The URL can be used to link to this page

Urban Forestry Code Revisions - Citizen Advisory Committee - 04/13/2011 City of Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC MEETING #8 - (4/13/2011) Table of Contents 4/13/2011 Meeting Agenda...........................................................................................................................................2 CAC Meeting Summary (2/9/2011)............................................................................................................................3 Comments .....................................................................................................................................................................20 Staff Response to 2/9/2011 CAC Comments on Urban Forestry Standards for Development.....................44 Log of Changes Revisions to 2/9/2011 Urban Forestry Standards for Development ....................................62 TreeGrove Open House Report ..............................................................................................................................85 Preliminary"Draft" Tree Grove Preservation Incentives .....................................................................................90 Tree Permit Requirements Background and Options Memo..............................................................................120 TACMeeting Summary (3/15/2011)......................................................................................................................127 City of Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC - Agenda MEETING DATE: Wednesday,April 13, 2011, 6:00-9:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Library, Community Room 13500 SW Hall Blvd,Tigard, OR 97223 MEETING GOALS: Review and recommend revised draft Urban Forestry Standards for Development Review and discuss draft Tree Grove Preservation Incentives Brainstorm options for Tree Permit Requirements 1. (Info) Welcome,introductions and agenda overview 6:00-6:10 PM • Review Meeting#8 packet materials • Recap Meeting#7 • Approve Meeting#7 Summary /Adrienne DeDona/ 2. (Info) Public Comment 6:10-6:20 PM 3. (Info) Arbor Day 6:20-6:30 PM /Marissa Daniels/ 4. (Action) Revised Draft Urban Forestry Standards for 6:30-7:13 PM Development /Todd Prager/ 5. (Info) Tree Grove Open House Report 7:13- 7:23 PM / Marissa Daniels/ 6. (Action) Draft Tree Grove Preservation Code 7:23-8:10 PM /Darren Wyss/ BREAK 7. (Discussion) Tree Permit Requirements Brainstorming 8:13-8:33 PM /Adrienne DeDona,Todd Prager/ 8. (Info) Wrap up/Next Steps 8:33-9:00 PM 9. (Info) Thanks and adjourn 9:00 PM Next meeting: June 8, 2011 URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISIONS CAC AGENDA— April 13, 2011 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1 -2- Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Meeting #7 February 9, 2011 Summary Notes Committee members in attendance: Staff present: John Wyland, Developer Marissa Daniels, City of Tigard Morgan Holen, Certified Arborist Todd Prager, City of Tigard Ken Gertz, Portland Metro Homebuilders Cheryl Caines, City of Tigard Tony Tycer,Tree Board Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard John Frewing, Citizen at-large Darren Wyss, City of Tigard Brian Wegener,Tualatin Riverkeepers Bret Lieuallen,Tree Board Committee members absent: Consultant staff present: Dave Walsh, Planning Commission Adrienne DeDona,JLA Public Involvement Don Schmidt, Planning Commission Kelly Skelton,JLA Public Involvement Scot Bernhard, Parks & Recreation Advisory Greg Winterowd, Winterbrook Planning Committee Members of the public present: Marland Henderson John Annand Roy Beaty Mort Ettelstein Information requests from this meeting: More information on engineered soil for soil vaults. Parking lot items and items for further discussion: Ken &Todd will meet to discuss tree canopy coverage requirements and report back to the group in April. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 1 Meeting#7 DRAFT Summary -3- Overview Summary The following is an overview of the main comments made by members at the February 9, 2011 CAC meeting. Todd Prager gave a presentation on the preliminary draft of the Urban Forestry Standards, it focused on: Canopy target percentage, In lieu of fees, Preservation incentives, Discretionary review process,Tree plan modification, Soil volumes (for streets and parking lots). The following is a summary of the major outcomes of the group's discussion: • The tree canopy target of 40%still does not seem to be agreeable to the group. Most members felt that the number is too high and some requested there be different targets for different zones. The group agreed to have Ken and Todd work together to present a recommendation to the group at the next meeting. • Several members requested additional information on structural soil and how it works. Staff will bring more information to the next meeting. • There was general agreement that tree plan modifications can be handled by staff and public notice requirements might be burdensome. Darren Wyss gave a presentation on the Tree Grove Preservation program, and directed the group to provide additional feedback regarding questions asked in the Tree Grove Preservation survey, specifically focusing on areas of disagreement.These areas were: mitigation, density transfer and tree removal permits. • The group generally agreed to 100%density transfer if the housing type stayed single family housing (including attached housing), allowing for smaller lots. • The group generally agreed that it would be fair for the city waive the minimum density standards to allow the developer to save the trees, and build to the standard neighborhood density (conform to surrounding areas). • There was general disagreement on applying the $125 per caliber inch mitigation fee to tree groves. • The majority of the group (all but one in attendance) disagreed with requiring additional criteria to issue tree removal permits for removal of trees in a tree grove. