't affect the neighborhood aesthetics, makes it consistent with the purpose statement at the front. 11.2). That, I think would be very difficult to, yeah, what may be aesthetics, 1 tree a person likes, somebody else doesn't like. And then a lot of people like every tree that's out there. So if you felt like 11.6) most trees 11.7) permit are requested for the... HA: No, because it has the word wildlife in it, and if the bird lands in those branches, we're talking every single tree has significant and negative impact on wildlife. Yeah, we were actually, we were reconsidering all of these, we're not going to remove this, we're kind of reconsidering some of these based on the goal 5 problem. Erosion and soil ` stability definitely need to be kept because that's the primary basis for the whole ordinance, but we can cut out others of those that may make it too broad. I think when it says significant negative impact and so you have to try to take in to consideration what's significant. For instance the cutting behind my house, clear cutting, took out the eagles. We had eagles up there and yet they cut. And now they're no longer around. But is that significant? I don't think so. I think they'll just find another hunting ground. But there's a lot of... Well, but is it significant to the people that choose to move there 13.0)... I think it's significant. But I don't think a developer would or he wouldn't have cut it. But see that's wildlife. HA: So that we don't get off track, I don't feel, I think we should take the word wildlife out of there. Not that I'm against wildlife, but and maybe significant could be tightened up somehow so it's not quite so discretionary. What sorts of.... r, RISEN, EMMMOMMMMI'l W "J I don't think we should take it out. 13.5) Yeah. : Well, if we were to take it out I guess we would want some direction on... I have wildlife in there. What 13.7) would want to go with that? How would you want to better define significant and negative impact? HA: Well, I don't know how we would define it. I don't know of a tree around that doesn't have a bird nest in it. Yeah, that's right. HA: And leaving significant... My chestnut tree does. HA: Does not have a bird nest? Oh, it does. That's what I said, every tree around will have a bird nest in it and so significant negative impact probably needs to be defined if you leave wildlife in there. OK. Let's leave it alone and move on to the next one down. Let me real quick, let me 14.2) me, before we move on, I want to make sure that we're clear on. A person comes in and they don't meet any of the criteria, we're under A permit criteria. They don't meet 1, 2 or 3, OK, we'll say that they don't meet any of them, but they say, but I'm willing to do this mitigation. Currently, that is allowed under the ordinance. 14.7) that's allowed under the ordinance as we're discussing and I just want to make sure that that's what the council wants. 14.8) developers? HA: That's what I want. What's that? That's mainly in for developers? I don't know, I'm not differentiating actions between developers and others. HA: And I'm in favor of having it there because I believe... It applies to everyone. HA: Yeah. And that one doesn't apply to everyone, but I just think it's necessary to have it in there. And then of course the director would look at managing all that mitigation. 15.3) 15.4) director 15.5) but not... HA: What the latitude is? Yes, it says now the director shall 15.5) on the mitigation proposal. 15.6) approved on that 15.6). OK, yeah, if you cut the mitigation proposal as becoming an important offset to the criteria, I think it we're going to have kind of tighten up 15.8) under which that whole option is allowed. HA: To define the latitude. So you're going to work on this one. 16.0) tightening it up 16.1). C includes the sensitive land where we wouldn't 16.2). Significant natural areas and greenways, probably define sensitive land as defined in the development code chapter 18 16.4) 20 or 18.84. HA: So, you're taking out on sensitive lands, significant natural areas or greenways? Right. 16.6) would be leaving sensitive lands. HA: Oh, you want to leave sensitive lands then? Yeah, and the intent is to provide some extra protection for trees which are on sensitive lands because sensitive lands again that are 16.8) ways. Wetlands under your flood plain. Which are particularly sensitive to erosion as I understand this. HA: Right, OK. i It would probably change 17.0) where it takes a 17.1). HA In C we're talking about changing sh'.,i l to may? Is that what a b 8 MEMBER! WIN 1! t f~ zigilimml!i: :10 PRO s - W. we're talking about? Yeah, that's the suggestion to make that entirely discretionary. There was a question under section 3 what landscaping purposes was. The intent was if it was tree removal that was not to develop a new property, basically, any tree removal that was not the development of property would be to landscape purpose. Yeah, I would say that. Next section, let's take a break right here, get out of here. HA: Thank you. Take about 10 minutes. (break) Setback adjustments then. HA: We're loosing our audience. Was there any questions? Did anybody have any comments on that section? Not here. Did staff have any proposed changes on that? ? ? : No, I don't believe that there are any proposed changes to the setback adjustment. ? ? : Yeah, this might be a good time, before Dick get's back to discuss what he has here. The set back is just sort of... HA: Especially since he's not here. : One of the general issues which has been brought up is the incentives to get development to take place a different way, a little bit so the trees can be preserved. That is what the setback adjustment is for, but I guess we were wondering if there were ideas out there for incentives. This might be a good place. I think that 045 may become a general sort of incentives section. So if you have those 20,$). HA: Well, since people who are developing residential property at any rate, I'm not sure about commercial or industrial, there are opportunities for density changes and opportunities for setback changes and opportunities for lot line adjustments for how big a lot has to be. Is that right phrase I'm using? Currently you have standards for the width and depth of lots i 111 11 ng y M! SM 011 _ . _ ' _ , IV and. 21.5). HA: Yeah, and I would like for those to be director's discretion within the concept of city trees. If it's necessary in order to save trees or to maintain significant trees, then I would like to allow the director the decision to make those lot line adjustments just a normal decision process as long as the police is really clear that the intent is to only override other code sections if it were proven that it would keep a tree over 6 inches from coming down. And if we could write it like that, then I would feel confident to allow all three of those as possible density and setbacks and lot line adjustments. Setbacks should be taken out of the heading probably and it's adjustment to preserve trees because you are going to have more things in there than.... I don't think density is going to have a major impact in fact generally you want to preserve trees you're probably going to be less dense. HA: Well, see, right now we don't have an ordinance that says you have to build up to density. In other words, you can take an R-7 lot and build it 4.5 if you want to at this point. That's correct. HA: But what I'm saying is that maybe.... ? ? : 23.0) HA: What? I don't think it's done in 23.1) manner. 23.1) build up to the density. HA: Right. I don't know if we can cross over to code and say you could build 4 houses on these 2 acres or 4 houses on this 1 acre. You could build a 4-plex instead. You can do that now. HA: Can you do that nova? I don't think you can build a 4-plex instead of single family dwellings. No you can't if it's a single family zone unless you change the 23.7) ordinance that allows 23.7) and that's a whole 23.7). HA: Yeah, so I'm wondering how we can do it that would provide an incentive. Obviously, board units per acre. I think it can only apply in subdivisions. Basically it would L U 11, 11011,1 EIII11,11MI, '-1,JiMM IF 1111I ii r SRI FOR INNER, 1 1, allow 10, 25 percent 24.0) density. But that would also affect a subdivision or a partition being made to depend upon or size : the initial lot 24.1) unit partition you might be able to get a whole bunch more lots in a subdivision. You only want to do it for trees that were more than 50 feet from the house. Because the first thing the homeowner may do... HA: Is go in and take down trees. ...if it's within that 50 feet, is cut the tree down. So then you've allowed additional density and set back considerations to save the tree and 24.7) kills them. HA: That are now within the 50 foot unsafe zone. Kill zone. HA: Yeah, the kill zone, OK. Could we craft something? I just don't know the codes well enough and the options well enough to say, let's do it this way. But I do believe that if put incentives in here that translate into dollars, then more people will take us up on saving trees. We would like mostly to 25.3) what incentive we would provide to commercial other than dollars 25.4) unless you increase the number parking stalls that would save a tree could probably 25.5). HA: Well, I'd like to include that too. I wart to do whatever I can to help a developer see that tree saving is a value and it will be a value to them. The one thing about reducing the number of parking places for industrial and commercial is there's a benefit from the TIF standpoint, but there's also a benefit we've been talking about mandating less parking than is required, just because of encouraging 26.1) and other things while this would maybe not necessarily have to mandate maximum number of parking places they can include. There's been this concern when we're dealing with Costco and Cub Foods, they've got too many parking places. HA: Yeah. And should we put a limit on the amount of parking places. Well, maybe we could save some trees by saying you'll get a 25% reduction in the number of spaces if you save a certain number of trees or something. HA: 26.5) and they're doing that. I think some of that's already been done because if we adopted 10 I'll 1 1111111111 Ill 11111, !11131111i~!111111~15 1111 the ordinance now for smaller narrower streets and we do something like that. on Benchview II, it would allow the smaller street in there, which meant their houses could be built not as far into the tree line, which resulted... That was just based on the street standard being reduced. Right. So some of that was the street standard being reduced had an impact on saving trees that we really didn't really recognize at the time, but that's exactly what happened. Now if we could maybe do setbacks, I don't know if Benchview II whether we had an opportunity to reduce setbacks even further so houses could be built closer to the street, which would have saved more trees in the back in the greenway there. That's kind of what we're thinking about is doing this. Well other than that I'm not sure what we can do for commercial and industrial. 27.7)/ What about the reduction of fees? HA: What fees do we have that option on? Our fees to develop the land. 28.0) talk about increasing our fees. You're incurring the cost here of the city by writing tree cutting a permit, so you got to be careful. Because what 1 thought we could do too is have almost like a tree cutting tax or take some of the money that would come in with regard to a tree cutting permit and if the city brought in more money that it spent then you could create a tree planting fund and have some non-profit groups go out and plant trees with that money so you'd have a connection between the intent of what you're doing and the revenue coming in going directly to planting trees somewhere else, but that's not in here and I'm not suggesting 28.8). HA: Maybe we could use it to provide incentives for commercial and industrial to say please. Of course I don't krow how much, when you talk about commercial developments, you're talking about significant dollars, you know a million dollars, half a million dollars for buildings. Oh, I think so. HA: We could give them a $1,000 to save a tree, I don't know how that could be relative, how it would be even worth the bother to them. It sounds likes a Walmart or 29.4) has got trees and loose their'(? 29.5) to park. r~~ I!IIMJI I;! Iffl:11 11111! '1 ''1 FIN!i %5111: III MINIMUM BE=, 11 MEIN - ~x How could you limit, this is getting off the question, was the comment you made of limiting parking spaces like in costly to mention to make people go to mass transit. We'd be kidding ourselves it we thought people would take mass transit to go shopping at Costco. You need a semi to get home! (laughter) Part of the concept is that most commercial and industrial, commercial users especially provide much more parking than they normally use. The basis is that you have 30.3) much more run off and a number of other things that would encourage 30.4) also you end up about 30.5). We put a maximum on the number of parking places, not just a minimum. Dick, here's a little bit of what we're talking about, just from my own information on the 30.7) Ernst as an example. We limit the 30.8) size or grant size they can build a building, but then they take a quarter of the parking lot for, storage space also. Is that allowable use? They have to maintain a certain number of required parking places. Normally what they do is over build 31.1) parking places. You have restrictions about how that's utilized rather than try to into 31.3) manage their parking lots 31.3). : Most of those places also provide large outdoor storage areas, like Ernst has a fenced in storage area that invariably Fred Meyers and all those type of places. They have so they want to show their merchandise a little bit closer to they'll take up some of their side walk space and parking area. Usually they have much more parking than they required. Let's get back to this 32.). So, we're going to look at modifying density, lot line, lot depths and possibly the number of parking places? HA: Setback variances. Setback variances, we've got that. HA: OK. Oh yeah, that's already in there. And basically it sets exceptions to the numbers down their 32.2) flexible setbacks and zero lot lines. I don't think those are thing that 32.3) or things that we 32.4) with. The exception is street setbacks on collector streets, and I'm sure that we have a different set of standards for arterial i VIS collector streets so we don't want to mess with that. Or we wouldn't just to save a tree. We could say, we would let you get building's closer, but we might have to say well., there's a problem of 32.6) the trees. HA: That makes sense to me. Do we already have in our code language that allows a sidewalk to go along and then go around a tree? Yes. HA: We already have that in our code? We don't really have that in the code, it would have to do with how we build the sidewalks and if it's necessary we try to get an easement with good public right of way, but get an easement on the private property to go around trees and that 33.1). In fact, we've conditioned a partition the other day just to do that and go around a tree. They're not real happy with that. Would it be better to put it in to our streets standards to provide for meandering around trees would be a preference as opposed to the street right of way? We could. It's probably in the construction document rather than the actual standard. 33.6). How do you protect that tree if it's less than 50 feet from the house? You don't. I don't know what 33.9) is. At list it's going to be up for a while. Plant another tree. HA: Well what to say about this... It might be considered a street tree. HA: Yeah, what decides between it and the private property then it's a city tree. I mean we allow street trees to be planted on the private property if there is no parking 34.2) between the two. HA: Maybe that's a detail we need to watch out for is making sure that even though street trees are planted within 50 feet of a house, a homeowner may not remove them. _ If they're part of the development 34.4), but we've done that before. OK, 34.5) stations size to put benches out in and like these little 2 inch 34.6) or 3 inch 34.7). But we define the existing trees as street trees in a development 34.8) like that? ~1~ :p : As far as planting the trees that we would through due process if there was something 34.9) just as a street trees, we count. OK, so it would be designated. HA: But that's already provided for in the code. OK, next one? Expiration. HA: Oh, are there incentives, let's back up just a second, I want to explore and idea that was brought up. Talked about taking some monies from the fines and the permits even though we know the permits is going to be a cost to the city, maybe the fines will end up having the fund that we can provide incentives for. Do we want to do any monetary incentives to investment commercial? The only way I can see it would be in some of the 35.8). HA: You wouldn't want to take money from fines that we get from people who 35.9). I don't think you`re going to get enough money in fines to pay in some way. HA: OK. It depends, we haven't gotten to the fines section yet have we? HA: No, we haven't (laughs). No you're not going to find very much violations 36.2) take that money to use it for something like that. Cost 36.3). See it'll be $500. HA: Sure. We've got these variance applications. They wouldn't have to make application, that would save them the fees for applying for a variance? Is that something that staff would handle instead of having, you know, if the director makes the determination that we can move this lot line 5 feet in order to save a particular tree, then make it understood that the applicant wouldn't have to apply for that variance and pay the fee in order to get that through the city. Well you wouldn't have to do that. HA: They wouldn't have to anyway? OK. Not with these provisions. That would be more uncomfortable trying to set some standards 37.2) provisions it says if you keep the same tree, we'll let you get a variance to quit picking after maybe twice the building 37.4) allowed or f L -li'lligi 111103 lli~~igjlp- ill e YC~T' reduce your landscaping to 7.5% versus 15% kind of a deal.. HA: Isn't that what we're doing though by... No, it's not. HA: It's not? No. Basically, we're granting the modification of the setback requirements only just based on the location of a tree you can get 50%. And then 37.7), however, some modifications are 37.7) development what you can do with a lot line 37.8), for a permit. HA: I thinks that's right. 37.9) HA: OK. Let's go on. Next section is basically is expiration of permits. I think one and a half years is typical of all other approval, so, not too much different in that than any of the other approval codes. Any questions on that one? HA: Expiration and approval, time revocation. OK 38.4) in an area where you're trying to preserve an overall feel for a neighborhood. If you have a bunch of these going out a year and a half, is there anyway to keep track of what's out there before you grant the next one? Say somebody goes right up to the limit in terms of cutting? We would only apply the criteria for removal. We know that he can go back and see what was being cut, based on the records of the permits, but you still have to apply the criteria. Well the permit is taken out and you mark every tree. Every tree is on the permit then it's marked, so a year and half later when you go out, you know if anything's been cut. I don't know if that 39.1) I'm not sure I follow 39.2). Well, I'm not sure it's going to be a problem, because I assume that if somebody wants a permit that much, they're going to cut the tree soon rather than later. Oh, I understand. It depends on the maker, the market could all of a sudden take a down turn 39.4). OK, let's go on to application. The next section was application submission requirements and the only question that we had last time was relative to C the director may waive any requirements in subsection B or request 1~ C additional information in accordance with. You'll word that the idea in section 18.32.080 is that the Director would waive the requirements. And this is similar to every submittal requirement that we have in the code, if we find that the information is not necessary to properly evaluate the application and to the direct requirements of this specific approval standard is not applicable to the application and then the decision 40.3) what you have to do when you waive that probably you're not going to waive it all and 40.4) some good reason for it. HA: OK, I have a question on number 6, a narrative as to how the applicable criteria of this chapter are satisfied. Now I know that the staff is very used to doing that for all of our land use development applications and that we do get a considerable amount of 40.8) on how that fits, you know, criteria number 6 is met because and then there's a paragraph criteria number 7 is met because, I don't know that the everyday citizen is going to be able to accomplish that. And I'm a little concerned about making it so difficult. I mean is that included under director's discretion, they could say... I don't believe so. I think that's key that the applicant has to make a proposal that shows that he complies with those criteria the burden of proof is always on the applicant. And we're providing the answers for them and we're basically doing, we're taking a step beyond what our real is. I don't know that we've been very good previously at making sure that all those requirements have been met in regard with this process we're going to be a lot more sticky about criteria, I mean, based on everything that's happened recently with a lot of other 41.9). HA: So then when a narrative that asks how does the applicable chapter are satisfied, would you refer back to, say if I were going to do a permit, then I would go back under permit requirement and say that... Provide a response to each one of those criteria. HA: To each one of three criteria, A, B and C, or A and B and say removal is necessary to prevent interference with overhead utility lines. And here's why. HA: and here's why? What would I say, well the tree's in the way of the wire? Well that there isn't another alternative. HA: Oh, I see, OK. I'm a little concerned. I understand the need for findings. I understand the need for burden of proof on the person who's applying. I'm a little concerned about . typewriter gymnastics on the part of the everyday citizen. I don't know how to get around it. Well I guess our intent would be to give as much direction as we could to an applicant on which questions need to be answered and how other people have answered some of the questions. The danger there is you don't want to give someone an example of 43.) application and, get regurgitated back with the exact same answers. HA: Right. It needs to be some specific response related to that project. You would be giving enough information on applications... (Side 5 Ends) (Side 6 Begins) ...applications.as simple for anyone to fill out as possible 0.0) technicians at the counter would be trained to attempt to walk through with some in as sufficient of a time for the applicant as well as for the staff. Because it doesn't help us if we don't give good information and they come back and 0.3). And that's been one of the things that we're talking about is with customer service technician 0.4) who really view the majority of the tree removal permits would be their responsibility. I mean there's always going to be planning questions and a planner or somebody will come up and answer, but hopefully we're going to have to talk about notice pretty quick and I think it's coming. That it maybe would explain and provide the back 0.8) here's a list of the criteria and what 0.9) address and delay. I hear before it's been pretty much an over the counter type of thing where we look at them and if it's relatively simply, the house is going to go there, you've tree, and a house, OK, we'll just issue that, and you know, but I think those days are probably gone. But the times that we really look and we're going to take a lot more time on the tree removal permit is if it looks like we can save something and then we'll plan on going out to look at an individual site. Hopefully, we'll be able to train the customer service technicians to look at and ask about the arborist that we have in the maintenance department and help try to figure alternatives to save trees but when an improvement is going there, the driveway is going to go there or if there's 1.6) to move for example we even tried to save very large fir tree just recently before we gave a building permit, but I think we even -required moving a street light and that was an additional cost that we were going be able to justify getting the applicant to do that. 2: NMI Imeff "R I'll III, glil 111, 1' 1 NORM HA. You've answered my question thoroughly, now I don't want to remove this from the ordinance. I guess this would be also the place to consider the concept of notification. Some alternatives to that. In the process, generally, 2.4) noticing of ELM gives you the right to appeal. This the part I don't want to hear. (laughs) I think that what we have to deal with is the fact that this is going to be considered a land use decision and as such, some notice is going to have to be given and some sort of right of appeal is going to have to be given as well. Ta"hat I tried to do or my idea is that we can fit this in as a director's decision subject to notice which either could be posted. What Lake Oswego does, my understanding is they post each with a yellow ribbon around each tree? Lake Oswego, when you come in for your permit, basically says, the applicant has to post his property with a sign, I'm not sure whether they use one standard form of 3.4) post a sign saying what you plan to do and there is an appeal process for the removal of trees and they tie the yellow ribbon around trees that have to come down and give 14 days to come in and appeal that process. The other option to do that is with the director's decision that we do it, basically, would be to notify that it was approved or are going to approve a tree removal permit and notify everybody adjacent to that lot that there is trees 3.9) give then an opportunity to appeal it. In either case, this extends considerably the amount of time it takes to process and the amount of review to process a tree removal permit, because we're talking if we use our process that we have where we just notify adjacent property owners, we have to send out notice 4.4) so that decision normally takes place within a 10 to 20 day period, and then there's an appeal period of 10 to 20 days. So you're talking probably 20 days before you can issue a tree removal permit. And for development that's fine. They're fine for that. But for a single property owner that want's to take out 2 trees. Well, you're really 4.8). If a tree has been there for like 20 years and now he's decided to take it down, what's a few weeks? If it's a hazard, that wouldn't be the same 5.0). Why is it fine for development? yys V~3 I III REMAIN 1 1, ;1 '11,111 115~~ Iii IR WIN 11 1 Well, I'm talking about, you know... 20 days for the permit? No, I'm talking about, you know, if ,you've got a development that wants to go in there and they have a stand of trees there and they want to go in there an do some major development in there a take a lot of trees out versus a property owner that wants to take down one tree and I'm just looking not only at the hassle for the property owner, but the expense of the city to go through that process. That's what's bothering me. 5.5) This is going to be very expensive. I think you're adding something on here for the developer too because you've got what is it, 20 days and 20 days? For the decision we could do it, well the decision is effective with in 10 days. In this appeal? Unless 5.9). And then how long is it if it's appealed? Well there you set up the 6.0) hearing process with all that you could go... I don't want to do those. 30 days U 6.2). But that's only if appealed and I have to say I know that this is unpopular, but I've talked to the city attorney in Lake Oswego, and she says that that nightmare scenario of all these appeals of rather simple tree cutting permits really do not materialize there. There have been instances where a tree cutting permit gave rise to hours and hours of hearing, but she said that is extremely rare. That nightmare scenario really hasn't materialized for them of really clogging up a lot of planning commission time of hearings on someone that wants to cut the tree. Would there be any validity in considering 2 or more trees so that you 7.0) so much expense in here that everything we're putting in here just adds more expense for the city on the thing and more staff time and I the same way that if they're going to make a big development take out a bunch of trees, people should know, but I'm not too concerned if my neighbor is going to cut his tree down is all I'm saying. 11 M 111 'ffil 1, 1;: 111 Could you put that as say if they were going to take out a permit for x number of trees or greater that you have to go though the notification process? Well, it's tied to the fact theft this is decisions on all tree removal are land use decisi,ons And that's what trips that requirement. Yeah, we can't gnt out of it.. The only ;way we can got out of it would be by taking all the discretion out of this, which just 8.0). You can :receive a tree removal permit if you ask for one, basically. HA: I guess that answers my question then. Because this is a land use decision., we are required to make notice of some sort. How much, latitude do we have in deciding how much notice and to whom? Well,, I think the minirpum we can go is 10 days. And you can determine if you want it to 108, 158 8.5) property owner, you can give that determination. But then if it is 8.5) hearing the statute requ_.res that we 20 day notice from when the notice is sent out to ~aheli the hearing is. What makes me different than all ghat we talked about last week about notifying people within a. certa:.r, period, that you give me back input? Remember we had that issue, maybe in a different way, but on notification. Now can you clarify it for me? Well I think that it's clarified as is. Now the question of discretion and we need to follow the statutes of those requirements. Basically, we were talking about the need to notify to let people know that we weren't considering it as part of what necessary a land use, the detailed land use process that we're talking about. We are talking about legal requirements as a notice of decision. It's lands use decision that we have to sent out appropriate notice. Now we do not have send out a notice now. I suppose that we could consider, because of the amount of discretion in there, it could be a land use decision, I don't know. It wasn't intended originally to exceed that discretionary. It was intended primarily to be something that's issued over the counter relatively easily. But when we make a land use decision then we have 9.9) land use decisions are 100 feet. You can go farther you go to 250, you can go to a adjacent property owner 10.1). It disqualified land use under the definition? No. I believe that it would, but 10.2). Yeah, I don't have a 10.2). ? e nand use as subdivision 10.3) outlined 10.4). HA,; Well, I Iin in favor of Iilinirral notice. 'yeah, and we have, that's what we... FIA: And it.'s not because I don't want the public to be involved, but I just... It also adds to the cost H%Iatever 10.6) notice 10.7) more because the notifications 10.7) HA: And not only that but I have a friend who I have lived with through the Lake Oswego tree ordinance and it was a nightmare, truly was a nightmare. The man wanted to put an addition on his home, he needed to take down, he Blau something like 300 trees on 2 acres. I mean it was just so packed in there, he wanted to take down 80 of those trees and the neighborhood just went ballistic just so he could had a bedroom addition onto his house. And I'm real concerned about that. I just don't see the purpose in involving the whole city, for a residence. I do on development. I do on industrial land. Because they have a significant impact on our city. But for a residence, it concerns me. It concerns ate too. Well we're concerned about the 11.6) cost and time that it's going to take, the added time of staff members. But you're saying you don't have any choice, is that correct? If we leave it discretionary, we're going to have to do it. i4 HA: And by, discretionary you mean director's decision? Correct. You're only 11.9) this is, we talked about earlier, is you have 2 trees per year or 5 trees per years. Well then I think we ought to go 2 years. Here's what you're going to do, you're going to add 45 days to every single development along. HA: It could be submitted with the application. No it can't, some of them. HA : Why not? Because it doesn't work that way. You don't know where your WOOMM tree, until you get further in the engineering process, from what I understand... Design review and all that. ...yeah, you're a little further downstream and that's what I thought if you could put it right in with the normal process and it could be processed in parallel would be OK, but what we've heard from a number of the developers, it has to almost be in a linear fashion you have to 12.7). You don't know where you're footprint of you house is going to be, where some of the utilities are going to be until you're further along in the process. So what you do is you come in for your application and then it could be appealed and later you come in for your tree cutting permit, it can be appealed and it adds 45 days to the process. Now maybe you think big developers can weather the storm, but what about the person who's doing 13.1) then we got 13.2) just doing a lot line partition and some neighbors just don't want it done-. It adds 45 days to the process. HA: But if he's just doing a lot line 13.4) he doesn't need to take it to appeals hearing to register 13.5). But when he does later when he comes in to do the rest of the process. HA: He still needs to get building permit, why can't he put in with the building permit? Yeah, but when they go in for their first initial permit, you know, they've got an engineer's concept, but that's just rough - engineering. When they go back for design review, that's where they've actually got everything plotted out. HA: But that process takes a while anyway. Why can't the tree permit come in then? But what I'm saying is when they go in there, what happens is because of those questions that 14.1) subdivision again, they don't know exact. And so usually there's a condition that you shall come back with a tree removal permit outlining then. Then after that then we also have a condition that relates to the individual lots too. So it comes back twice. It comes back twice. It will come back twice and it will be an appeal process twice so there's the potential, for 45 days. I'd like to hear more discussion going back to the beginning of this thing and say that it applies to 2 or more trees only. V (ti Kong:, MEM4 Because we're putting something in here that most of the people going to like, the residents aren't going to like. We're going to add a huge expense to our staff and to what we're going to do and complicate our ordinance considerably. The argument is that there isn't any way to enforce it. Well it isn't going to be easy to enforce just this one cutting down, it can't cut doom one tree on the thing because people are going to cut them down and you're not going to know about it anyway whether :it's one tree or two trees. I looks to me like we're just building ourselves a huge expense and a lot of the citizenry on the individual lots are going to be extremely critical that we're dictating that we're taking away what they want to do. HA: I think it's important to remember that Tigard citizens hold trees in high regard. And with that must come some kind of regulation to avoid clear cutting and some kind of regulation to avoid flagrant disregard for that value. Nobody disagrees with that I understand, so the question is, does this ordinance accomplish that? If it does, and it means 45 more days for a developer then maybe we should consider that. Frankly, I think that if we went to a 2 tree or a. 2 tree a year ordinance, we don't want to stop development in it's tracks, that would be a foolish thing to do. And so I don't understand how we could balance that with somebody who actually has to go in and take out more than 2 trees in order to develop a subdivision if we did it 2 trees a year. I think that's just too simplistic. I just don't see how that would work. No, what I think Paul is saying with 2 trees a year what it does it get's you away from of the other stuff we're talking about. HA: For just residential properties 2 trees a year? Would you make, that would have a blanket. 2 trees wouldn't it? You could do that any which way... You could do it residential only. ...50 foot exemption all the way around the house. Are you suggesting that if anybody on any piece of property can cut 2 trees a year. A_*aything beyond that they have to come in and get a tree cutting permit. 17.9). Right. ? : So that would catch all the developers or any homeowrie-r that wanted to cut down 2 chestn).t trees.. HA: But how do you know how many they've chosen to come down. You'd have to inventory every single tree though the whole a ME city. you'll. catch all the developers. You wouldn't anymore, real!. :endi, than you would if, following that same reasoning, we'd have to go out and inventory in the city now to see 18.3) cut down one tree. We're running around in a circle here 18.5) city all flat land P 18.5) excuse me 18.5) people have planted trees and they're the ones that we're not really aiming at. We're aiming at the hillsides and where all the douglas firs are and so on. But, if you look at what's in here, and if you look at the development that Commissioner Holland is concerned about where all the trees came down, I would venture to say that this wouldn't stop any of those trees from coming down and the staff might want to check that out. Because the lots are so darn small by the time you get the foot print, utilities, street cuts, and the grading in there just wasn't any room left for trees, so the big question is... HA: And I agree with you, that's the ultimate question. Does this ordinance accomplish what we're looking for. And we haven't got to the penalty part yet. Might, but to get back to the issue of how people in this city value trees, I believe that the people who value the trees are also willing to pay for the process. You know the trees that this will save? This will save the trees that are on big lots beyond the 50 foot boundary. Those are the trees that will be saved. Which whether you put the 2 tree or leave it the way it is. The chestnut tree will be saved. But look at his 19.8). He won't be able to get a permit to cut it. So I think it's kind of ironic. I don't know what to do about it. The planning commission has been wrestling with that very issue and we talked about it earlier. And you're right. 'You're absolutely right. I've got an acre and a half and under that permit, with that thing right there, I can develop that into a parcel of 10 lots. Cut all the trees and end up with no trees and be completely in compliance with this. And we haven't talked about penalty yet. That's why I'm looking at it making th4.s thing, because by doing different things, developes s can circumvent a lot of this. And so by just making thi6 thing so difficult like that and so expensive for the city, what are we really gaining, A°^ L V F a - Are we gaining that much. I guess that's my questions. You're talking about, I'm not talking about 45 days for the developer or the person that want's to cut down a chestnut tree. But I'm also looking at what the cost is to the city to go though every one of those processes. HA: Don't forget, ,john, that the City is funded by people ivho hold this value. SC: And what I'm saying though is, are we funding something that really doesn't have a lot of weight to it. HA: 1 understand. if it doesn't accomplish the goal of preventing clear cutting for subdivisions that we should recraft it. But we can't just throw the baby out with the bath water. The concept is here and we have to keep something that will help. SC: And that's why I agree with Paul. To get rid of some of the process costs and stuff like to go with the 2 trees a year. HA: Show me how that protects. Is it 2 trees a year within 50 feet of your house? Is it 2 trees a year on your whole property? Is it 2 trees a year if you subdivide? How does that work. I don't understand how that works? i think it works the same way that it's been working for the past 20 years. People can cut down trees in their own yards to the extent that they want- to and they haven't been because you look at the photograph, I mean the evidence is there. People are letting trees grow up in their yard. SC: Except for areas where they want to develop. HA: In areas that have wanted to be developed. 22.7) is a perfect example. It used to be forested. It was cleared for homes. 22.8) HA: No, it was cleared for a housing development, right? I am talking right next to 22.9) property. I mean this is wonderful, OK, Inglewood. This is wonderful forest and part of it got used for homes, and now half the forest is left and that's part of what's 23.1). That was farm, I think. HA: OK, but how do we, you know, am I hearing people say that we want to prevent that kind of thing from happening? The 2 trees doesn' t prevent developets f orn coming in and 23.4) cause they' _r,e taking more than 2 trees. HA: Sc how does it work? How does 2 trees a year protect us from mama loss= that kind of development? All it says is people that can take 2 trees without getting a pen-lit. Anybody that wants to take more than ? trees is- subject to the permits. All developers would T.)e subject to a permit. HA: But I still have to get down to it how do we know that 23.3) has 2 trees, how do we know that... Are the citizens, wendi, are the citizens running in and saying my neighbor is cutting the chestnut tree and his backyard and I want him to stop? No, the citizens are coming in and saying there's clear cut on bull mountain down by Cook Park. I think that's what they're concerned about. HA: And I agree with that. What it would stop is like somebody brought up the example of Rita Hart. She could have gone out there and cut more than 2 trees out of the back of her property without getting a permit. And anything above that would be done illegally the same as if she had to have a permit for every tree 24.5) cut trees down. But there's nothing that would prohibit her from selling that land and having it developed and end up with a lot less trees on it. I don't know what the zoning is there. HA: But see, if you're going to have somebody came in and apply for a tree permit because they want to develop, then we're still back into the discretionary concept of how do we get them to leave the trees? You know just the fact that we're regulating it, you're taking more than 2 trees No. I don't see where it changes any of that at all, other than the fact... Not for the developer. Not for anybody that wants to take more than 2 trees. What it does is... See the developer, if he wants to take out more than 2 trees, he's got to go thorough this process. It eliminates the appeal1 process, or does it. HA: only because of the notice provision. Yeah, it eliminates the appeal process. HA: But if you want to take down more than 3 trees on a property you still have. It eli_,nina:.es any discretion., \IJ v O'k You still have to go though then. So if there isn't a need for a hermit, there isn't any need for the process. See there's no appeal process and so it has merit on that point too. It's up to the director to make a decision whether the tree cutting provisions are adhered to. Now I've got the penalty part. (laughs) I'd like to involve Bob and Ken on what they're 26.2). 26.3) opposed to cutting exceptions for l or 2 trees, but is it possible enforce. The thing is you can excuse away a stump in your front yard. I'm not in favor of allowing exemptions for 2 trees. 26.7) I think that either one of them, I don't see where there's a different in what's going to be accomplished out of it except for the expense of it. Yeah, where's vacancy trees? How does it save trees? HA: And. how does it save expense.to simply say 2 trees. I could take down 2 trees within like 50 feet and provide notice to everybody. I don't see that this saves expense. I don't see where the 2 trees actually relates to saving expense for the city. They're not talking about, they're talking 2 trees, it doesn't change the 50 feet at all. 27.4) clarifies. HA: But it's 27.5) discretion... What Paul and John are talking about is if they remove 2 trees, do they have to give a notification to people around the tree? No. And you don't have to do that. You would not do that. There would be one the exemptions where they would not. : `nhey drJn't even have to come in for a permit_ then? ? ? : That's correct. .1o M : 27.8) permit there, then that would be a savings to the city and the time that they have to 27.9). If I'm reading it right. I would eliminate probably a lot of single requirements and. time to process. And this is not $150 or $200 processing... May I ask you, how do you feel about what John and Paul were talking about. 28.3) notice to property owners. I'm not sure where the 50 feet comes in. I think that my feel is that 2 trees, well I guess to answer the question is, do I feel this 'is going to save any trees with regard to development, my feeling is I don't think it's going to save very many trees. You may end up fining some developers because they may take some trees that they aren't supposed to take just through miscommunication or maybe they actually took more than they should, but when you get down to the citizenzy that this is going to impact. You know the average person who wants to cut a tree in their backyard, you got a property rights issue and if they have a big yard, say it's 100 feet by 300 feet, I think they should be able to cut up to 2 trees per year anywhere on their property without getting a permit. Now, to enforce or not enforce the 100 feet notification of z property owners around the area, how much time and how much savings would that be to your department. well, there would be whatever the number of those permits, we would not be issuing permits so we would be saving the analysis time, the notification time, working up for the property owners sending out notice, and we would also eliminate the time for the process of appeal. So it could be considerable savings in terms of staffing. HA: But only for people who want to only take down 2 trees. That's all you're saving. And that may be a lot of... No, what else it does it gets you away from having to go through that process for every gol damn tree that is taken down. HA: See, I don't disagree with that. The other way to do is that we allow the 2 trees to come down then we possibly are getting away from the appeal process of notifying and the 45 days or whatever. Is that true or not true. You would not have that, you would not be in the appeal process basically. The people would be able to cut without a tree permit. It's just adding an exemption hasically. For less than 2 trees, 2 trees or less. I think I can support that. Over 2 trees, then you've got the other process. I would think you could only save a couple thousand dollars a year at least. Or you wouldn't spend that much, $5,000. HA: 31.3) about those statistics to me to support a statement like that now. I wasn't citing any statistics I was giving 31.4). HA: Yeah, I know. (laughs) And it's like we're shooting fish in a barrel here. well my feeling is, well, let's assume you were not going to save a lot of money, because you're not going to have a lot of people coming in for those types of permits. You're not going to have a lot of people coming in for those permits, why have them in the first place 31.71. He could have a lot of people coming in for those types of permits. You're going to incur a large city cost. So why incur a large city cost. Either we are going to have a lot of people come in or very few people coming in... HA: "We've already basically agreed that the residents of the city are not the ones that are in need of regulation. If we're talking about 2 trees a year, then we're talking about basically allowing residents to cut 2 trees a year. But if we don't have the, many of them are concerned about that it's not going to translate into a significant expense. Fight, so why have them... I think there would be a lot of individual property owners that would have to come. The way we word it now would have to come in for tree removal permits. Tome it's a way to get away from some of the more process time and everything for 1 or 2 trees, it takes you out of that. HA: But this whole discussion started when Milt said that's going to add 45 days to the permitting process for a developer. And it's going to e.dd money to the cost of the city. That's where this starved. No, the discus--,ion started is. when Dick was basically started and said this is where we need to put in the notification • n_ L 1, NO -Mim process because based on what we're doing here, you have no other- alternative by law to put that in. But you have the 2 tress a year, then you,could take that out of it where that would only kick in if you've got over 2 trees. It would :.lip you into your development or your big tree . falling properties. HA: And so we still have the 45 days and we still have the need to notice whatever wQ decide on adjacent or 200 feet whatever for anybody that wants to take down 3 trees in a year. And again I ask you, how is it we're going to regulate that? But you still aren't. HA: How will we know when they cut down more than 2 trees? : If we went to the 2 tree concept, would you still have the appeal hearing for somebody who would take mote than 2 trees down? We'd have to go through the notification process on that third tree. And see, I still have the concern with that. HA: And also what happened to the... But what it does for the people that have a chestnut tree in their back yard they want to cut down and their neighbor's mad at them, the neighbors can go in and appeal the process that and it ties the city up with notification. Going through a hearings process and for what? Just because he's got a big lot and has been providing additional air quality for having this messy chestnut tree there for a long time. HA: But then what happens to the yard when you've got, we wanted this to be a city wide ordinance. Something that treats people equally. Well it does treat people equally. 