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 2 Meeting#7 DRAFT Summary -4- Introductions and Agenda Overview Adrienne welcomed the CAC and members of the public and called for a round of introductions. She reviewed the agenda and meeting goals. Meeting Goals • Review and discuss the preliminary draft Urban Forestry Standards for Development code • Brainstorm options for the Tree Grove Preservation code Adrienne called attention to the meeting packet and reminded the group to review correspondence from other committee members and the public. She noted that it was up to CAC members to identify important points in this correspondence and raise these points during our discussion. Recap Meeting#6 Adrienne recapped the outcomes of the group's discussion from the January meeting: • New meeting schedule agreed upon (three hour meetings every other month) • Recommended the draft resolution on the tree replacement fund • Provided direction on the standards for development • Received an overview of the Tree Grove Preservation study Approve Meeting#6 Summary Adrienne called attention to the Meeting#6 Draft Summary in the meeting packed and asked if anyone had feedback or changes for the summary. No one had any changes and the committee approved the summary. Public comment Adrienne welcomed the members from the public in attendance and asked if anyone would like to provide comments. No one provided public comment. Standards for Development Before Todd started his presentation on the preliminary draft Urban Forestry Standards for Development code, Adrienne asked the group to keep the following major themes in mind: • Canopy target • In lieu of fees • Preservation incentives • Discretionary process • Tree plan modification • Soil volumes(streets and parking lots) Slide 1:Todd started by saying that there are a lot of proposed revisions for Urban Forestry Standards for Development, and many of them involve making the code more consistent with the primary revisions in Chapters 18.790 and 18.745. Todd indicated that the presentation will focus on the major decision points for this group: • Have we established reasonable canopy targets? • Have we expanded the use of future "in lieu of fees" into appropriate areas? Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 3 Meeting#7 DRAFT Summary -5- • Have we provided reasonable preservation incentives and flexibility? • Is the discretionary review process adequate? • Is the process for modifying a tree plan appropriate? • Are the specific soil volumes requirements for street trees and parking lot trees appropriate? The City's goal for this section of the revised code was to adequately address the general direction of the CAC based on past discussions,Todd asked the CAC to indicate whether or not they felt any of their points have been missed. Overview of the major elements of the proposed requirements: ✓ Urban forestry plans are required for all major development projects,whether or not there are existing trees on the site ✓ 40%effective canopy is required for all zones with bonus credit and flexible standards for preserving existing trees ✓ Discretionary approval of an urban forestry plan by Planning Commission is possible for innovative, alternative proposals ✓ An in-lieu-of canopy fee is allowed,and can be used for a full range of urban forestry activities(not just tree planting) ✓ Minor modifications to urban forestry plans are allowed without public notice, major modifications require notice ✓ Street trees and parking lot trees have soil volume standards, parking lots require 30%actual canopy Slide 2: The first decision point is asking of we have established reasonable canopy targets. Todd reminded the group that they did look at possible canopy by zone using the methodology in the Urban Forestry Master Plan process and determined that 40%effective canopy is achievable in all zones. This is because street trees would count towards the canopy requirement of the developable area, and non- residential areas have a significant portion of their site allocated for parking, which, if designed correctly, can allow for areas of significant canopy. - k 0 �9 t °viv This is an example of a site plan ��°i .d 706 5 W.R f,-"r U. pq from a dense residential dametlies h ,,.at ` -_X __I „a.--- ��--------- ---- the cnopY requirements fothe developable area of the site € which is 3,136 square feet. �, I-----r-- — -r—�'� ----- 9 P1 However, street trees planted in the right of way count toward the Zone: R12 I canopy requirement, so if the Canopy: 1,413 sq.ft. : � ':� '"" t"r`a 96 Effective Canopy: 45% developer plants an additional .�„- - g F tree in the yard,they will exceed ;;A-1" 1 40%effective canopy. w Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 4 Meeting#7 DRAFT Summary -6- Slide 3: This example is an N D Rea©ek sS RECFAT-0 ft.canopy--d alternate site plan showing that r. if one large stature street tree is planted, then the 40% mr effective canopy will be 1 _------------—* *^� Ax—' exceeded. This will allow the backyard to be kept open if desirable. The City sees the incentive to push canopy in the ------------------------------------- _r I , right-of-way as positive i--" because street trees have a Zone. R12 Lot Size: 3,136 sq.ft. high benefit-to-cost ratio. This Canopy: 1,589.6 sq.ft. { `n s ° �.