2 trees per lot. Everybody. I was going to ask you a question that I thought might lead you somewhere, I wasn't going to make a statement. OK, go ahead and ask your question. Would it help if you structured into an ordinance or keeping a record and knowing what's going on an automatic permit for 2 trees that the city issue just so you know that that's happening out there and of course from a standpoint of record keeping whoever wants to cut down is required to tell you they're going to do it and you've got to give them the permit the same day and then take into this more elaborate thing over 2 trees. Would. that work Dick? As long as the tree definition didn't call for inspection. Somebody 35.7) as long as the definite of tree involve discussion? Talking about making a voluntary 35.9). It would be a permit without charge... Right, no charge. ..without process it would be granted automatic and so you'd have 36.) exemption you'd have an automatic tree removal for 2 trees. And also it would provide 36.1) about and it takes us out of all the rest of this. HA: Then how does that relate to the 50 feet around the residence? Either inside or outside? 36.3) that's what you're suggesting 36.4). Yeah, then you could eliminate the 50 feet. I don't know about that, I mean, if you want to regulate the 50 feet do it. If you don't exempt it. I was just trying to break the log jam about the 2 thing. It seems the primary concern was how do'we know that they're doing it? I think that's a good idea. So throw out the 50 feet and say 36.8). I'm glad I broke my rule tonight and let you speak. HA: So if you're only taking, let me see if I understand this now, is if you're only taking out 2 trees, you're required to go to the city and have a permit issued which will automatically be granted for you for any reason. Do we want to say 6 inch trees? Do you want to say diseased, dying and hazardous trees? No. HA: OK, so if you take down 2 hazardous trees, which would have been allowed under the ordinance anyway, do you get another 2 with an automatic permit? No. Only 2 trees per year. : And I think what would be a good idea tore and maybe we can get a volunteer to do this, is have a checklist where they check off the reason why, hazardous tree, don't like it, chestnut, ~A Rill IlMi 111111, 1511 Emil= something like that. What you're looking for is building a data base on who the tree 37.7). See you build a data base on what types of trees are being taken. Then at the end of the year, you look at what types of tree; are being cut and you M.nda make some judgment associated with that. If they're all. fir trees or close to the house, well, then I don't know what you'd do with it. But then, well and then you've got some accurate data to say', well you need to go back in and adjust the 38.2). And this should be for 1 or 2 trees. I mean they may... C Well, 2 or less. Not just, for 2, up to 2 trees. I like that. I think that's a hell of a good idea. HA: So in effect what that does, let me see if I understand this right now, is that if a property owner or a developer wants to go in and wants to take down 2 trees anywhere on his or her ,property, he will automatically be issued a permit to take down those 2 trees, if they fall under the definition of a tree less than G inches. 1s that right. Yeah, I think greater than 6 inches. HA: If it's greater than 5 inches they have to get a permit. So they will automatically be issued no matter how big the tree is. That's .right, and it's automatically issued. HA: No matter how big the tree is. No matter how old the tree is. (Side 6 ends) (Side 7 Begins) Can you exempt for, just not allow that provision if it's part of the development? If it's part of a development, a tree cutting permit is required when you don't take it to, you don't get the 2 tree exemption. Oh, yeah, you mean rrakinq this all applicable strictly for that, residential lot. Is that what you're talking about? ?'y Yeah. Yeah, we could do it. I guess I assumed that. You don't want this to apply to developers. You don't want to give developers 2 free tree cuts. No. if we can avoid it. if you can avoid it? ; Well, I don't mind creating a process that allows homeowners the right to manage their property and I don't want to make it difficult for the homeowners inadvertently because we're trying to regulate developers and I do believe that a notice provision for neighbors is a tinder box and we've seen it happen here on the RB issue and other things periodically though the history of the city and I'm not, you know we're back again to the complaint driven ordinance. Complaint driven code enforcement and I don't think that's necessarily a good set up. It may be economically good, but it pits neighbor against neighbor in a lot of ways. But hear me on this john, I am in favor if we can prove that it doesn't provide loop holes for people to take down significant trees. And I don't know if we can put 6 inches at 4 feet above the ground and that doesn't sound very discretionary to me. When you say significant do you mean by size? Yeah. You could have it be a total diameter allotment per year. You can cut 12 inches diameter of trees. HA: So two 6 inch trees or sic 2 inch trees. Two trees let's leave it at that. But that gets into, and I was only trying to form some distinction between somebody who cuts the minimum 6 inch tree, versus a person who takes out two 24 inch trees. FA: Somehow there has to be, you know, 2 trees is GK if we want to do that and remove the obligation for significant noticing and procedures for residences. Do you think if we had a tree inventory of garbage and significant trees, if we did have that, then I think that that should apply but I don't think we have that quite yet. HA: No we don't. That's a whole another 3.2) works. HA: It is. Because 3.2) on Walnut Street there is a huge~fir tree off of 121st, that's got to be a least 4 feet, 5 feet across at the base. It's probably the biggest fir tree 3.4). I don't know how in the hell they'd get it down if they wanted to take it down. Because if they did want to take it down, 1 mean that's a tree that the city might want to consider significant and if they do that particular property a little bit to compensate for the preservation of that tree. An there's ` probably others around that are like that. HA: Aria" there are and tzc,,ha.t we need to do is P 3.8) in order to do that. We need to do that. Oil. F.A: OK, what's proposed 3.,3) removed so. We've: got a suggestion and I don't know i'll just go down and... HA: What's the suggestion? 4.2) comments on. Well, the suggestion if I read it correctly was to allow to get away from this other can of worths and red tape is allow 2 trees a year on a property to be cut down by permit, but it would be an automatic permit, which would get it out of the notification process. Anything over the 2 trees then you fall under the notification process and the rest that we've talked about. And you want to add without fee. Without fee. HA: And you need a size. OK. I'm for it. I come in for, but in the same, John, approximately, right down line, we could bring this one item up for review if needed later on. Well we could bring the whole ordinance up for review, yeah. So I can support that. I can support what John is recommending on that. I do too. HA: What about a restriction on size? Yes, I do. I don't think too many people will take advantage of it and I really don't. I think if we establish a database, the cutting of 2 trees doesn't bother me as much in terms of enforcement, but I'm with Wendi in terms of the size. I'm concerned about significant trees going down. i 1101§1111~ jj-- 11 11. i MEN= Mig MM : What size would you suggest.? Can you get 2 trees under a certain size? HA: Yes. Nr) other objective criteria. Somebody goes out there with calipers... HA: And goes 4 feet from the ground and measures it at 6 inches? That's not discretionary, so you don't have the notice. OK, let's say less than 18 inches? 24 inches? HA: 6 inches (laughs). Anybody want to average the number? I'm trying to get us through this thing Wendi, not start it all over again. HA: I understand. I understand. But we've got to establish what... John you want it 18, you want it 6, halfway. HA: Yeah, but averaging numbers we've got to be careful about that. The intent of this ordinance is to protect trees over 6 inches. So why don't we stick with 6 inches. Well, you would go along with that as long as it protects significant trees. Now what's significant to you? 6 inches? HA. I haven't had zzy comments on the proposal Mr. John. It's important for you to understand that this is a process. Well then I was asking Bob what his opinion was, so you started giving me your opinion, so let me go back to Bob where I was. RO: I can go along with it as long as we do something about size. Otherwise, I think we could see important trees go down. What do you recommend on size? RO: Probably go about 12 inches. Alright. I would say a tree isn't, what's significant about a 12 inch tree? Nothing. There is average 7.05). .l ..JVR Siam p-` : I've got about 60 of them in ircy yard. 12 inch, I mean, I would say 2 fset; or greater would be. T've got some significant trees on my property. You sure have. I fact, probably the one I've got, they're probably classified as old growth. They're probably 100 plus feet and I would say that the bases are probably not much more that about that, a couple feet. I've probably got, four 18 inch birch trees. 7.40) Those aren't significant. Now, my cedar tree and my redwood tree arm both of these significant, but then again they're 7.48) cedars that's good for it. HA: Is it my turn yet? Go ahead. Wendi you've got the floor. HA: OK, I believe the people that brought us this ordinance felt that trees that were 6 inches or bigger needed to be considered for saving. That's why the 6 inches is brought in here. Maybe I used the word significant trees, but I didn't intend for it to carry quite so much impact, John, I believe that the whole intent of this ordinance is to save the trees and if we allow it to be 12 inches or 18 inches, that opens the door for a lot more trees to be destroyed. We're trying to restrict the removal of trees. We're trying to protect trees from removal and the bigger we make them, say 24 inches, then that opens up a whole new avenue of how many trees can be taken. ~ The last 20 to 24 inches 8.43)... it ...(?8.47).,don't have to have a permit. Let's go through trees. For the last 20 years the tree growth in Tigard has increased significantly. In fact, it's the only area where I think the human cry has come from the citizenry is from the developers that clear cutting of the fir tree. Now, how do you think the citizenry is going to feel if we make everybody come in and get a tree cutting permit and they look up there and the builders are still clear cutting and now we've solved the problem for the citizenry by rewarding them for the good job they've done in their own yards by laying on them a tree cutting permit, but at the same time, the developers are going to take almost exactly the same amount of trees that they're going to take because this doesn't prevent them from doing much less than they're doing now. And I just don't think they're going to like it. Rill i HA: Well if they challenge us to tell me how to improve this ordinance so that we can prevent that, because that's the intent. That's why this ordinance was brought to us. Tell us how to improve it so that it will prevent clear cutting and it will prevent developer7 from coming in and taking out our trees. Give me something that this. I hear you inventory and.... Well, I don't think that you're going to get much tree saving from the developers because I don't think there's a lot to F gained with them. Having gone through that process myself, couldn't have saved much more trees that the trees that I did save at a cost, were taken down later when the home owners came in. The same thing is happen on Hillshire now, is the trees with an ordinance in place that says get a tree cutting permit or get a fine and you have to look at the latest development up there to see if you did apply this, how many trees would have been saved on the development that Commissioner Holland is finding. If no additional trees are going to be saved with the passing of this ordinance with regard to developers, then all we've done is inflicted on the citizenry a request to come in and get a tree cutting permit to cut trees in their own yard, which they haven't been doing for the last 20 years because you've got trees everywhere you look. Now, it will catch some people on large lots. It will probably catch Mrs. Hart and other people that have 2 or 3 acres, it will catch our mayor, he won't be able to cut his chestnut tree down without getting a permit. And if that's the intent, let's be clear about that. That we don't want the mayor to cut his tree without getting a permit and we don't want Mrs. Hart or anybody else on larger lots to cut trees without coming in and getting a permit, then we want to save those trees on those pieces of property. Because I think what we're going to end up with... SC: I can cut my chestnut tree if I was developing up there. (laughs) Well, yeah. HA: Also, I'm wondering if, you know, we certainly heard the developer's point of view and we've certainly heard of the environmentalist's point of view about this, I wonder if legally... Well, I'm speaking as a homeowner also. HA: ...I'm wondering if legally this can be reviewed from a developer's point of view and see if they do get around it. I mean, right now we've got a lot of opinions on whether people can get around this or not. Maybe they're valid opinions, but I don't want to put something into ordinance that doesn't accomplish what we're trying to do. g 11111111 It's not get around it. What this allows developers to do in terms of cutting trees is pretty much what developers have now. Where ever a road is going to go, wherever a foot print of the house, where ever utility and 12.22) is going to, where trees have to come out, there is no alternat:i.ve. What this does do for developers though is 12.28) if we put an incentive in there for developers to adjust lot lines and do some things, you know, to develop a property at it's potential, but... HA: And we've allowed the director to review the plans and move things around to save trees. Oh, I think so, we've actually, I think we've put in here is an incentive. We have built in some incentive for the developer that the developer didn't have in the past. In the case of one behind 12.57) it might have saved some trees because they were stuck with lot depth and not width requirements. Well, that's fine, I agree. The cut does something. Yeah, so it does do something. If that helps developers save trees then we should do that. And we should pass that part of it. But to catch all the citizens in the process, I mean, I don't think it serves the citizenry well. HA: Yeah, and I do have a place in my heart that wants to protect somebody who's not a developer from over regulation on their private property. I do want to do that and that includes notification if it puts them in jeopardy of not being able to do what they need to do on their property. But if saying 2 trees a year will do that, I can go with that, I'm just concerned about the size of trees and I think it needs to be mentioned there. What size do you think should be there? The top limit? HA: 6 inches. I'd say 24 inches. SC: And that's 14.7) takes my chestnut tree out of it because I'd have to get a permit for it. Wendi, 6 inches, then that really change anything. No. You have to realize that what we would be talking about now would be a maximum that could be cut. Without a permit. !,AffaQMJM2MM- Memo Instead of a minimum. Sep if a tree is 5 inches it can be cut because it cane°Ln't even... HA: It doesn't fall i°-.zder the criteria. ...doesn't fall under this ordinance in anyway. It's when it gets up to 6 inches then it can be considered and the question now is ;whether we want to put a maximum on these 2 free trees. HA: Oh, I see, so between 6 and something else. Yeah, that's right. That's what I'm saying. 24 inches. What do you think the small size of a significant tree should be. It's not 6 inches, it's something else. And that was the question I thought it should be like 18 or 15.03). What makes 18 a special number, I mean, what 12 or... It doesn't, it's just an arbitrary thing. I was thinking 24, but I'd go with 18. Pardon me, well it is arbitrary except, you know, how many trees do you have in Tigard that are 3 feet in diameter. The larger diameter the more significant the tree. I mean, that's how I feel. 15.24) less work for them. It does because if we set a standard like this of course this means we do have to send someone out in the f ield, so this being a free permit gives a lot of expense that's added to it, so the larger the tree, the more latitude we have be able to make a quick and dirty analysis rather than 15.44). OK, I'll go back to my 24 inch tree. I'll vote for that one. HA: I strongly object to 24. I think those trees are too big. Well what do you think the size should be. Hob, I'll go along with 24. 15.59) 2 trees, I can support 24. OK, let's move on. Actually, let's just clarify it. I think we were talking about only the signl'!icant tree, 2 free tree allotment is only for developed residential land? Is that correct? Right, developed single family lots. OK, will the penalties that we're going to talk about apply if the person violates the 2 free trees? We'll see. OK. 2 or 1, it should be one. Violates, you mean takes more 2 trees during the year. Well, that or they take more than 2 trees or take trees that are too large. 2 trees with a permit. Take this one step further that what I'm sure. What if they take down the tree without a permit, one tree without a permit. Then are they subject to the fine? ? ? : Y'up. OK, I agree, but I wasn't sure you were. OK. Um, the other question is whether this applies to trees in sensitive lands. Typically throughout this then... No. Protected. No, it wouldn't be my intent that in sensitive lands that they get 2 free trees. OK, good. HA: So are we talking now about 070? Where are we 17.22). We are at 080. But which is the fine? If you don't get a tree permit? We don't know yet. We haven't got to that yet. r OK. - - - - - ia` _ tt'fV;~i A, I IN We're getting there. On Illegal Tree Removal? Yeah. And that would be one change from shall to may. And a item 2. What page? The bottom of page 7. HA: And where is the shall to may? It's in the third line of subsection A of 070. Basically, what we're doing here is giving the director what I would consider to be typical 17.59) discussion in terms of citing violators. What's the wording? This just changes the shall to may. HA: Is that your recommendation? Or is that just a suggestion from one of us? It was a suggestion from one of us. It was in our original draft, this is very common. I would say it's uncommon to have a violations section read shall because then anyone can come in and file 18.32) against the city claiming that we didn't and we were required to. The may gives, like I say, that discretion, which is just very common. HA: So when the person 15.51) will indeed have latitude? Yeah. Well, the direction would be to do it, but 19.00) to do it would give more time I guess. Did we ask for anything on 070? No. Well, let's get down to the 19.30). We still haven't got to penalty yet. Well, we're there. May I say something about that one? And I want to say something, yeah. First of all there was a lot of comment about stiffer fines. We set the fine at $500 for a reason and that is we consider it to be the safe maximum fine which is still a civil violation. If you get into fines over that, the possibility arises that what you're doing is giving someone a criminal penalty, which would mean that the civil infraction process that i;°n1s would otherwise go through would not apply. I guess, it would apply, but a person would have to be given a jury and certain other protections that are common in criminal proceedings. I've operated under the assumption that we want to stay out of that. I think that's the city's policy is generally to stay out of meting out criminal penalties. HA: What was the 20.45) again? That's why $500 was chosen because that's what we consider to be the safe upper limit. And that's an interpretation. It's really not a fine line, but that's a position that the majority of the city's 21.05) that's natural are to take. We're saying that if it's higher 21.10) likelihood of challenge is greater.. Now, you take some risk to set it at $1,000 maybe you can get away with it for several years without any challenges. Can you do an up to? Yes. That's one of the things I was going to discuss. But that doesn't guarantee 21.32) inspection. Yeah, and typically penalty provisions are to be at a judges discretion. We could set a minimum, so it would be a minimum of $100, max $400 or $500. Before we get to that I want to add some more. The offset for this is a way that we can keep this penalty civil and yet stiffen it a little bit is through something that could be worded generally like as payment of an additional civil penalty representing the value of any unlawfully removed trees as determined by an arborist or something like that. That's gets into penalizing them for the value of the tree that they take down and this is just a way in which we, I guess the best way to look at this would be of the $500 fine and then you also have a fine that remedies the damage that was done. And that doesn't get you over into the criminal area. If you're just trying to remedy the damage then you're not punishing them per se. And it's that punishment angle which want to 22.51). So that's a way that you get more money. That sounds reasonable. _ So we could come back with some alternative 22.58). One of the things that bothers me a little bit is when you say up to. I'm worried about this guy that lives across the i mom street over here and doesn't know he has to have a tree permit and he cuts with out a tree permit on the thing and he comes in and his neighbor complains so we go and catch him in it, it costs him $500 because:: cut down the tree and it wouldn't have cost him a thing if he'd know about and gone down to the city. That's what kind of bothers me. That's actually why I asked earlier when we were talking about the 2 free trees that we want to keep. If we want to keep those single family residential homeowners in the penalty as we have it, it's pretty significant. You may consider it too stiff. The $500 fine is waived if they get a tree cutting permit. After they cut it? Right. Oh, that could work. I think that would work quite well. But in that case '24.01) would determine. Because otherwise, what's the point. If someone comes in after the fact to get a permit, in that case it probably should be processed 24.14). Arm, Yes, for that individual. Right, to make some incentive to someone to come down to City Hall first rather than after the fact. That's good. But I have the same concern Paul has that, you know, and I think about our people that has vacant lots or what have you, you know, after they, you know, and of course, like I think Doug Smithy even pointed out one time, where you can't put the tree back up when it's cut down like you can in a lot where come out and get a warning, say if you don't mow your lot, we're going to fine you. We have an ordinance that says you got to keep that fire danger and all the rest of that stuff down. You want to create both an incentive and a little 25.13) you want people to come in to bringing the data in and so if you have a processing fee, that's going to keep them away cause they'll just worry about getting caught so you need a fee maybe a penalty that's a little higher than the processing fee to inflict on them. A $50 fee if they get caught for not coming in for the permit. And if they do come in for the permit late it's only $25 or something like that. Does that make sense? I thought you were talking about, for instance, no fee if you cut 2 trees down. But if you do cut down one of those. trees then you have to pay a fee, for an after-the-fact application when we recover whatever is costs us. So the incentive either come in and file or make up the $50 if they ~a_.) come in anti file. Did S say that wrong. If you came into get the permit afterward... if he doesn't the permit ahead of time and cut a tree down, if he comes in after the fact... HA: Or somebody turns him in. ..or somebody turns him in, well, if he doesn't, if he cuts a tree down and looks around and gets away with it, why is he going to come in and bring that data in if he just faces a fe when he comes in. But it's if he comes in voluntarily you're saying? If he doesn't come in voluntarily to find out about it, you hit him with a $50 fine. If he comes in voluntarily the fine or the fee is only $25. That makes sense because that would get the record data. That's what I'm saying. And the neighbor calls up and complains, we have it right here we don't have to take any more steps. Why should, if he comes in voluntarily. Why should he be charged the $25? ? ? : Well, he wouldn't have been if he'd come in before, why would he react to it. ? ? : Because again the incentive is that we'd rather know in advance so we can go out and look and say that is in excess of 24 inches. ? ? : I guess the only thing I'm saying is he's not going to come in voluntarily if he's going to have to post $25. No, but if he doesn't come in and he gets caught, it will cost him $50. Any disagreement with that portion of it? Let's get back to the $500. A douglas fir is probably worth more than $500. Yeah, let's get down to that portion of it. You had talked about a fine of up to a $500 or, now can that be.... No, in addition to. You take the profit out of the thing is what you do. Oh, I understand that. Is there any discretion for the poor sap that Paul was talking abou that cut a tree doen and didn't realize it? Is this the developer? Or is this the property owner? Let's say the property owner. The developers should know what our ordinances and codes are.. That's their responsibility. I'm talking about the poor sap the bought a house down the street, moved in, 5 years from now when this thing isn't in the papers any longer and everybody's forgotten about it, and says jeez that tree is in my way, I'm going to go out and whack that sucker down. 2 trees is exempt. Until you cut down 3 trees. First 2 trees doesn't matter, it's the 3 tree. OK, assume he cuts the third tree. So then it must be 29.23). But he did get hit with that permit 29.28). If he does it with out coming in then he's could get the after-the-fact fee. You've already got him paying $500 and the market value for cutting the tree. And of course they also said 2 so the director there would have some discretion if the man can really prove 29.51). And the up to $500 so if he moved in and he sort of proved that he was ignorant that you could do that. if it was developer you could say, well $500 plus $3,000 for the value of the tree. Yeah, and this is one thing is going to be determined by a hearings officer at this point. The director is out of it. 30.18) run him though the citation court system and then 30.22) the value of the situation. So he's got a fair trial on it. 30.27) stump value of the tree, which is probably 30.30). HA: And I'd like to know how we're going to determine that once the tree's already cut. Depending up on the size and tyl~e of tree there is a... i C1\9 0 *4+^ e a~ i ? ? : I think you just measure the diameter and species of the tree. ? ? : There's a manual and a table and a formula by the co,..incil of tree and landscape architect and landscape appraisals, and there's an arbcr_st apprais4able. HA: And you have to have a tree to start with. No, you don't. You have the stump. HA: You have to have the tree or the stump to start with. ? ? : You need the stump, right. HA: And are we assuming that somebody can't get rid of a stump in 3 days, or in 2 days or in 1 day. If the stump is removed it's an additional $500. What I would say probably there, you're going to be talking about 1 or 2 trees and that could happen where the stump and everything could be gone, but if you're talking about a developer really getting the stuff out. HA: It's out of there. You take out the roots and tree and just bulldoze it over and out it goes. Is it in most cases though if you are going to take out that amount of trees is he going to be selling it and you can go through 31.47) and follow through there? And most of the time, if the city is going to find out about it, if a tree is being cut illegally, it's going to be a complaint from the neighborhood. It's a good point. You're not going to be able to, after the stump is gone, make a termination how much that tree is worth, at least a determination that would stand up in court. If the stump is gone, how do you know there was a tree there. You know a tree is there because on the tree cutting permit, it would be itemized where the tree is, or at least it should be, I think that's the way it's done now. HA: For a developer, sure. For developers that's the way it's done. Now for homeowners who cares, but for developers, somebody goes out after the fact and says hey there was a tree marked here and its gone, $500 isn't enough in that case. If he's taking any sizeable amount of trees out, he's going to sell it. And then you can go wherever the trees were sold. But how do you know which tree it is. You take the average of them? I see what you're saying. The difference between a small douglas fir and a bid douglas fir could be about $1,000. HA: And the other thing is a permanent enterprise that buys the lot isn't obligated by law to give you good records of who they sold what to 33.06) purchase 33.08). So maybe anything you think of it, just need to determine if the stump isn't there or you can't determine the market value. HA: We could have a clause in there that says that if the market value is not determinable then the fine will be... And we'll work on that one. $500 or $1,000. It should be fairly stepped. HA: I recognize that you're doing your job keeping the city out of criminal stuff, but I think the intent of the people who brought this ordinance to us was to be 33.50). So that people understand that it's not going to be tolerated. (Lots of simultaneous talking) ...do is just $500. HA: I know, but the public testimony that went along with it was that it needed to be a lot higher. And that's what we tried to do. The only thing about the criminal is it's really, it's a choice that the council can make. If you wanted to you could slap this with $500, $5,000 fine and 10 days in jail or something like that. HA: Woe! But what that means is you have to take these people through criminal processing. I'm sure every one of the cites have fines and the majority have a maximum $500 per tree,.and they would face this same issue for illegal tree removal and nobody's addressed that particular provision and we may be able to address it simply, but I don't know how many times that comes up in reality. L.; If 34.45) is $10,000 fine and you went through the permit to the co .r-- and jury and all that and they co:re in, their attorney came in and said it's unfair, it's ridiculous, you're really infringing on these guys rights, in fact Tigard is the only one that's got a $10,000 fine. Every other city in Oregon has a maximum fine of $500. I think that will affect a jury. Scaleo would say 35.18) again. (laughter) Obviously the higher the fine is the more likely someone's going to put resources into play. Well, plus the fact that you're going to have a penalty on. This is the fine, but you're still going to add the penalty on if we determine the value of the tree. Yeah, and I think there's got to be a way to do that. I don't think we ought to feel like we're checkmated because somebody may dig a up a stump and go. We'll work on that. But there's some flexibility with every day is a violation too. Work on that. Covering our bases on that. Well a developer doesn't get $500 penalty for a tree, it's less when he gets it to market and I don't think there's a real big market for over 200, well there may be but still $500 per tree, plus $500 is a pretty stiff fine to live with and then I don't know maybe it's good. Let me ask the question, how many violations have we had by developers taking additional trees down?. I don't know. Pat do you know? Anything else on this? Well I would also add in the whole replacement of trees section which is currently in the prior section. I wonder if we want to leave that sort of someone's discretion. Probably the hearings officer or we make it a requirement that } illegally removed trees must be replaced. a: 'Mitigation? Or replacement of a tree? Yeah, this is all tying together mitigation, basically, it's a scale to replace trees on a roughly one for one basi&. You take down a tree this size, you have to replace it with a tree or trees of this size. And the question i.^ whether you want that to be a man(,,-Atory part of this penalty that we're talking about which would now be the $500 fine, the value of the tree, plus replacement. Or whether you want to leave it as it has been up to now which is sort of a discretionary. I don't know. Problem with a fine plus replacement. Because you're only talking about people doing something outside of permit. And what we're targeting developers on this. How do they replace a fir tree? Plant one tree or another tree of the same number, of the same calipers to add up. Plant them on the property or you can plant them on public property. OK, so that's calculated. : Are you saying that the hearings officer has the option of applying or mitigating the replacement of trees? Are you saying both or what? Both. How is it written? Why would he ever want to replace a tree then, because let him just go ahead and pay his fine 38.56). Is the fine on 38.57) trees? No. I'm sorry. I mean the fine and the replacing of trees or the fine and the cost of the tree. You wouldn't say all 3. Well the fine could be all 3. If it's a developer who has a bad track record, it would be nice to have the latitude to slap his hand real hard. And if it's a first time 39.36). I might be $500 to replace a tree. HA: I just had a question on the verbiage of C2 on page 8. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree cut is not reasonably available, I would assume from a nursery or something like, the director may replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. What the heck does that mean. How is that defined. Why don't we just take that out and say... HA: Yeah (laughs). I think so. ..and have replacement from a sele~ed list of trees and give the director discretion from that and not have to make 40.15) significant natural resource. Just a different species. Different species from a particular list. 40.30) value of trees out of an appraisal report. Say a. white oak and a black oak maybe don't have the same value. Or maybe a spruce is the same as 40.47). HA: And there was one other place where shall ended up being in there. It's in C3 on page a. The director shall replacement with more than one tree. Do we want shall to be in there? Probably not. Well, its saying if you can't get a replacement tree of the size, legally you've got to require more than one and it doesn't say that, right now, we'll just accept one 2 inch caliper replacement tree. HA: I would like for shall to stay in there. My personal preference is for it to stay, but I just wondered if we needed to look at it. Do we need to add anything under this penalty just to reinforce the idea that removal also includes damages to the root systems. I know we've said it in the definitions but you're so far removed 41.35). HA: Trees that survive 3 years past the date of development or something like that. I don't know how we'd check it. Yeah, the way that I thought this would best be handled is if we looked at the definition of removal and we determined what constitutes removal. Because when we get into getting before a hearings officer, what the city is going to need to be able to say is was the tree removed or what 42.01) . We have damage to a root system probably hasn't showed up for a while. HA: It doesn't show up until the second season. Is that true. That's true. So we wanted to incorporate removal means damage to the tree that shows up over a time period. I think that's a real can of worms because you can't really S "tell if that was caused by the developer or the builder. They're different people. The developer, the builder, or even the homeowner. Or the City of Tigard. - (Side 7 Ends) (Side 8 Begins) HA: ...and a homeowner, I mean, that would be a very rare exception, but... What you can do and I think it's been done and .10) correct me if I'm wrong, but there are measures that developers had to, construction measure that they had to do to protect the trees that were being saved, free from bulldozers over anything inside the drip line or those provisions are in place and if the city finds violations of that there should be a fine. There should be some sort of fine associated with that. Then what we could do is include in here just a sentence to that effect. Violation of such and such ordinance. HA: Pursuant to that code number. The triggers this penalty. I don't think there's any we need to add. It's based on conditions. Is it in the conditions? : That's how we would save .56) doesn't have tree removal unless construction and we're... By avoiding the grading you basically fence off. HA: Where you can't grade there. Then what happens if the conditions are violated? Then it's a violation of the ordinance, basically, subject now to $250 a day fine. : How about if you put something in there that would trigger over to here? 1.27). I guess the next question is `Whey, would you like this to come back and I guess the question to Zy is 1.39) get it back. 1 y, it We tentatively had it schedule for the meeting of the 23rd which would mean we would need a new draft by 1.48). We've got to send out notice. I don't think we're going to get it c::lsecked by that time. Yeah, I'm thinking that too and I'm thinking we probably need to send a copy out to some folks to review. The people who promoted this. I think we also had the home builders who were initially under a 2.05) of this 2.06) ask them not to x adopt something because they haven't looked at it might be advantageous to send them a copy and have a draft. If we, if we're not on for the 23rd, we don't meet again unless it's a special meeting until the 15th of September. And that's a special meeting with Lake Oswego. Let's us working on getting the draft and sending it out and getting responses and let the 2.35). With just the amount I told you the earliest would be like to come back the 20th. You mean with the revised. OK. No that's one of the things we talked about before was making sure that we've got real good notice out so everybody, I mean, I'd go for the Cityscape, having a big article in the Cityscape which give some of the highlights of the ordinance, you know, and give the date of the hearing on it. Because that's the way you're going to get the residents. Well we had one property owner here tonight actually a representative of the property owner, they live in Sherwood, but the mother in law lives on a property in Tigard and has substantial trees. We took her name down and said we would provide notice and we can certainly do that for others also. I think the Cityscape certainly gets into the hands of residents of the city and about as broad as we can do without going to property tax records and sending to out of town residences, as well as properties that were identified with trees, but since we haven't done the inventory, we really don't know where all those properties are. Were we going to send this to CITs or not? Yeah, I think we should. That would be an extended process. Basically, what we did originally when we cut the draft, we sent up the draft to the CITs and asked if they wanted to respond to the other 4.10): Unfortunately, I don't know if that was a major issue to do that I think, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's going to extend the review period that we have. 011~~~MMMM EM 11=21 IN IS I =06 IMF L As far as I'm concerned, this is major enough and going to effect enough people, I would rather take more time and make sure that we've covered all of our bases without rushing r though all this. If we do that we're probably looking at the possibilities of getting to the CITs maybe riot in September, because they really 4.40) may require meeting with the CITs in early October and then having... Well, why can't you give it, I mean, the CITs are all meeting this month. (Much simultaneous talk) OK, well then give it to them in September, which we've hopefully got the draft back by then, but have the draft and give it to the CITs for information for them on their agenda. Let them know we're looking at it. Do you want to see the next draft before we preview it with the CITs and others, just on information basis, give it to you for a few days with out having a meeting to correct and say wait a minute, we haven't said this. That wouldn't be a bad idea. OK, now, we've got one more issue. We also had a suggestion from the planning commission about a fee for tree 5.52) and we hadn't talked about what we were going to charge for the tree removal. And we don't have to 5.58) about now, but it's something to keep in mind. 6.05). Y I had a comment. Since I have the council here I want to make this comment. You're promoting, you're advocating that people keep douglas firs in their yards is basically what you're doing. And every time I drive into city hall down there, I don't see one fir tree except for the one in the circular area. I would really like to see the city do some things to kind of put it's money where its mouth is. It's good enough for the citizens to have fir trees in their yards and it's good to have the city put a few token trees out there to say see we're doing this too because if we don't there are going to be citizenry who are going to come in and say you've got me keeping fir trees. And the other thing I think the city ought to do if they're serious about preserving trees and so on'is consider donating $4,000 or $5,000 a year to the folks who go out there and do their volunteer tree planting to buy some trees for them, to do something more than just put in place fines and permits and some punitive processes. After all, if the citizenry is in favor of trees, they wouldn't mind paying $4, 000 or $5, 000 a year to have some trees planted in open spaces, so we can get back some of the old douglas firs. ~G. IONIC HA: You should probably know that one of the things 7.45) that kind of rang the bell for me, put it on my to do list, for actually get over the tree ordinance on, is to look at the street tree list to see if Tigard includes native species. I wasn't aware that, and someone brought this to public testimony, I haven't even checked it out with staff yet, but most of the street trees are not native. Arid it would be appropriate to kind of clean that up a little bit, There's a reason for that. Most places would not plant a native douglas fir in a planning strip because of the size that it gets to and 8.15) causes to the public facility. That's why you see the deciduous types of trees that are normally planted now. if you planted back in open space areas and things like that, it's probably appropriate, but... HA: And that's the kind of information I needs to sit in discussion. But there are some spaces, you know, that triangle out just off of Main Street on 99 there's a big triangle with a fir tree there already. Usually, do not put evergreen trees in pathway strips, they do not put poplar trees in there because of the root system. We don't have a standard list of suggested trees, but we don't have a ordinance that says illegal trees in public property and most cities do have a list of trees they do not allow anywhere near your public facilities because of the damage that they create, HA: OK. OK, now, I think we ought to give the planning commission a big thanks. Because it really,. as far as I was concerned personally at least, some of these things when I read through, I tried to figure out why they were there and it was nice to have somebody here to tell us why. We had a very lively discussion and we had a lot of mixed opinions, but I think we came to an agreement and I'll pass the thanks on. OK, before we go, do we need to go into exec session to get that contract? Well, let's do go in. We need a brief explanation on that. OK, we're going to go into exec session under ORS 182.660 Wendi resolve labor relations. (Side 8 Ends) H:\LOGIN\CATHY\NOTEES 1111 MEN ` CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 94-AN ORDINANCE 'PO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPM-21. T CODE BY ADOPTING A REVISED CODE SECTION 18.150 REGARDING TREE REMOVAL (ZOA 92-0004). WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of the Code; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed proposals for revising Section 18.150 at public hearings on January 4, 1993, October 4, 1993, and January 17, 1994 and at work sessions September 20, 1993, October 18, 1993, December 28, 1993 and February 7, 1994; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission voted to recommend the revised Section 18.150 as shown in Exhibit "A°; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 12, 1994 to consider the proposed amendment. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria as noted below: The relevant criteria is this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 5, City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a. and c., 2.1.1, 2.1.3 and 3.4.2.b. and Implementation Strategy 4 of Policy 3.4 and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. The proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Goals based on the following findings: 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, is met because the City has followed its adopted citizen involvement program which involved review by neighborhood planning organizations and public hearings. 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is met because the City has applied all relevant Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code requirements in review of this proposal. 3. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources, is met because Appendix I, the City LCDC Goal 5 ESEE analysis addresses significant wooded areas and distinctive trees; and tree removal code provisions prohibiting removal of tree six inches or greater at four feet above ground level without a permit under defined circumstances is compatible with this goal which does not specifically address tree cutting; and that these provisions assist in protecting tree resources. The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: 1. Policies 1.1.1 a. and c. are satisfied because the proposed code changes are consistent with Statewide Planning Goals as indicated above and the changes help to keep the development code current with local needs. 2. Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 are satisfied because the proposal has been reviewed at multiple public hearings, work sessions and neighborhood groups beginning in January, 1993 through the present. 