�>9 %EffectiveCano may not always be possible f ,.,,�:��„ � � pr 50.7% there is overhead power, but undergrounding is an option. i Also,the soil volume requirements in chapter 18.745 for street trees will help to ensure that the trees will reach their full growth potential. Slide 4:This example is from a less dense Grand Flr = A .R"ter°d Baa residential subdivision on a 6,990 sq.ft. lot. a3} It shows that the canopy requirement can ossa _ ss35 ft te��epxwreee n be met by planting three trees. This is less rc _v 17c5 ----- -_,�,,,,5 U) 9616 total trees required than the inch for inch mitigation plan on this site, but the placement and stature of trees is more _ Wreasonable. Fewer large stature trees 21 A 'i,V, provide a higher benefit-to-cost ratio that many small stature trees,which the current system incentivizes. *.Ss Western Red Ceder 30kc-mpr wread Zone: R4.5 706.s s re Lot Size: 6,990 sq.ft. Canopy: 2,924.1sq.ft. %Effective Canopy: 41.8% Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 5 Meeting#7 DRAFT Summary -7- Slide 5:This example is r westefnned Cedw F1 fl from a similar size �aR wapyw=.� i 7a65sq.R rY, development and shows how 40% effective VO A313 canopy can be achieved by a combination of -- -}Y" ;° ��• 3� planting and preserving I " inR weepyspred -3 3–� trees. This tree, which is part of a larger stand, is ` �� s.rol "n313 nr given double credit for rr9 < _s46 its canopy because it FOL "313 w '� was preserved. This �SS - oouslw6r!preserved as partof o larder Awdl double credit is meant to 644Wf4nfea py.... I,2a4sq.R f 2 off—b---py area(xc ddfnr preurvahan} jam_ 7 Zone incentivize the LotSiae: X6X �R. _ preservation of existing �J Canopy: 2,70 sq.ft. o-3 trees over planting new h %Effective Canopy: 42-8, , trees. John clarified that the canopy counts even it leans and covers other lots.Todd said yes. bulldingsetbackrequlrernentsilnproposed - ;; r s + Slide 6:This next codepwerenotincludedinlbeeakula4on a ��'- •.._. slide is from a mixed 25125y-ftcanapyprese"d use development in 5424 sq.it of effective ` canopy area i2ecredRfor downtown Tigard. In Preservftn) .a this site plan the 40% effective canopy requirement is met ` g in large part through planting in the parking lot. Many of the trees were not eligible for _ — credit due to _ 1 inadequate spacing C, Wj - and setback requirements. Part of the reason so many trees were proposed on this site was to meet the current inch-for-inch mitigation requirement. More trees are not necessarily better, and that is why we want to look at the size of trees at maturity rather than the number of trees planted in the proposed code. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 6 Meeting#7 DRAFT Summary -8- Slide 7: This last example is from a commercial development in the Tigard 1 triangle that was recently approved by the Planning Commission. This project ii M r = - met their canopy requirement through the planting of street trees, parking lot trees,trees required to buffer adjacent - Rblprl5fabdn land uses, and other landscape trees. There is also canopy provided by a native planting of trees required to buffer an on-site wetland. r; C—c(PD) a Todd said that all of these examples were intended to illustrate why staff thinks 40%effective canopy is a reasonable goal. It encourages large stature street trees when not obstructed by utilities, is encourages maximum canopy for parking lots, and the double credit for existing trees encourages preservation. Also, these examples show that there is enough room for buildings and other site improvements along with trees. Todd added that it is important to remember that if people don't want to meet the 40%canopy requirement through planting or preservation,they do have an option for paying a tree canopy fee in- lieu of planting. Slide 8: Staff is proposing that future tree canopy fees be collected and allocated as follows: • Tree Planting and Early Establishment(50%allocation); • Preservation of existing trees following a recommendation approved by majority vote of the City board or committee designated by the City Manager to give such recommendations (25% allocation); • Maintenance of those trees planted using the Urban Forestry Fund after the early establishment period has ended (10% allocation); • Urban Forestry Education and Outreach following a recommendation approved by majority vote of the City board or committee designated by the City Manager to give such recommendations (10%allocation); and • Urban Forestry Planning for activities that support periodic updates of the City of Tigard's Urban Forestry Master Plan, Municipal Code, or Development Code following a recommendation approved by majority vote of the City board or committee designated by the City Manager to give such recommendations (5%allocation). Tony commented that the percentages for the in lieu of fees on this slide differ than what was presented to the Tree Board.Todd said that they averaged out the numbers based on the recent survey Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 7 Meeting#7 DRAFT Summary -9- that this committee completed. These numbers are not set in stone they have just been adjusted to match the responses from the survey. Preservation funds will be discussed down the road. Todd reminded the group that at the previous tree board meeting,the finance department proposed that the City will rename the mitigation fund and dedicated funds (old money)would be used for the tree planting. Any new money will be split out into the other line items (preservation, maintenance, education and outreach), which will be determined through the Tree Board. Slide 9:The third decision point is the incentives and flexible standards for preservation. • The main incentive for preservation is allowing double canopy credit for trees that are preserved and incorporating existing trees into the development and encourages good tree stewardship. Tony asked if this fits with the biology of young trees sequestering carbon as they mature and grow. He said it sounds like this double canopy credit would be good for developers and Ken agreed.Tony went on to say that trees are sequestering carbon as they grow and there is a point at which they are no longer performing that task efficiently.Todd clarified that this