3. Policy 3.4.2.b and Implementation Strategy 4 of Policy 3.4 are satisfied in that they are directed at timbered and large or unique stands of,trees and major vegetation and are the only plan policies directed toward tree protection. Appendix I, the LCDC Goal 5 ESEE analysis identifies significant wooded areas while the proposed ordinance revisions relate to tree cutting in general including large stands of tree and is therefore , ORDINANCE No. 94- Page 1 Jill + consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Community Development Code Section 18.30 which establishes procedures for legislative code changes is satisfied according to the above findings. SECTION 2: The Community Development Code shall be amended as indicated in revised Section 18.15v as hown in Exhibit "A". This ordinance shall be effective 30 drays alter its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By _ vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of 1994. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder J APPROVED: This day of 1994. John Schwartz, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 94- Page 2 D R A F T EXHIBIT "A" CHAPTER 18.150 Sections: 18.150.010 Purpose 18..150.020 Definitions 18.150.030 Permit Requirement 18.150.040 Permit Criteria-Reconsideration 18:150.045 Setback Adjustment to Preserve Trees 18.150.050 Expiration of Approval-Extension of Time-Revocation 18.150.060 Application Submission Requirements 18.150.070 Illegal Tree Removal-Violation-Replacement of Trees 18.150.080 Penalty 18.150.010 Purpose. A. After years of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help clear the air, and provide noise barriers. B. The purposes of this Chapter are to: 1. Regulate the removal of trees on developed commercial land, developed industrial land, and all undeveloped land in the City; 2._ Limit the unnecessary removal of trees; 3. Protect significant natural areas and sensitive lands. The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these programs, at the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain trees in order to accommodate structures, streets, utilities, and other needed or required improvements within the development. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.150.020 Definitions A. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, as used in this Chapter: Page 1 - Tree Ordinance ;t DRAF T 1. 'Developed commercial land" shall mean either: a. A lot or parcel, or contiguous combination of such under the same ownership, in a commercial zone which has an approved site development plan, conditional use plan, landscaping plan, or other approved development plan; or b. A lot or parcel, or contiguous combination of such under the same ownership, which contains an established, existing principal use which ! is either a permitted or a conditional use in a commercial zone. 2. "Developed industrial land" shall mean either: a. A lot or parcel, or contiguous combination of such under the same ownership, in an industrial zone which has an approved site development plan, conditional use plan, landscaping plan, or other approved development plan; or b. A lot or parcel, or contiguous combination of such under the same ownership, which contains 171 an established, existing principal use which is either a permitted or a conditional use in an industrial zone. 3. "Developed residential land" shall mean a lot or parcel, or contiguous combination of such under the same ownership, in a residential zone, which cannot be further partitioned or subdivided, and which contains an established ex+s-L-i-ng---use--whrctr-is ke--z-ene-.---- 4. "Director" shall mean the City's Planning Director or his or her designee. 5. "Greenway" shall mean those areas so designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 6, "Hazardous tree" shall mean a tree which by reason of disease, infestation, age, or other condition presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property due to danger of the tree falling or spreading disease or infestation. Page 2 - Tree Ordinance. D R A F T 7. "Pruning" shall mean the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with recognized tree maintenance practices. 8. "Removal" shall mean the cutting or removing of 50 percent or more of a crown, trunk or root system of a tree, resulting in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability, or any activity causing the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling. "Removal" shall not include pruning. 9. "Tree(s)" shall mean a standing woody plant, or group of such, having a trunk six inches or more in caliper size when measured four feet from ground level. 10. "Undeveloped land" shall mean either: a. A lot or parcel, or contiguous combination of such under the same ownership, which contains no established existing use. b. A lot or parcel, or contiguous combination of such under the same ownership, in a residential zone which can be further partitioned or subdivided, and which contains an established n-awe-whi-s_is-a~loed zo . 11. "Sensitive lands" shall mean those lands described at section 18.84.010(A) of the code. 12. "Significant natural areas" shall mean those areas defined as such in the City's Comprehensive- Plan, as amended. 18.150.030 Permit Requirement. A. Except as set out in Subsection B of this section, the removal of any tree(s) on the following types of land shall take place only pursuant to a tree removal permit, as provided for in Section 18.150.040 below: 1. Developed commercial land; or 2. Developed industrial land; or 3. Undeveloped land; or 4. Sensitive lands; or Page 3 - Tree Ordinance r 5. Significant natural areas; or 6. Greenways. B. Notwithstanding Subsection A above, a tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of any tree(s): _ 1. Where removal is necessary to either prevent or eliminate interference with, or allow safe access to, underground or overhead utility lines; or 2. Where removal is necessary to prevent obstruction of visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.102 of the Code; or 3. Where removal is necessary to eliminate a hazardous tree; or 4. Where removal is necessary to prevent or eliminate a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Code; or 5. Which are used for Christmas tree production, but do not stand in either sensitive lands, significant natural areas, or greenways; or Ash 6. Which stand: 0^`y a. Within 50 feet of -a:- rviidence• b. On a lot or parcel, contiguous combination of such under the same ownership, that cannot be subdivided or partitioned; and c. Outside of sensitive lands, significant natural areas, or greenways. 18.150.040 Permit Criteria-Reconsideration. A. Except as provided in Subsection C of this section, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a tree removal permit based upon evidence that: 1. Removal of the tree(s) is necessary in order to construct an approved improvement, to use the property in accordance with an allowed use, to allow use of passive or active solar devices, or to prevent interference with existing improvements; Page 4 - Tree Ordinance 'L` •eh 2. No alternat:~.,,re to removal of the tree(s) exists which would: a. Reduce the overall net amount of the tree removal; b. Advance the applicant's objective in removing Ov~~ the tree(s); and Not place an unreasonable economic hardship upon the applicant. 3. Removal of the tree(s) will hot have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, water quality, -w- l fe, noise pollution, protection of adjacent trees, or existing wind breaks. B. Where the Director finds that one or more of the criteria contained in Subsection A of this section has not been met, the applicant may submit the application for reconsideration, along with a proposal to mitigate the adverse impacts of the proposed tree removal. Such a mitigation proposal should address the planting of additional trees, specifying the size, location, and number of trees to be planted, and any other improvements which would- ould serve the purposes of this Chapter. The Director shall act upon the application and mitigation proposal as otherwise called for under Subsection A. C. Notwithstanding Subsection A above, where an application seeks removal of a tree(s) on sensitive lands, 7~aai.f.sarat~r~~i ~raas s, the Director J alia4-1 approve, approve with conditions, or deny a tree removal permit based upon evidence that: 1. The tree constitutes a hazardous or diseased tree; or 2. For allowed development all of the following criteria are met: a. Removal of the tree(s) is necessary in order to use the property in accordance with a use which is allowed in the zone; b. Removal of the tree(s) will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil ,r stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing wind breaks; Page 5 - Tree Ordinance a IT 11211113 N'', 111411 11 11 MFMMM MMMM EM0,1110 DRAFT C. The impact of the TWree removal can be mitigated by tree replacement and tree maintenance; or 3. For residential landscaping purposes all of the following criteria are met: a. The tree (s) stand on a lot or parcel, or contiguous combination of such under the same ownership, which contains an existing residential use, and is in a residential zone; b. The tree(s) are to be removed strictly for landscaping purposes; C. ]Removal of the tree(s). will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing wind breaks. 18.150.045 Setback Adjustment to Preserve Trees. A. The Director may grant a modification from applicable setback requirements of this Code for the purposes of preserving a tree or trees on the site of proposed development. Such modification may reduce the required setback by up to 50%, but shall not be more than is necessary for the preservation of trees on the site. B. A modification granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property, including but not limited to easements and conditions of development approval. C. The setback modification described in this section shall supersede or override any special setback requirements or exceptions set out elsewhere in this code, including but not limited to those of Chapters 18.96, 18.146, and 18:148, except 18.96.020. 18.150.050 Expiration of Approval-Extension of Time-Revocation. A. A tree removal permit shall be effective for one and one- half years from the date of approval. B. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration of the existing permit, a tree removal permit shall be extended for a period of up to one year if the Director finds that the applicant is in compliance with all prior conditions of permit approval and that no Page 6 - Tree Ordinance VEINS, 11 IM III I material facts stated in the original application have changed. C. Upon written notification, the Director may revoke a tree removal permit upon finding that any condition of approval of the permit has not been satisfied. This revocation may be appealed by the, applicant as provided in Section 18.32.310. rvs' 18.150.060 Application Submission Rectuirements. A. Application for a tree removal permit shall be on a form provided by the Director. Completed applications shall consist of this form, two copies of the supplemental data and narrative set out in Subsection B or this section, and the required fee. Applications shall not be accepted unless completed. B. The supplemental data,and narrative shall include: 1. The specific location of the property by address, assessor's map number, and tax lot; 2. The number, size, type and location of the tree(s) to be cut; 3. The time and method of cutting or removing the tree(s); 4. The reason for the removal of the tree(s); and 5. Information concerning any proposed landscaping or planting of new trees;.and 6. A narrative as to how the applicable criteria of this Chapter are satisfied. C. The Director may waive any of the requirements in Subsection B above, or request additional information in accordance with Section 18.32.080. 18.150.070 Illegal Tree Removal-Violation-Replacement of Trees. A. If the Director has reason to believe that the removal of a tree(s) occurred contrary to the purposes of this Chapter, - then he or she sball do any or all of the following: rvL~ ' 1. Require the owner of the land on which the tree was located to submit sufficient documentation, which Page 7 - Tree ordinance may include a written statement - from a qualified arborist or forester, showing that tree removal was permitted by this Chapter. x, 2. 's'ake any enf - cemant action permitted by law. B. The removal- of a tree(s) under the following conditions shall. be a violation of this Code: s. Without a valid tree removal permit; 2. In noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree removal permit; 3. in noncompliance with any other section of the Code. C. The Director may require the replacement of any tree(s) removed in violation of the Code. Replacement of trees shall- take place according to the following guidelines: 1. Replacement trees shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. J; 2. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree cut is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement wd_~~~. ec---crf i _ cF a iyal ent-any-~'--r - ~-1-tre. r v a 5 C? c 4 0 ~-i S 1, 3. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not -reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director Z%11 require replacement with more than one tree. 4:. The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper of the tree cut by the caliper of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the City, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property. Page 8 - Tree Ordinance 1 m D R A F T - a 18.150.080' Penalty, A. Any person who removes or causes the removal of a tree in violation of this Chapter shall be subject to a pine of $500. Removal of each individual tree shall be a separate offense. Failure to comply with a condition of permit approval shall be a separate offense for each day of non-compliance. B. Removal of a tree in violation of this Chapter is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and may be abated by appropriate proceedings. TMC18150.DRA login dick 'i Page 9 - Tree Ordinance J„ 'Free ordinance considerations from Jinn. Schwartz I.Rmposed ordinance is selective and o~tlg, effects large lot properiv owners. I feel that if thee.: i5 a tree ordinance it should be city wide. Being selective is there a legal chaflenge -from single large lot property owners ? 2. Is the diameter of 6" too restrictive? 31 feel that consideration should be given to specific types of trees that would need permits, possibility only native type of trees. I see no reason to include walnut trees etc. that are messy and rewire considerable maintenance and up keep unless the city proposes to be responsible for the costs to maintain. 4.The initial proposal for a tee ordinance was to protect and provide the city with regulations relating to people cutting trees for development and clear cutting for logging proposes. 5.The penalty of cutting down trees without a permit, while having merit for developers who should be familiar with city codes goes to far for the average home owner who for the most part has no or very little idea what codes or ordinances the city has. 6...ather than focus on police state tactics we should be doing things that gives people incentives to keep as many trees as possible. This includes both home owners and developers. 7.The way this proposal is recommended I strongly feel that any developer or property that will be submitted to the city for annexation will be striped on any trees that the person believes that they may be required to leave. A prime example of this is the walnut island which has substantial tree growth in the ares in large parcels. When this area is annexed to the city you will see a lot of timber go down before annexation occurs. 8.1 personally don't feel that all the fear being brought to issue is a major problem if you look around the city in established neighbor hoods you don't see a neighborhood void of trees. in fact look at cities that were built in deserts or plain country and you will see a city with lots of trees where no trees have grown before. The citizens of Tigard have taken good care of the city in this area with out a lot of government interference. 9. We should be paying more attention of what metro and the 2040 plan will have on the effects of the city and what the interior growth will be. This will certainly have an impact on our zoning and lot sizes witch will effect hoer many frees the city will have. 0. We need to provide better notification to property owners that any tree ordinance will have a direct impact on prior to adopting an ordinanc as proposed. A lot of the large lots That would be impacted are not property a person would think as being pkiine developabi€ land, but homes of older people on limited incomes I LI would propose that significant areas of wooded lots that should remain natural should be put on a bond -measure and let the citizens of Tigard vote on purchasing these properties. this would unsure the preservation of trees in the City of Tigard 'Council Comments - Tres ©rdinarica for August 2, 1994 Meeting; Councilor Hawley; 1. Keep the Ordinance as simple and broad-based as possible. For example, if one must get a permit, everyone should have to get a permit. 2. Provide incentives as well as penalties k Example of incentives to save trees: provide weans for variances to setbacks and method for lot line adjustments. 3. Specify exceptions for tree removal for diseased, damaged trees. Determine whose judgement is to be followed when deciding if tree must be removed because of disease. 4. Interested in hearing more from developers and persons concerned about individual property rights. Supports reopening the hearing for more testimony. :a r 07-17-1994 04:45PM PROM 4A7314UNT TO 6047297 P101 Date: 7/17/94 ,'ram- Paul Hunt TO-. Pat. Reilly Subject: Tree ordln^.,ce Following are some areas I believe need further discussion and definitions 1. 18.1!;~0.040 A - 2 - c "unreasonable economic hardship" 2. 13.150.160 C 3.. 18.150.170 A. replace "shall" with "may" 4. 1-8-150.080 Penalty Suggest amount base on diameter of tree. 5. Object to setting up "tree planting fund" , f. discuss amount of tree cutting permit fee, keeping in mind "two to eight hours of staff time per permit depending can the issues involver" 7. discuss notification Bob Rohlf Tree Ordinance Issues for discussion 1. Either eliminate 18.150.040 A2c "unreasonable economic hardship" language or redefine in terms of teh e zoned use. r 2. Consider a 2-tiered system which distinguishes treatment of a private residence from that afforded a seller of timber or a land developer. Property Rights Issue. 3. Put real teeth into the law for blatant offenders. Punish for damage to trees as well as for cutting trees. 4. Removal of trees on public rights of way. 5. Protection of tree root systems/colony trees; especially during development 5. Incentives for developers and homeowners; developers should consider natural resources design with building designs submitted for joint consideration at approval time. 7. Consistency between sections of ordinance; use 18.150.040 C3c in all appropriate sections. 8. Public notice provisions. 9. Reduce permit fees; dedicate use of funds. 10. Review final draft with CIT's for citizen input before final vote. 11. Between clauses of 18.150.040 link with "and"; add "neighborhood aesthetics" to list of (3). 12. Clarify relationships between ordinance and goal 5. [Hart letter] 13. Add protective language to 18.150.040 (eg, require some percentage of lot in trees, either as remaining trees after a cut or mitigations). 14. Close loophole on a person's ability to buy a large lot, divide it into smaller lots then proceed to cut the entire forest. 15. E-stablish a contractual relationship with a certified arborist? 15. Problem with ability to clear up to 1/2 acre using a 50' radius. 17. Developers able to cut trees on a property, followed by individual lot owner also cutting trees. 18. 18.150.050 expiration of permit is 1-1/2 years; how to keep track of cumulative permits in an area? 19. Define cutting "for landscape purposes". 20. Prohibit any sale of timber from residential property; a cut tree is city property. 21. Redefine street trees to include native species. t e ~ now Council. Comments - Tree Ordinance for August 2, 1994 Meeting Councilor Schecklae 1. Supports a tree o dinanae but is concerned about this small property owner who should not have to have a permit to remove a tree. 2. Questioned whether we have enough manpower to enforce a stricter policy. Cited the example of temporary signs, noting the number of signs which appear to be in violation. Is.enough staff to follow up with violators and enforce penalties? 3. 50-feet from house too strict. Suggests 150 - 200 feet from the house. 4. Concerned about expense. For example, there would be costs for the permit and then costs again to pay soncone for removing the trea (s ) . J _y 10J, waalil als-aijo 1 ~ 1 its, 0. IN 11 1 1 1111, 11 1 11 11 I J w 339 'f C4 ~~®L e J GUY 1 a r s NHS FROM 7/12/94 CO-LMCIL WING a July 12, 1994 Council Meeting Item 4 - Tree Ordinance - Concerns by Council before adoption: Councilor Hawley had question regarding wording In the ordlsiar cv... Page 2, No. a dsfinition of developed residential land shall mean a lot or parr-al "or contiguous ~ combination of such under the same ownership." Does that mean if, she oArns sift lots altogether, does that cover everyone of those six lots? Bewersdos lif said yes. Councilor Hawley asked question regarding discussion paper in the packet, the issue of property rights versus the benefit of the whole City It was suggested the individual property owner would have the right to remove trees within 200 feet of his residence. Bewersdorif explained that was the original recommendation; they were talking about an acre at the time, and to make that acre work, they were talking about 200 feet from the building. Planning Commission changed that recommendation to a lot that could be divided to equal that we have a 54 foot exemption now. Councilor Hawley asked staff if the concern is protection for trees, is there somewhere in the draft ordinance that addresses that concern? Bewersdorff answered only those criteria that are listed; they would have to show reasons why they removed the trees. There is nothing saying specifically you have to protract a certain amount/percentage of trees. Hawley asked Bewersdo.rff if he agreed that the assessment that there is not protection for trees in the draft ordinance. Bewersdorff responded the process in requiring tree removal permits is a protection, in a sense. Councilor Bcheckla asked if there is a problem with protecting trees. Coleman responded preservation of trees is something you can build into the ordinance; as IBewersdorff said, a tree cutting regulation itself is a preservation ordinance. Requiring a specific percentage of trees left is one way to do that, and then you apply that on a case-by-case basis, and look at the result. Coleman suggested if Council builds in a 40% requirement, they also build in some sort of exception press so we are locked in with an inflexible code that could result in a taking issue being raised. Councilor Bcheckla asked if there could be conditions on the waiver. Councilor Hunt asked staff one of the recommendations Commission recommends 50% of permit money be set aside for tree planting. He asked if this was establishing a precedent, or do we have other areas where we have flees and we are setting money aside from those for certain type of activity? Reilly said there was no policy on that money is directed to related expenditures. Councilor Aunt asked If a special fund is set up, as this draft ordinance is recommending? Reilly said it is not a special fund. Mayor Schwartz asked Legal Counsel question regarding liability i'City should disallow removal of a tree, what is potential liability, If the tree should fall over and hit a house? Isom Coleman said in carrying out the regulatory program, the City cannot be negligent R standards are constructed such that if a tree is unsafe that a permit will be granted by correctly applying the standards, the City will be immunized from liability as long it correctly applies its standards and its standards make sense in the real world. May& Sc h}sue asked if an ind;-Adusl has a tree that is grester than S" and is tired of pruning, raking leaves, etc., and is denied a permit by the City to remave it. what is City's liability? Legal Counsel said City has no liability; it is private property :.%4d owner is responsible. Councilor Hawley asked staf, about NPO wording have Crrs seen drat ordinance. Rewersdortf said this has been ongoing for 2-1/2 years, and that the CI rs have seen it. Councilor Hawley asked about contiguously similarly owned property phrasing, and the concept of her owning one piece of property where her residence is, and she owms three or four other lots also the way the ordinance is written, she has the right to take down trees within 50 feet of her house, but does not right to take down any other trees on the other properties, even if there is a rental on the next property over can she take a tree down within 50 feet of that residence? Sewersdosff answered she could, and she could also do that on the other lots, if there was a residence on them. If they were undeveloped, she would be required to have a tree removal permit. Councilor Scheckla feels draft ordinance should be modified, based on testimony. Feels fine should be greater than $500. Councilor Rohlf is a strong proponent of property rights, but we need to recognize the community has certain standards that make that community unique. He feels the ordinance needs more "teeth" proposed passing the ordinance tonight, then modifying it. Councilor Hunt is concerned about the 50% going into a fund doesn't want to set a precedent by dividing resources and setting up funds for special areas. Is also concerned about the $5W fine is not enough and that it should be the stumpage. Feels we would have to hire someone to determine the value of the tree is, and then litigate how much the tree is worth when it was taken down. T he idea of charging more is great, but thinks it should be set on a determinable basis as to how you are going to arrive at the amount of the tree. Doesn't want us to have litigation every time a tree is cut down. Is in favor of changing it and make it so it is not profitable for them to take the tree down, but not to present the City with a problem when we, do it. Councilor Lunt had concerns regarding notification. Councilor Hawley believes the ordinance needs to be very explicit, and should contain incentives. Feels the fees should relate to a developer's pocketbook when they disobey the law. Doesn't feel $500 fine Js enough, and needs to be changed, and should include non-survival of trees that are left. Incentives should be included for the developer to leave the trees. Has a hard time with the property rights issue... if the Council. could find a way a to leave sl sgle-family lots. (doesn't know what size to talk about)- where there Is one properly owner controlling their ory-n residence (not sure about rental issue yet), believes she would stand in deftnse of that if there Is -my to keep It from happening where 35 property owners get together to decide to all out dow -i their trees doesn't know how y to avoid that. Ukes the idea of including the active planning area that Is within Washington County's jurisdiction in the ordinance perhaps through an intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County. Maybe through the bullding permits the City supervises. Agrees that there needs to be definition of a couple of terms landscaping issues, if it is decided to leave the 50 foot residential buffer where you have the right to take down tress; she would like landscaping purposes to be defined. She would also like to see the economic hardship issue defined better. Doesn't know if tying it to zoning is the appropriate way to define it. Mayor Schwartz is concerned with severity of fines. Many ordinances now involve a fine. Need better definition to protect citizens not familiar with the lava Ignorance of the law is no justification. Concerned with cost of notification to other property owners. It Is sometimes difficult to notify all property owners. Feels ordinance should be for every property owner in the City of Tigard. w, 15 ISSUES RAISED DURING PUB :C TESTIMONY Irene Mills - 1:530 SW 115th Mernbev of City's Natural Resaurcces Committee Advocates an effective tree ordinance, has some concerns about this ordinance and how effective it will be. Carl Melninger - 15545 SW 53rd Pee system will place more importance on ordinance, fees could be used to hire arborist. Notification of :surrounding neighbors should be required with 10 day waiting pariod. Would like to see language on protection of trees in Section 13.150.040. Suggests leaving 40% of trees over 10° in diameter, with mitigation allowed in deference to development. Stan Mitchell - 1535 SW 96th Encouraged laws that protect trees Carl Johnson - 8945 SW Burnham Suggests fee be dropped, already incorporated with other fees Terry Moore - Metro district 13 Councilor encouraged passage of the ordinance Christy Derr - 11556 SW Ironwood Loop encouraged passage of the ordinance Curtis Herr - 11336 SW Ironwood Loop encouraged passage of the ordinance Doug Smithey - 113%. SIVV Ironwood Loop The definition of undeveloped land from the Planning Commission is appropriate to protect trees.. Page 5, definition of unreasonabia economic hardship is too vague. Page 5, Section C.2.a, language on significant negative impacts should be consistent. 13.150.060, should include provisions for public input, notice requirements. 13.150.060.c, questions when application submission requirements would be waived. Fines should be higher. Mike Gerking - 11149 SW Eschrnan Way encourages passage of the ordinance norm= -01 i Greg O®rk€ng - 11149 SW Eschrnan Way oncourages passage of the ord*. Dance Rose Cicero - 11127 SW Eschman Way the ordinance will protect trees. Fries need to be severe If trees are damaged, not just down. Judy Feasler - 11180 SW Fonner Suggests "certified arbonst" be added to Director in the decision making :.k -'dons in appropriate sections of the code. Suggests increasing fines to three times the stump value: Supports the Planning Commission recommendation to fines and +aes collected for a tree planting fund. Provide incentives (tax break, grants) to residents to keep maintaining the good health of their existing trees. Suggests permit fees like Lake Oswego's - $35.00 + $10.00 per tree, so it's affordable. Encouraged approval of the ordinance. Carole Krieger - 11910 SW Greenburg Should have an appeal process and a notification process. Supports a tree ordinance. Malcolm Kirsop - 11322 SW/ Basswoode Ct. Encouraged passage of ordinance. Larry Westerman - 13665 SW/ Fern St. Generaliv in favor of the ordinance. Section 18.150.030 - permits should either be required or excepted. Section 18.150.040 - should include grounds for denial for landscaping purposes. Section 18.150.070 - should allow replacement of trees of similar species of those removed. Ordinance does not protect trees the city owns (right-of-way). Cutting timber for sale violates the intent of the ordinance. Ordinance should state all cases where a permit is required. Ordinance should define what is meant by tree removal for landscaping purposes. Modify list of street trees to allow mature old growth species as replacement trees. Staff: needs training on application and enforcement of ordinance. Apply ordinance in active planning area. Ferd Moreno - 14430 SW! McFarland Concerned about interpretation. Supports replacement provision. Exempt :jingle family lots wit ti a residence from the ordinance. HIM Jim Nicoll -.9025 SW Center Concerned this ordinance will encourage tree cutting. Fines "scare" people. Suggests a model like Tualatin's tree ordinance that offers incentives. Crdinarica should take a poslNe approach. a .r Is 50' around house enough distance for large fir toes? Application submittal requirements (site plan etc.) d.cult for all to comply with. Staff should have more discretion to save trees. Difficult ordinances are costly to enforce. Not in favor of notification. Ira Price - 6208 SW Southview Ordinance should have more review by public and arborists. ha\1ag1n\ja\1meard.an9 u., F r 2. NMI Co n AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of 9 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 92-0004 Tree Removal PREPARED BY: Dick B. DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN O ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City revise the Community Development Code by adopting a revi d Code Section 18.150 regarding tree removal? yr STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached ordinance amending the Community Development Code. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Planning Division drafted a new Community Development Code Section 18.150 (Tree Removal). Original drafts included relatively minor amendments to the existing code. Because of significant interest in tree removal, the scope of changes has increased. The new code sections are an attempt to make the tree removal code section more clear and easier to administer as well as address some of the new issues heard by the Planning Commission. The ordinance section was also reorganized and reworked by the City Attorney's office. The proposed changes include: 1) defining terms including "developed residential property"; 2) specifying situations where trees shall be exempted from the tree removal permit process (hazardous trees, pruning, etc..); 3) permitting the P: Director to require justification for tree removal; 4) providing for the mitigation of adverse impacts by requiring the planting of additional trees; 5) specifying that tree removal permits may be extended for up to one additional year; 6) providing for replacement trees if conditions have not been satisfied or tree are removed illegally; 7) adding a $500 per tree penalty for violation of chapter standards; 8) allowing for setback adjustments to preserve trees (suggested by the Home Builders Association); and 9) establishing standards for tree removal on sensitive lands, significant natural areas and greenways. A :key provision in the Planning Commission recommendation is that developed residential land would be defined as any lot that cannot be partitioned or subdivided. Therefore, a tree removal permit would be required for any residential property that could be partitioned. No permits would be required for trees within 50 feet of a residence. The NPOs reviewed the original proposal. The new code section reflects some of the public input since the NPO review. Attachments: 1) Discussion paper and comparison of tree removal fees; 2) Planning Commission minutes (Oct. 4, 1993, Jan. 17, 1994 & Feb. 7, 1994); 3) Draft ordinance - OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Revise the attached ordinance with other provisions. 2. Leave the code as is and denying the proposed draft. SAS... ~ ~=~.~~=C=.~: iGC~=Co~~=6aW=W.~=Sa~~~~=.~~=L". r: =m_~=C~~~~=.2: L=r FISCAL NURE5 The Comminsic..~ n a~as recommended.~`chaxgi*zg a £e+~.....of $75, plus $1C per tree for removal of any tree requiring a permit. The Commission also reco y-i;ended utilizing 50% of the permit money and all psn lty money for a tree planting fund. In addlrii~n, the C:,mmiSSion su5gested that thn Council, ct;nsider providing ;verall policy direction on trees and a program compensating people or maintaining t eo» (such as tax incentives) that are coneidered as part of the public good. The City issued 45 tree removal permits in 1993, 58 in 1992 and 31 in 1991. if the new code provisions are adopted, the number of permits could increase significantly. The number of violations, field checking, review time would increase accordingly. Tree removal permits usually require from two to eight hours of staff time per permit depending on the issues involved. s 15, ft in 1~. S2 m ~o o 9D CD X Unbalanced & Lasing Full Croton X X X X X X Salety Hazard x x x >c X X X X x x Diseased or Weakened X X X Good Ar'ooritiukure Practice, 0 Thinning ! X Access to Ske or,Structure X Essential Grade Change 4- M x X x x x x Public Utility Easement Z X X x x x X X X Accommodate Structure or Driveway Z Compliance with Other Ordinances/Codes CID X x x X X Solar Access 0 m X x x X x x X Replacement or Mitigetion(yroe 0 M Improvement Program 1 State or Federal Approval Q) M ' M Lose 61960/ of allowed units; M 6M5% incroasa in utility Installation eoists > X NulaancerDamage to Property or M Improvements M X Loss of Significance M X Wooded Areas Along Property 0 Lines Retained X Wooded Aress Along Drainageway Water Area Retained X X X X Area & Density Adequate to Prevent Windthrow Tress Retained to Greatest Extent X X X No Erosion, Soo Stabilky, Water Fbr , Windbreaks SDR Process J~ X 'X Limited Personal Use x Ix ix No Adverse Impnot on Character, Aesthetics, Prop Values, or Idea MIN -t -t x -a t o O0 -i C y g Y 2 -E co ~ 6t ^ C a X Unbalanced & Lacking Full Crown X X X x x Safety Hazard X X X X X X x x X X Diseased or Weakened a X x x Good Arboricullure Practice, Thinning X Access to Site or Structure X Essential Grade Change M Z X X x x x X Public Utility Easement x X x x x Y. x x Accommodate Structure or Driveway Compliance with Other° Ordinancestdodos 23 M x x x X X Solar Access X x x X x x Replacement or Mitigation/Tree = M Improvement Program ' State or Federal Approval w Ern X Lose 6116% of allowed units; rn 6115% Increase in utility Instsllatlon costs D x Nulsancetbamage to Property or M Improvements M X Lots of Significance M X Wooded Areas Along Property 0 Lines Retained < x Wooded Areas Along Drainageway Water Area Retained x x X Area & Density Adequate to Prevent Windthrow Trees Retained to Greatest Extent x x X No Erosion, Soil Stability, Water Plow, Windbreaks SDR Process x X x 'x x Limited Partonal Use X x x No Adverse impact on C,+AT cter, Aesthatict, Prop Values, or Use ~ > r m O m o o O C N D xZ 4l N N y O w n m m y 0 0 0 d ~ ~ m m $ m H v m m 3 Unbalanced & Laddng Full Crown x x x x x x Safety Hazard a x x x x x x Diseased or Weakened x x Good Arboriculture Practice, Thinning X Access to Site or Structure x Essential Grade Change x x 1x PuDllo Utility Easement X x x Accommodate Structure or Driveway X Compliance with Cther Ordinances/Codes x x Solar Access !~7 X Replacement or Mitigation Tree 0 Improvsment Program State or Federal Approval ~ X Loss 5/95% of allayed units; 6175% Increase In utility Installation costs x x x x Nuisanco/Damage to Property or Improvements x x Lose of Significance X Wooded Areas Along Property Unes Retained x Wooded Areas Along Drainageway Water Area Retained x x LAD analty Adequate to indthrow talned to Greatest Extent n, Soil Stability, Water i dbreaks cess ersonal lase o. rss Impact on Character, s, Prop Valuos, or Use LI h aC- S' a ca S' a a m Cis ~ 3 H ~ .na t7 i Unbalanced & Lacking Full Crown X X X X X X Safety Hazard X X X X X X Messed or Weakened X X Good Arboriculture Practice, Thinning X Access to Site or Structure X Essential Grade Change - ± I i I X x x pubis Utility Easement X X X Accommodate Structure or Driveway X Compliance With Other Ordinances/Codes > x Solar Access X Replacement or Mitigation/Tree 0 Improvement Program State or Federal Approval X Loss 5/15°/6 of allowed units; 5/15% increase in utility Installation costs j3 X X x x Nuisance/Damage to Property or M Improvements x x Loss of S!gn!ficance X Wooded Areas Along Property Lines Retained x blooded Areas Along Drainageway Water Araa Retained x x Area & Density Adequate to Prevent Windthrow Trees Retained to Greatest Extent x No Erosion, Soil Stability. Water Flow, Windbreaks (r i SOR Process Limited Personal Use a ^ j No Adverse Impact on Character, IL Axsthetias, Prop Values, or Use pill I III! COMMON TIM (F"OVAL FM 17LEIs 'EVE C= COMPARMN Tit- i no cbarp for removal permit ~x°krae ]?ore-St no 6barge for removal permit BMerton previous fee of $53 for removal of tree on own property has been repealed $53 fee in effect for removal of tree located in planter strap Tualatin $30 per tree, plus $10 for each additional tree up to rumimum of $3.50 Lake 0swe~o flat $5 for removal of one or more trees on developed residential property $75, plus $10 per tree for removal of trees from all undeveloped land DSTaw 20, Lew f ~l LMPROPFR `i'lZ.lsE REMOVAL PENALTIES CM. COMPARISONS Tigard: fine not exceelli $250 per tree Portland: replacement with two trees from the approved Tree list for every one tree -removed without permission. The new trees must be at least 2 inches in .diameter. Tualatin: fine not exceeding $500 per tree, with fifty per cent to be designated for the planting of trees on city-owned property. Beaverton: 1. a fine based on the arborcultural value of the tree, with such assessment to be deposited in the OiWs Tree Preservation Fund for future tree preservation efforts; 2. as an alternative to paying the fine, trees may be replaced with like trees which equal the replacement value of the lost trees. The trees must be of the same va.iriety as those lost. Lake Oswego: four options, applied singularly or in combination: 1. fine of $500 per tree; 2. holders of city business license subject to revocation of the license; s. replacement of the cut tree with a substantially similar tree. The number of replacement trees is determined by dividing the caliper of the tree cut by the caliper of the largest reasonably available replacement tree; 4. a replacement plan providing for the replanting and maintenance of the replacement tree or trees. The plan provides that if any replacement tree dies within three years of planting, the property owner is required to replace the tree. 19 MENOMONIE 1 Forest Grove: four options, applied singularly or in wmbination: 1. fine not exceeding $1,000 per tx e; 2. the replacement value of the remo ed wee to be paid to the City. Such funds are to be used by the City to plant new trees on public rights-of-way; 3. replant with one or more trees having the same or higher value as the removed tree or trees; 4. one or more trees of a species acceptable to the City in which the caliper size cumulative square inches of the replacement trees equal the caliper size cumulative square inches of the removed trees HD-Iip-,4ty Odubw 15,19W b r. Ems x ~ ~jc ll,er : ~ ~ 'ITGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular: 14cat:ing Minutes - October 4, 1993 1. CALL TO ORDER: coil:.issioner Castile called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Boone, Castile, Holland, Moore, Saporta, Saxton, Schwab, Schweitz. Absent: President Fyre. Staff: Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner Carol Landsman, Associate Planner, Duane Roberts, Planning Commission Secretary Lorraine Campbell. 3. APPROVE MINUTES ® Commissioner Moore,moved and Commissioner Saxton seconded to approve minutes of. September 20, 1993. Motion carried by Commissioners. Commissioners Boone, Castile, Holland, Saporta abstained. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 92-0004 TREE REMOVAL LOCATION: Citywide. A request by the City of Tigard to amend Chapter 18.150 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code pertaining to tree removal to provide definitions for the following terms: developed commercial and industrial land, developed residential land, hazardous tree, pruning, removal, tree and undeveloped land. In addition, the proposed amendments are intended to: 1) Clarify tree permit exemptions; 2) Add a section explaining code enforcement actions for illegal tree removal; 3) Clarify criteria for the issuance of permits; 4) Simplify the sections pertaining to expiration of approval, extension of time, and revocation of approval; 5) Add significant natural areas and sensitive lands to land requiring tree removal permits; and 6) Add provisions for replacement of illegally removed trees. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a, 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 2,1.3, 3.4.2, and 4.1.1 a and Community Development Code Chapter 18.150. Page 1 - Planning Commission Minutes - October 4, 1993 iyk,+ I 1 ' o Senior Planner, Dick Bewersdorff, reviewed the staff report. He said the Planning Commission held a public hearing in January 1993 on trees. Dick Bewersdorff went over the major issues and summarized the proposed changes pertaining to tree removal. o Senior Planner, Carol Landsman, discussed the newly created section for tree removal on sensitive land. Carol discussed the three categories for tree removal. She said the city is currently working with an arborist who will assess the forests in Tigard and distinguish significant natural forests from those areas with a lot of trees or woods. Subsequently, the city will propose comprehensive plan amendments to protect the significant natural areas. o Commissioner Saporta referred to the recent Hart decision and said he thought the court had defined "developed residential property." o Senior Planner, Dick Bewersdorff, said that the court had not defined what is a developed property. Discussion followed. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Doug Smithey, 11396 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon 97223, said that the City of Beaverton uses 1 acre as its definition for Ago& developed property anything under an acre or above is undeveloped and most cities use the smaller size. He raised concern about the lack of specificity regarding dead trees. o Carl Meininger, 16545 SW 93rd, Tigard, Oregon 97224, stated his concerns about the loss of trees and the unsatisfactory tree ordinance in Tigard. He described two instances in which developers had randomly felled trees. He stated his recommendations to the Planning Commission. o Christy Herr, 11386 Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon 97223, came to the first work session in August and said that insufficient notice was given to the public about tonight's meeting to allow for more public input. She did not favor changing the definition of developed residential property to 3 acres and thinks it should be an average lot size within the City of Tigard. She said that the problem of slash removal should also be addressed. o Sue Kasson, 16570 SW 93rd, Tigard, Oregon 97223, spoke as a property owner and former NPO 6 member, which is now CIT 4. She believes an arborist could give guidelines regarding the root system of trees that are left on a property. Page 2 - Planning Commission Minutes - October 4, 1993 r o Commissioner Saxton asked how the city finds out when trees are going to be taken down, before it is too late? o Commissioner Moore asked if a. developer is required oo bring in a tree removal plan when he comes ~n for a tree removal permit. o Dick Bewersdorff: said the developer shows a plan with approximate location of the trees. Discussion ensued. O Brian Mohr, 13923 SW Hindon Court, Tigard, Oregon 97223, described an instance wherein a developer took out two very large cottonwood trees that were close to his property. In their place, the developer put in one and a quarter inch maples, 60 feet apart. Mr. Mohr said the developer did not have a permit to take out the cottonwood trees. o Dan Mitchell, 16585 SW 92nd, Tigard, Oregon 97223, contractor, gave an overview of the property he developed called Creekside 6, located in Beaverton. Mr. Mitchell described the efforts that were made in order to save many trees and preserve the natural habitat of the wildlife. o Commissioner Moore asked if Mr. Mitchell's bid sheet outlined all the things he was required to do. O Mr. Mitchell responded that it did. Discussion followed on erosion control. o Emmett Whitaker, 16530 SW 93rd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223, said for the last 18 years he has attended many city council meetings and the problem of cutting down and clear-cutting of trees keeps coming up. Mr. Whitaker said stiffer fines should be enforced on developers who cut down trees without a permit. o Mary Meininger, 16545 SW 93rd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223, represented Friends of Cook Park. Her concern was about the trees in the Cook Park area and she agrees with above statements. o Ms. Ginny Deck, 8010 SW Churchill Court, Tigard, Oregon 97223. She said she recommends having an ordinance that affects homeowners as well. She said a permit should be obtained before a tree is taken down and that fines should be enforced for unlawful tree removal. She recommends voice mail be made available or have someone in the City who can take a call on weekends should an emergency arise regarding trees. o Ms. Dorothy Gage, 8000 SW 54th, Portland, Oregon 97219, said three acres is not an appropriate cut-off point for developed Page 3 - Planning Commission Minutes - October 4, 1993 SEMI ONE! property and thinks it should be on a lot by lot basis. She would lake to see the public became more involved as to what areas are going to be developed. PUBLIC HELRING CLOSED 0 Commissioner Schwab said in defining developed residential property, one lot is too restrictive and he would support something less than 3 acres. He said he favors stiff penalties or fines for unlawful tree removal and said if a tree is within 200 feet of his house he should have the right to cut it down. 0 Commissioner Saxton favored defining undeveloped land as any area equal to two times the size of the smallest lot in the area of zoning and if someone is found in violation they should pay the cost of enforcement. He said hiring a certified arborist should be required in the instance of taking out a "hazardous tree," and whoever takes down a tree should clean up the slash. o Commissioner Saporta said the definition of developed residential property should be somewhere around one half acre and that there should be a fine if a tree is taken down without a permit. He would like to see an arborist hired and a plan submitted to the city for tree removal like as is required in other jurisdictions. He said trees should be replaced according to an established standard. o Commissioner Boone said many problems would be solved if developers would design a residence according to the slope of the land. o Commissioner Moore said he is in agreement with the other Commissioners and that tree removal permits should be required with fires enforced for unlawful tree removal. He favors hiring an arborist regarding tree removal. o Commissioner Holland said he has cut down a lot of filbert _ trees. He says he prunes them all the time and doesn't want to have to get a permit every time he wants to prune. He said this would be a hardship on people with orchards. o Dick Bewersdorf f clarified that a permit would not be required for pruning. Page 4 - planning Commission Minutes - October 4, 1993 r. ~ry ~o Commissioner Schweitz said he thought one acre was a good definition for defining developed residential property. He said cutting down a tree within 100 feet of one °.s residence without a perm-it is reasonable but there needs to be a little more control wit-,h arbvrists taking a look at each situation when a. development gr_'cE- in. He said he did not feel he had enough inforr:iat.ic.n to make a decision tonight. o commissioner Castile said a homeowner should get a permit for every tree he takes down. He said one area that has not been addressed is the situation where a tree has become too brig for a homeowner's property. Regarding a development, Commissioner Castile said a developer should only be allowed to take down a maximum of 50% of the trees on the property. o Commissioner Schwab said he would like the hearing continued and recommended that staff come back with examples from other jurisdictions, requirements for a permit specifically for development. Dick Bewersdorff said the Commissioners could come together in a work session. ® Commissioner Holland moved and Commissioner Schweitz seconded to table Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 92-0004 Tree Removal and schedule a workshop in approximately three weeks. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. ADJOURNMENT: 9:20 PM - 9:30 PM. o Commissioner Boone left the meeting at 9:20 PM. 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 93-0005 WETLAND AREAS LOCATION: Citywide. A request by the City of Tigard to amend Policy 3.4 of the Comprehensive Plan, Findings, Policies, and Implementation Strategies, Volume II to adopt a new Policy pertaining to Statewide Planning Goal 5 rule requirements for the identification and protection of wetlands. Once adequate information on the quality, quantity, and location of wetlands is obtained, the city will complete the Goal 5 administrative rule process. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 5; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1 and 3.4. o Duane Roberts reviewed the staff report requesting that Section 3.4, Natural Areas, of Volume Two, Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies, of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan be amended. Page 5 - Planning Commission Minutes - October 4, 1993 b w o Commissioner Castile asked if there were any areas that the City has set aside in terms of mitigation sites that are in flood plane areas. c Mr. Roberts one, area in particular is Dartmouth extension which har a small area of wetlands that needed to be mitigated, Fie said it is not something. that is required as part of Goal 5: Discussion ensued. PUBLIC TESTIMONY a. o Mr. Doug Smithey, 11396 Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon 97223, said he was not completely. clear on the issue. He said he objected to the city closing the periodic review in June 1991 with a letter of July 1991 and the State of Oregon upheld his objection in June 1992. He was concerned that he has not heard any answers from the city to the particulars of his objection. o Senior Planner, Carol Landsman, reviewed the issue and also discussed "significance." o Ms. Christy Herr, 11386 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon 97223, said she is overwhelmed by Goal 5. She said Tigard is the last city in the region, Northwestern Oregon, to comply with Goal 5. o Carol Landsman clarified the issue which she said basically amends the plan to say that Tigard is not in compliance and has not completed the ESCE process. Therefore, Tigard is committed -o complete the process, do the inventory, undertake a public participation process and determine significance. Discussion followed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED v Commissioner Schwab moved and Commissioner Holland seconded to forward a recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 93-0005 Wetland Areas. Motion passed unanimously by commissioners present. Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes - October 4, 1993 M 4L 4- v 6. OTHER BUSINESS a Carol Landsman asked what t',.e Commissioners would lake. at the next Transportation Planning Rule meelL ing an Octobey 18. The Commissioners decided on a one hour work session and will invite Mr. Jerry Foy and Ms. Vll. D3A2 a!-d ~ad.k to give a presentation. 7. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting adjourned at 10:05 PM. Lorraine Campbell Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: _ Commissioner James Castile lc/PC10-4.min Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes - October 4, 1993 Y TIGARD PLANNING COM41SSION, January 17, 1994 TRIANGLD WORKSHOP ~ 1. Meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM. 2: Present: President Fyre, Commissioners De Frang, Holland, Moore, Saporta, Saxton, Schweitz, Gilson. Also Present: Community Dev. Director, Ed Murphy Senior Planner, Dick Hewersdorff Senior Planner, Carol Landsman Associate Planner, John Acker Consultant, Ralph K~rrin, OTAK Lorraine Campbell, Planning Commission Secretary 3. John Acker reviewed the background of the Tigard Triangle. He said the Triangle is viewed as an area of opportunity due to its location, the large areas of undeveloped land and areas of redevelopable land. He stated that it is surrounded by major transportation corridors. John Acker showed a map of the Triangle to the Commissioners as well as a map showing the different land uses. Consultant, Ralph Kerrin, gave a brief history of the Triangle and discussed how the 340 acres of the Triangle encompasses almost every type -of land use. Land Uses, Open Spaces, Design, and Transportation, the main elements of the plan, were discussed. Further discussion ensued on multi-family projects, pedestrian orientation and single family areas, as well as improvement along 99W. There was further discussion regarding the•~ Atlanta extension, design standards and the zoning changes~~pat will take place in the Triangle. Senior Planner, Carol Landsman, said in an effort to get more input from.the general public on the Triangle, the City will have an open house-. as well as displays. The City will subsequently hold a series of public hearings on the Triangle. Then, along with the Planning Commission's comments and the general public's input, staff will come up with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Page 1 - Planning Commission Meeting - January 17, 1994 sIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes - January 17, 1993 i., C,~.:LL qV 01-t Er : President Fyre called the meeting to order at 7-35 PM. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: President Fyre, Commissioners De Frang, Holland, Moore, Saporta, Saxton, Schweitz, Wilson. Absent: Commissioner Boone. Staff: Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner Carol Landsman, Associate Planner Mark Roberts, Michael Anderson, Engineering Dent. Planning Commission Secretary Lorraine Campbell. 3. APPROVE MINUTES F Minutes from January 10, 1994, were not available for approval. 4.= PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS There were no Planning Commission communications. 5.1 SUBDIVISION SUB 93-0011/ZONE CHANGE ZON 93-0004/VAR 93-0014 RENAISSANCE LAW LOCATION: 15400 SW 109th Avenue (WCT!M 2S1 10DA, tax lots 600, 700, 800, & 900) The applicant requests approval for the following development applications: 1) Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide a 9.74 acre parcel into 33 lots ranging in size from approximately 7,500 to 23,557 square feet; 2) A zoning map amendment is requested from the existing R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 acres/unit) zoning district to R-3.5 with a planned development overlay for the 9.74 acre site; 3) A request for a variance from the maximum cul-de-sac length of 400 to a length of 1,000 feet and/or a variance from the 12 percent maximum street slope requirement. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Subdivision: Community Development Code Chapters 18.48, 18.80, 18.88, 18.92, 18.108, 18.102, 18.106, 18.150, 18.160, and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, -7.7.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 9.1.1, and 9.1.3. Subdivision Variance: Commmunity Development Code Section 18.160.120. Zone Change: Community Development Code Sections 18.22.040 and 18.80; ,n. Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1, and 12.1.1. Page 2 - Planning Commission Meeting - January 17, 1994 ix oas.f k ZONE: R-3.5 CResidential, 3.5 units/acre) The R-3.5 zoning designation allows single-family residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming, manufactured homes, family day. :are, home occupations, temporary uses., and accesso...~r , tra: c uses among other uses. Associate Planner, Mark Roberts, reviewed the staff report, wherein the applicant, Renaissance- Development Company, is proposing a 33-lot subdivision which is generally located -towards the base of Little Bull Mountain. Along with the subdivision application is a planned development overlay zone as well as a variance request to exceed the street slope criteria set forth in the development code. Mr. Roberts said staff recommends approval. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION • Bill McMonagle, Harris McMonagle Engineering, 12555 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, said he represents Randy Sebastian, Renaissance Development. Mr. McMonagle said the applicant agrees with staff's report except for items 8, 14 15, and 17, and explained the reasons why. • Commissioner Saporta raised a question about solar access and why lot 14 doesn't comply with the standards for solar access. • Mr. McMonagle said it was because Lot 14 had a 90' dimension in a north-south attitude. • Commissioner Holland raised a question on curb outlets and asked if there was a problem with dry wells. • Mr. McMonagle explained that dry wells work well depending on how well the water is distributed from the hard surfaces. Discussion ensued. PUBLIC TESTIMONY • Bob Parsons, 10040 SW Century Oak Drive, Tigard, Oregon 97224, _ lives in Summerfield and wondered about the collective mechanism that possibly might be on the back lots to handle any excessive run off. • President Pane said it was a requirement to have a collective mechanism on the back lots. Terry Smith, 10470 SW Kable, Tigard, Oregon 97224, raised a question about a jog that goes to his property and raised concerns about drainage. He is in favor of the subdivision. Page 3 - Planning Commission Meeting - January 17, 1994 w • Al Erickson, 15200 SLAY 109th Street, Tigard, Oregon 97224, lives directly above the Laws' property. He is in favor of the subdivision. Beverly Swink, 15875 SW Greens Jay, Tigard, Oregon 97224, President of SuNmerfield Tigard Civic Association, said they have met with the city staff and the developers and are in favor of the subdivision. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED • Commissioner Saxton asked if there were any significant trees in the roadway and, if so, could the street be built around the trees? He cited Summerfield Drive as an example. • Associate Planner, Mark Roberts, said the code doesn't provide for a phased tree removal process. • Senior Planner, Dick Bewersdorff, sometimes there are ways to alter sidewalks but if the trees are right in the middle then they come out. • President Fyre addressed item 8. • Michael Anderson, Engineering Department, responded that it is a standard requirement. • Commissioner Saporta said he would like to discuss item 14 at the next agenda item. • Senior Planner, Dick Bewersdorff, said the city can work on a tree removal permit if the tree removal and the tree information is submitted at the time the construction drawings are submitted to the City. Discussion followed. Commissioner Saporta moved and Commissioner Holland seconded to approve Subdivision Sub 93-0011/Zone Change Zon 93-0004/Var 93-0014 Renaissance/Law according to-staff's recommendations _ except for the following modifications: Item no. 8 be modified in that the garage and entry finished floor elevations be included on the grading plan; Item 15 be modified to permit curb outlets for the purpose of draining roofs and footings. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.2 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 92-0004 TREE REMOVAL LOCATION: Citywide. A request by the City of Tigard to replace Chapter 18.150 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code with new code provisions pertaining to tree removal and to provide definitions for the following terms: developed commercial and industrial land, developed residential land, hazardous tree, Page 4 - Planning Commission Meeting - January 17, 1994 ~r, pruning, removal, tree and undeveloped land. In additon, the proposed amendments are intended to: 1) Clarify tree permit exv.ATtions; 2) Add a section explaining cede anforcements actions for illegal tree remt;3~va 3) Clarify criteria for the i.ssuonce of permits; 4) it l fy the sections pertaining to t` expiration of approval, ex.tznsien of time, a;sI( revocation of approval; 5) Add significant. n alt-ural areas and sensitive, lands to land requiring tree re-mo -a.l permits; and 6) Add provisions for replacement of ill e-?. 1y removed trees. • 'Senior Planner, Dick Bewersdorff, reviewed proposed changes to the tree protection ordinance which was previously submitted to the Commissioners at the Planning Commission's bctober 18 meeting. • Senior Planner, Carol Landsman, discussed a letter from David B. Smith, dated January 17, 1994, attorney for Rita M. Tart, which was sent to the Planning Commission on January 17, 1994 regarding tree removal. PUBLIC TESTIMONY • John LeCavalier spoke on behalf of Fans of Fanno Creek, P.O. Box 25835, Portland, Oregon 97225. He said Fans of Fanno Creek support the proposed ordinance changes, but also would like to have language included regarding the value of trees for water quality and for habitat. • President Fyre asked what criteria the City should give a person to cut down a tree. ® John LeCavalier said the City would need to take a look at the location-of the tree as well as ascertain whether the tree is dead or alive. Also, a tree should be replaced with a native species, and public input should be sought. • Doug Smithey, 11396 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon 97223, addressed his view of lot size. He spoke of how people can get around the ordinance. He made the following suggestions to the ordinance: rage 3 - The definition of trees, remove the word 'living; 0 and, commercial logging should not be exempted. • Commissioner Schweitz asked if a person has to replant if they commercially log off a piece of property. President Fyre.said a piece of land can be commercially logged oft and a person is not required to replant. • Doug Smithey referred to Permit Criteria - and would like to Page 5 - Planning Commission Meeting - January'17, 1994 add the language owildlife, habit, water duality, and noi: e pollution" as things to be considered and use it as stock language. Under Penalty he wants to have a fine or the price of the timber. If more than X trees are to be cut then he suggests public x::va.ice be given and the public be able to attend a public hearing. Curtis Herr, 11386 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 18.150.030, B.5., on Commercial Logging, suggested that commercial logging somehow be regulated by the City. He mould like to have stiff penalties for illegal tree removal. b Malcolm Yirsop, 11323 SW Basswood Court, Tigard, Oregon 97223, is in favor of the tree ordinance. He addressed the subject of a City Director having the authority when it comes to the removal of a tree. He is in favor of an ordinance strong enough to ensure the proection of wildlife. • Mary Meininger, 16545 SW 93rd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223, represented Friends of Cook Park. She read Friends of Cook Park's Recommendation for Tigard Tree Ordinance and agrees with the $500 penalty fee for illegal tree removal. 0 Dorothy Gage, 8000 SW 59th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, owns land in the city of Tigard and, referring to the ordinance, said houses should be aligned to fit the land in an effort to AWk preserve the trees. She said along with the $500 penalty fee, there should be a fine of three times the price of the timber. Al Erickson, 15200 SW 109th Street, Tigard, Oregon 97224, grows Christmas trees on his property and talked about the timber on his property. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 0 Commissioner Saxton referred to 150.010 and favored streets being designed around trees in areas where possible. On 150.010, B2, he would like the statement removed, "At the time of development." He thinks that the lot size should stay the same, and on Page 3, said delete the word "living." He would like to address commercial logging further. 0 Commissioner Holland said in order to do any commercial logging, a permit should be required, except for Christmas tree logging. • Commissioner Saxton wanted to have more information about the State Forestry Practices Act. Discussion followed on commercial logging. - Page 6 - Planning Commission Meeting - January 17, 1994 ® Senior Planner, Carol bandsman, asked the Commissioners in ghat instances they would like to see commercial logging permits denied. ® Commissioner Holland favored putting up a public notice of intent of co icerci al. logging with a public: hearing. • Commissioner Saxton favored taking out paragraph 4 on page 5 and having language inserted to the effect, "Commercial logging is subject to the same regulations as the State Forestry Practices .pct." • Commissioner Saxton said that if someone is commercially logging, they should be required to get a permit. • President Fyre. favored including, "Any tree, whether it's commercial or not, needs a tree-cutting permit.° Discussion ensued on when a tree-cutting permit would be denied; those instances would be in cases where it would be damaging to the environment or the wildlife. Y Commissioner Saxton" raised concern that it is too easy for appeals to be made. Commissioner Wilson raised concern that the ordinance will become too complicated and restrictive. He supports the protection of trees, with the minimum amount of inconvenience to-property owners. Discussion followed. • Commissioner Saporta said the ordinance needs to be restrictive in order to protect the trees. V Commissioner Schweitz agrees with the direction from the Director. 0 Commissioner Saxton said the illegal tree removal fine should be $500.00 per tree, plus three times the stumpage value. Commissioner Holland agreed. • Senior Planner, Carol Landsman, said that a process of identification of significant trees in Tigard wil-I take place next year and that, presently, they are doing a study of significant forest areas in Tigard. • Commissioner Holland recommended having a work session prior to the next meeting and then making a.decision. c Commissioner Moore said he was in agreement with having a work session and looking at things item by item. Page 7 - Planning Commission Meeting - January 17, 1994 gi 121D _7 o Con-uni.ssioner Saporta atoved and Commissioner Saxton seconded that the Planning Commisssion have a work session on re-working the Corrmunity Developtx ent Core pertaining to tree re-fi:oval at a date to be detarminet . motacaci rr . e,- u;cs,a< imovsly b~f Coi issioners present. 7. OTHER BUSINESS 8. A'wouRmENT - Meeting adjourned at 10:20. Lorraine Campbell Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: President Fyre is/PC1-17.®in Page 8 - Planning Commission Meeting - January 17, 1994 IIS MINE! AM% RAW= 0 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes - February 7, 1993 1. C„NLL TO O.€dDMI: President Fyre called the meeting to order at 7:00 PI The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center - `own Hall 13125 SW Hall Boulevard. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: President Fyre, Commissioners Holland, Moore, Saxton, Schweitz, Wilson. Absent: Commissioner Boone, De Frang, Saporta. Staff: City Engineer Randy Wooley, S e n i o r P l a n n e r D i c k Bewersdorff, Associate Planner John Acker, Planning Commission Secretary Lorraine Campbell. 3. APPROVE MINUTES ® Commissioner Moore moved. and Commissioner Saxton seconded to approve minutes of January 10, 1994. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. AEk Commissioner Moore moved and Commissioner Schweitz seconded to approve minutes of January 17, 1994. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioner present. 4, PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS o Senior Planner, Dick Bewersdorff, said due to February 21st being a holiday, the next Planning Commission Meeting will be on February 28. He also stated that the Planning Commission meeting with counsel was scheduled for 7:30 p.m at the Tigard Civic Center on March 15 and will be addressing the Metro 20/40 Plan. A staff member from Metro will be attending. Prior to that, there will be a invitation from Mayor Edwards to the Planning Commission to a reception from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 which will be held in the Water District auditorium. o City Engineer, Randy Wooley, discussed the process for Developing a Long-Term Capital Improvement Program (1994-2001) which will take place February through July 1994. Discussion followed. 5. PUBLIC COMMISSION WORKSHOP - 5.1 TIGARD TRIANGLE o Associate Planner, John Acker, reviewed the draft plan, map and a matrix showing the ch angp,.,l in land use that will be key to the I'lltg1e: plan. John said on March 1st from e-7 p.m. the Ci tt Tei.ll :'hold, an open house which will have exhibits and information about C.-he Triangle for property owners in- the Triangle area. o President,: Fyre clarified that the maim focus for the Commissioners regarding the Triangle is that some of the property of a higher economic value is being down-zoned to a lower economic value. Discussion followed. o Associate Planner, John Acker, reviewed the Tigard Triangle Specific Plan Design Standards. o CommissZ67rner Wilson raised a question about why fences and Mansard roofs were being prohibited in the Triangle. o Commissioner Holland explained that homeowners can apply for a variance and staff is trying to set general standards in the Triangle. o Commissioner Saxton had a question about two of the terms: Aff& site coverage, and floor area ratio. o Associate Planner, John Acker said, site coverage is the area covered by a building and floor area ratio is square footage and the footprint. o John Acker asked the Commissioners what they wanted to see in the Triangle. O Commissioner Schweitz said that the Commission needs to consider the Transportation Rule and be aware of possible traffic congestion. O Commissioner Holland said he would like to see a good mix of commercial retail with the residential above it, similar to Portland. 5.2 TRANSPORTATION o The Commissioners reviewed the Proposed Transportation Ordinance Changes and made the following recommendations: Page 2 - Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1994 P s5. Page 1. 4. LP-99-tl Local street networks shall be designed to provide !titer-connectedness of neighborhoods, access to coymmercial or institutional uses serving those neighborhoods, safety, street and . utility maintenance efficiency and maintain residential quality. Local street(s) networks should facilitate and provide for pedestrian bake travel. Page 2. Minimum Off-Street Parking P.eguirements 9. Sc~qols Two bicycle spaces per classroom. Page 3. Director's Authority to Restrict or Require Coordination of Access In order to eliminate the need to use public streets for movements between commercial or industrial properties, parking areas shall be designed to connect with parking areas on adjacent properties unless not feasible. The Director may require access easements between properties where necessary to provide for parking area connections. Page 4. Culs-de-Sac 2. If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted pathway to an adjacent street should be encouraged to be provided and dedicated to the city. ADJOURNMENT: 9:15 p.m. until 9:25 p.m. 5.3 TREES o Commissioner Wilson said he favored subsidizing those who maintain trees rather than penalize people for cutting them down. Discussion ensued regarding the planting of trees. o The Commissioners made the following changes and recommendations regarding the Draft of the Tree Qrdinance: 18.150.010 Purpose. S. 2. Limit the unnecessary removal of trees. (Delete: At the time of development.) Page 3 - Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1994 Ngil a a Page 3, No. 9., "Tree (s)'t shall mean a (Delete: 96living°®) standing woody plant, or group of such, having a ::runic six inches or more in caliper size when measured four feet from ground level. Page 4, No. S. Which are use-al for (Delete: commercial log harvesting or) Christmas tree production, but do not stand in either sensitive lands, significant natural areas, or greenways. Page 5, No. 3. Removal of the tree(s) will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, water quality, wildlife and noise pollution or existing wind breaks. Page 8, A. (Continued) Chapter, then he or she shall do any or all of the following: ® Commissioner Saxton moved and Commissioner Schweitz seconded to adopt Chapter 18.150 as modified by staff°s recommendations, for approval to the City Council. Commissioners voted 3-2 with one abstention. m Commissioner Moore moved and Commissioner Saxton seconded to charge a fee for cutting down a tree if its beyond 50' of a residence or on undeveloped land, in the amount of $75.00 per application plus $10.00 per tree. Commissioners voted 3-2 with one abstention. ® Commissioner Saxton moved and Commissioner Wilson seconded to forward to City Council that the City Council develop a pro- active program with financial incentives for the retention of trees for the public good. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Holland voted no. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 7> ADJOURNMENT - Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Lorraine Campbell Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: President Fyre lc/PC2-07.min Page 4 - Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 1994 t, 1111111,11! Ilp! o 9 ~ r 1 /12/94 COUN WRITTEN lgl Ill :Q1 999 NORTHEAST GRAND AVENUE PORTLANO, 4N600N 97212 2736 TEL !03 797 1700 7A% $09 75.7 1797 f r e July 12, 199• John Schwartz, Mayor Members of the Tigard City Council 13125 Ski Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mayor Schwartz and Council. Members: I am pleased by the proposal before you tonight to amend your City Code to create u the framework for preservation of the trees of Tigard. I encourge you to adopt the revisions to Code Section 18.150 as they are included in the draft that has been put forth for public review. Your adoption of a method for the protection of the city's green "infrastructure" will assure Tigard's place in the forefront of the region's attempts to preserve the unique characteristics of our area that are such an economic draw and the basis of projections of continued regional growth and prosperity. Surveys done by Metro and others over the past several years show again and again that the existence of open space, natural areas, and mature landscaping of developed lands are very important to the people who make this home. They expect their part of Oregon to be green, love it because it is, and want to keep it that way forever. Your efforts in making Tigard a more livable community are certainly appreciated and applauded. Please make this letter part of your record in the matter of the proposed Ordinance amending Code Section 18.150 regarding the removal of trees. Very sincerely yours, • 600 NORTHEAST GRAND AVENUE Terry Moor Councilor, District 13 PORTLAND, OREGON 97232 2736 TEL 503 797 1544 FAX 503 797 1793 a TERRY MOORE METRO COUPICtLOR A R-7,1,4 Pa P.. w `J w. DAYED B. SW ~4~►/'7/1 Z/ P - a~Z,, s Attorney At Law P a Box 23®637 Tigard, OR 9=1467 343) 620-0258 Fax: 639-951 RECEIVED PLANNING 'JUL 1 2 July 12, 1994 Mr_. Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd, Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 92-0004: Draft Chapter 18.150, Tree Removal Dear Mr. Bewersdorff: Enclosed for submission to the City Council at its meeting at .7:30 tonight, please find the comments of my client, Rita M. Hart, in opposition to the Council's adoption of the referenced r ordinance amendment. Please insure these comments are entered into the record of the proceedings. Very truly yours, VS David B. Smith Attorney for Rita M. Hart {.LY encl cc: Ty K. Wyman, Esq. (by FAX) Rita M. Hart r DA B. SIN RECEIVED PLANAI NG .Attorney At Law F.Q Box 23007 T;garci, OR 97281-0637 JUL 1 1994 (5&3) 62m-02s8 Fax: 6394891 July 11, 1994 City Council City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 92-0004: Draft Chatter 18.150, Tree Removal Dear Mayor and Council: The purpose of this letter is to provide written testimony on the referenced amendments to the city's Code, and the advice tendered to the City by the City Attorney's office on March 1, 1994,on behalf of my client, Rita M. Hart. The referenced ordinance expands the city's prohibition on removal of trees by changing the definition "developed residential lots," thus expanding the restrictions on the removal of trees to properties (and trees) that previously had not been subject to tree removal restrictions. At the outset it should be noted that adoption of this amended ordinance requires compliance with statewide land use Goal 5. ;`1~• The City, in its public notice, clearly identifies, under "Applicable Review Criteria," "Statewide Planning Goals * * * 5." It also should be noted the section of the plan under which tree removal is addressed is a Goal 5 section, entitled "Natural Areas". The City Attorney is mistaken when he indicates the City's acknowledged plan relieves the City of the requirement for "a full scale Goal 5 analysis." There is no question but the ordinance applies.to trees and.lots and parcels that were previously not covered in any plan Goal 5 inventory (volume I of the Comprehensive Plan at Appendix I does not address undeveloped lots and parcels, as they are defined in the amended ordinance). As I noted in my letter of January 17, 1994, to amend that inventory, the City must first inventory the location, duality and quantity of the additional trees it wants to protect. The determination of the location of these resource must include a description or map of the location of each tree and of the area affected by each tree. The City's determination of the quality of each identified tree must consider the relative value of the tree, as compared with other examples of the tree, at least within the city. It then must determine whether any conflicting uses exist for each particular tree deemed significant and listed on the inventory. The City then must analyze the ESEE consequences of allowing the conflicting uses. BotAh the impacts upon tree sites and the impacts upon conflicting uses must be analyzed. Final se, after visternining the ESEE consequences of uses that :son; list with trees identified by the city as significant, the City may develop a program to achieve the purpose of the goal. The referenced ordinance is that program. It cannot be adopted until the City has first completed the inventory, conflicting use identification, and ESEE analysis for each additional tree, or resource site to be protected on "undeveloped" parcels. Until the City complies with the specific requirements of Goal 5 and its implementing administrative rules, the City may not expand its protection to include trees not currently protected. The extension of protection to new Goal 5 resource sites requires the City to amend its comprehensive plan. Plan amendments must comply with thy: goals, including the detailed mandates of Goal 5. The City may not add new resource sites to its protection program merely by making findings based on the City's comprehensive plan. In 1992, the Oregon Court of Appeals addressed the specific question of whether a city's plan policy, adopted under Goal 5, relieved the city of the independent obligation to comply with a Goal 5 and its implementing rules in providing protection to resource sites through an ordinance. y4 The role that the (comprehensive] plan policy plays in the ordinance is nothing more than an attempted duplication of the Goal 5 implementing rule, and it cannot purport to serve as an independent "basis for the regulation" if it operates in a way that the implementing rule would not operate and would not permit. Ramsey v. City of Portland, 115 Or App 20, 24, 836 P2d 772 (1992). Thus, the Court of Appeals has made clear that, even if the City's plan policies are a "clone" of Goal 5 and its rules, adoption of a program to protect new Goal 5 resource sites (trees on "undeveloped" parcels) must comply with the Goal and its rules. The City's plan policies cannot serve as an independent basis for the referenced ordinance amendment. 2 Is I I Iii, !I i le CAN, 11, SHOW, Th Council should reject the referenced ordinance amendment and return it. to the Planning Department for proper completion of the Coal. 5 process. Please enter this letter in the record of the Gounci1.'s prooeedings. Very truly Yours, n ez~ David H. Smith Attorney for Rite. M. Hart cc: Rita M. Haut Ty K. Wyman, Esq. (by FAX) 9365-005 ATR ri r 3 H •t y Judy esslcr 11130 SW Fonner Tigard, OR 97223 July 12, 1994 To,,. Mayor & Council Re Tigard Tree ordiance I am elated that this Tree ordiance is before all of us tonight. I feel that large kudos%Shoulde go to the Staff, Planning Commission, Home Builders Association and of course just plain citizens who have taken the time to help create a tree ordiance with trees, people and the environment in mind. I have a few comments to the proposed Tree ordiance before you tonight. I realize that all of our planning decisions come from the Tigard Director position persay, but in appropiate places in the code one suggestion would to also add "certified arbori.st", or designee. Addition of wording to: 15.150.080 - PENALTY pge # 9 PARAGRAPH- A "fine of $ 500.0011 ADD or 3 times the stump value. which ever is greater. Adding the stump value, in my opinion gives another incentive to preserve the larger trees where that market drives the price. I would also like to support the Planning Commission's recommendations for utilizing the permit money and penalty money for a tree planting fund and that the council not only adopt that policy by considering to provide an overall policy of incentatives (tax, grant, etc) to residents to keep maintaining the good health of their existing trees. PERMIT FEES I would also like to address the Planning Commission reference to fees for permits and tree removal of.$ 75.00 for permit and 10.00 for each tree. 'S. r I believe we should look at fees with the intent of this ordiance and I think we all agree that the intent is to keep trees where we can. If we make the fees too high will the average home owner who may have a "undeveloped" definition of laud maybe will say I'll not apply and hope I don't get caught. But the reality is the tree is gone. I believe if we make the fee affordable to the above situation and charge less for the permit and a little more per tree(s) we have met the purpose of saving the quantity of trees. TIC I have heard comiaent ; that. the staff time miglit nt.:t b;E: juGtified if the permit fee was aot s:.t possibly the above a:e.te but I would like to share with you from a memorandum from City of L.0 o-7 their fees for Tree Pecs At vs Staff time costs. I would a. so life to edza the LO fees on the trees themselves are much lower than what has been proposed and they have 1 staff person who is an Arbor.ist, Attorney and Natural Resources person all in one. LO maintains this position with fees and permit charges for trees. Based on memorandum from LO I would like to suggest for TIGARD 35.00 per residential( undeveloped) plus 10.00 per tree 35.00 coamercial/industrial plus 10.00 per tree Lake Oswego's Permits 50.00 permit( undeveloped) plus 5.00/tree 12.00 permit for any plan that goes through hearing, plan review, etc. plus 2.00/tree As you will see by the memo, staff time of LO ranges from 15 minutes to 1.5 hours which falls into the undeveloped without a development plan, etc. You will notice they also charge a permit fee of $6.00 of exempt property, I do not feel that this is necessary but I would hope that we as a city can have material available for tree preservation and tips for the homeowner on trimming, grading, etc they may do on their own private property in regard to preserving a healthy tree. I would urge the council to approve this proposed Tree Ordiance tonight with the provision of adopting fee schedules at a later time if more information needed on procedures, etc Thank you Jud ~Fess r 11180 SW Fonner Tigard OR 97223 e n? ''III le ~9~rrent''11~_C.~,~,tt~g lpa~rtni~ p`e~ The current fees for tree cutting permits were ~,~=4{ablislted in 197 1. 2..d hav.- never been changed. The fees are as follows: b ~m~.x a Tr Fs~. 0-3 -0- 4+ on less than 20,000 sq. ft. $12.00 4+ on greater than 20,000 sq.: ft. $50.00 This fee structure bears no relationship to the costs of reviewing and issuing permits. For example, the cutting of 3 tmes on a particular site could require as much time as 10 trees on a larger site and the removal of 30 trees on a site of over 20,000 square feet will require more time to review than the proposed removal of 4 trees from a similar site. Enforcement of permits once issued, while not always required, is another cost factor that is not reflected in current fee structures. C.stq AssQda,ted 'VWi i+ecent Ordinance Amen- mints The amendments to the tree cutting ordinance create three situations in which review of tree cutting is required. 1) Trees con Developed parcels - On parcels which are in a residential zone, are occupied by a single family dwelling and cannot be divided into three or more lots, trees may be cut provided they are issued a permit which verifies that the property is exempt from the tree cutting criteria. 2) Trees on Undeveloped Parcels On all other parcels prior to their development in conjunction with a Minor or Major Development application, trees may only be cut after the issuance of a permit which verifies the cutting will comply with the applicable criteria and after the trees have been marked and a 14 day appeal period has expired without an aptfeal being filed. 3) T ms in Conjunction with Major or Minor Development Applications - Trees on these properties :may only be cut in conformance with the approval of the development application. For the purpose of this memorandum, the staff costs associated with each situation described alove. have been analyzed and are summarized below: Situation 11. Even though tree cutting permits in this case are exempt from the criteria, the requirement for a permit involves a staff interaction with the applicant, a review of the application and a determination of the exempt status as well as a related record keeping. r On the average, this activity requires approximately .25 hours of an associate planner's time. The time required is not related to the number of trees because the only determination is whether the property is exempt, The current hourly rate plus benefits for an associate planner is $23.00. Therefore, the average cost of processing a tree cutting permit for a developed property is $5.75. Page 2 of 4 au. ti Situation 2: In this situation, each tree proposed to be cut is evaluated against the criteria, which gTicamy involves a site vi Fit. In addition, the ordinar.co amendtrRent now requires fie appl1iI,ant w post the property and mark the &ees proposed for cutting. Staff anticipates that these additional requirements will consume additional staff time in explaining procedures, monitoring compliance, responding to citimn inquiries and maintaining records. The cost in this situation will increase to a certain point with the number of trees because each tree is reviewed. It is estimated that this situation will require 1.5 to 2.0 hours of an associate planner's time and approximately.5 hours of a secretary date. At the current hourly rates phis benefits, the basic average cost per permit is estimated to be $42.50 to $54,00. An additional charge of $5.00 per tree up to a maximum would reflect the increase in costs associated with the number of trees- Therefore, the average cost of processing a tree cutting permit for an undeveloped property is $42.50 to $54.00 plus $S.00 per tree up to an appropriate iytaxirnum. Situation 3 - In this situation, trees that are proposed for cutting will be reviewed with all the other site planning considerations through the public: hearing process. Therefore, the costs for the review will be partially recovered through the fees associated with the development application. Once the project is approved only those trees on the approved tree removal plan may be cut. To ensure compliance with the approved plan, staff will be required to administratively verify through the building permit process that only those trees on the approved plan will be cut. This activity is unlike either Situation 1, where only the exempt status must be determined, or Situation 2 where notice and individual tree review procedures are required. In Situation , staff will be required to review the approved plan, compare it to the trees to 15e cut and issue the permits. 'T'otal time will vary with the number of trees and complexity of site issues. Minimum time involved can be expected to be .50 hours with longer times required in relation to the number of trees. Using the hourly ra e , from above, the .average costs of verifying tree cutting with r , ent 11 I2.00 plus $2.00 per tree rip to an appropriate maximum. In a few cases in Situation 3, particularly single family subdivisions where the building location may not be known, an approved tree removal plan will not have been approved by the hearing authority. Where no tree removal plan is part of the development approval staff will be required to review tree cutting permits for compliance with the tree cutting criteria at the time building permits are issued. The time associated with this review would be comparable to the review for compliance with an approved plan. Therefore, the fee should also be $12.00 plus $2.00 per tree. R. s i5 'fi 1 4 .TUL_- 1 TuIE Y 0: 1 a CL_ I VE RUNNEL_L-S P 0 Y JUL 13 JU7 ;y 122 1994 Pub I 1 Hearing T s g and r i Ay council Mr. '~%ha r, Members of the city Council: I am out of town and unable to attend the hearing today but ask that you carefully consider the following concerns I have with the. proposed ora i trance : 1. Purpose. I suggest that the stated purpose is very dry and does not demonstrate a true appreciation for the wooded areas and mature trees of Tigard and for the numerous aesthetic, environmental and economic benefits they provide. In section 18-150.010'A 2 of the proposed ordinance, I suggest the word e. minimize" be substituted for "limit". For 18.150.010 A S, F suggest the words "Preserve wooded areas and mature trees where possible and".be added to the beginning of the existing phrase. A purpose statement similar to that used in the tree ordinances adopted for the Citys of Durham or Tualatin would be superior to that proposed for Tigard's ordinance. 2. Citizen Involvement. They proposed ordinance states that the original proposal was reviewed by NPOs. These organizations, as the City Council itself admitted in a recent meeting with CIT facilitators, did not provide a good representation of Tigard citizens.- CITs have been shown to work well, get the word out better, and involve more citizens in informed discussion. In `..addition, the Agenda Item Summary states that the NPOs reviewed the ORIGINAL tree ordinance, before revisions and that no citizens have been invited to review or comment on this final ..version until this hearing. I recommend that this final draft go before the CITs at their upcoming August imetings. This will not cause undue delay and will let their opinions be heard. 3. Definitions. A. Perhaps the term "non-developable"' would be a y, good addition. to the definitions for "developed" commercial, industrial, or residential land. The definitions given were F confusing and it was difficult to ell if it would be possible for an individual to purchase land and subdivide it, therefore making themselves exempt from needing a tree cutting permit for and future activity they may desire to conduct on the property. I would hope that this ordinance would be written to require a tree cutting permit for anyone who plans to do any scale of development on any type of lot. In addition, on large residential lots (ie. >1 acre), tree cutting should require a permit to prevent harvesting for profit at the expense of the community. 8. In my work on the Tigard Citizen's Committee on Natural Resources Policy over the past 6 months, I had the opportunity to speak with the arborist who conducted Tigard's "forest study He told us that many of the singular trees which are st: ON being left here and there on large, development sites are not surviving because of extensive root damage due to the heavy dquipment used on these sites. He said that this damage could be prevented by fencing the rooted perimeter of the trees during constructic n or leaving groups of trees rather than individual trees. I propose that the city actively educate developers about this problem ard encourage designs that leave groups of trees at the time of permit application. For the ordinance, I propose that "damaged" be a definition added t.o this ordinance and incorporated into the body of the ordinance as = a v i o l at i on m similar to illegal tree removal and punishable by fire. 4, Permit Criteria. A. Trees will best be preserved if the development is designed around them, not simply designed for a flat lot of certain size and the lot cleared and leveled to fit the plan. With this in mind, it seems reasonable that the city should request tree permits to be submitted in tandem with the building design and permits approved at that time, not following approval of the building. B. I suggest that the word "and" be placed at the end of each condition listed in section 18.150.040 A to make clear that all three criteria in 18.150.040 A: 1,2, AND 3, ;oust be met for a permit to be granted. if the word "and" is not included here, I ` do not feel the criteria in 18.150.040 A 2 b and c are sufficient to merit a permit. C. I suggest the fallowing language be added to condition 15.150.040 C 3 c: "Removal of the tree(s) will not have... a significant negative impact on THE NEIGHBORHOOD 'AESTHETICS,...erosion, soil stability,.." etc. 5. The recently completed natural resource policies (as recently proposed to the joint City Council and Planning Commission and going out to CITs in August), include policies regarding tree preservation which would affect this ordinance. I suggest that this ordinance be revised at the 4 time that the City's natural resource policies are finalized to make this ordinance consistent with City Policy. Thank you for your time and consideration of the above concerns. I would be happy to discuss or answer questions about any of them when I return from vacation. I hope that you give this ordinance the'time and careful consideration it deserves in order to create a final ordinance which will truly be protective of the remaining tree stands in Tigard that so many of us enjoy. Respectfully.submitted, Amy Patton 15735 SW 75th. Avenue Tigard, Oregon 0 MAIN