proposal is not saying that you can buy your way out of planting required street trees, parking lot trees, or trees to buffer land uses.They buyout options only apply to trees that help achieve the 40%canopy requirement, not the landscaping requirements. • Certain flexibility standards are proposed in order to facilitate preservation, so that other code provisions are not requiring people to cut down trees. The following flexible standards for tree preservation are proposed to be allowed outright without requiring a variance: ✓ Lot size averaging; ✓ Flexible setbacks; ✓ Flexible sidewalk locations; ✓ Allowing reductions in minimum parking requirements; and ✓ Allowing reductions in minimum landscape requirements. Slide 10: The next decision point is the discretionary review option. • Staff is proposing this as an alternative to meeting the clear and objective 40%effective canopy requirement. • An applicant could essentially make their case at a public hearing in front of Planning Commission how their proposal is an adequate substitute for the functions and values otherwise provided by trees. • This option could allow people to utilize green features such as green roofs, green streets, etc. as a substitute for the environmental benefits provided by trees. Brian asked if there will be a list that applicants can refer to which would help explain the environmental benefits of certain trees and types of building materials.Todd said for now it's a completely discretionary process, but the city would work with the applicants to provide information to help them make informed decisions. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 8 Meeting#7 DRAFT Summary -10- Slide 11:The next decision point is the process for modifying an already approved Urban Forestry Plan. Staff is proposing a minor modification to an approved urban forestry plan be completed as a staff level, technical review. The following items would be considered minor modifications: o Removal of hazard trees if there is sufficient documentation by a certified tree risk assessor; o Modification of the quantity, location, or species of trees to be planted, provided the same or greater tree canopy will result; o Modification of the location of tree protection fencing, provided the arborist certifies that the viability of the trees will not be negatively impacted; o Modifying any other site elements (e.g. paving, building, etc.)that do not also require a modification to the location of the tree protection fencing; o Maintenance of trees (pruning, mulching, fertilization, etc.) in accordance with tree care industry standards. Ken clarified that this is almost exactly what currently exists,Todd said yes this just formalizes the code with no new flexibility over what we have today. Slide 12: Staff is proposing a Type II modification which would require notice of the surrounding neighbors for major modifications such as cutting down existing trees and replacing them will new trees. The criteria for approving such modifications are: o The trees are being removed due to unforeseen circumstances; o There is no practicable alternative to tree removal; and o The canopy requirement will be met through a revised plan. Todd added that major modifications could be allowed through a staff level review if that is the direction the community wants to go. Cheryl clarified the City would be looking at the tree plan and nothing else; it would not open up your entire project for scrutiny. Slide 13:The final main decision point relates to soil volume standards, an important topic to this Urban Forestry Standards for Development committee. • Staff is proposing that soil volume standards be established for street trees 1 and parking lot trees since these tree types s,; �• 33 , are the most likely to have limited access to adequate soil volumes. • For street trees,the soil volumes requirements are based on the width of Soil Volume Standards for Street Trees the right-of-way from the curb towards the property, and are achievable given Tigard's standard street design requirements. The soil standards are based on available research and industry guidelines. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 9 Meeting#7 DRAFT Summary -11- • There are cases where people want to provide street trees in cutouts such as in downtown or Tigard Triangle. This would be allowed under the proposed code if adequate soil volumes are provided under pavement based on standard specifications. • On the slide is an example from the Red Rock project in the Tigard Triangle. They have a small cutout for the trees because they want to maximize pedestrian circulation. To compensate, they provide an engineered soil volume under the pavement that is accessible for tree root growth. • Please note that we have not yet included standard drawings for soil volumes in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual because we are still working on contracting for this work. Slide 14: • This slide shows the alternative ways to achieve Urban Forestry Standards for Development soil volumes in parking lots. They are providing the required volumes either with - I increased landscape islands "" or engineered structural soilld Z' --• — I _. under the parking lot where there are space constraints. 1` I _�- • Street trees, parking lot trees, and trees as buffers between incompatible land uses are required for the same project k. types that require an urban forestry plan. However, Soil Volume Standards for Parking Lot Trees there is not an option to buy your way out of these trees since they serve site specific purpose. Remember though, that these tree types will count towards the 40%effective canopy requirement. Some of the committee members inquired about the structural soil and how it works. Tony asked specifically about nitrogen restriction.Todd said he doesn't know all the technical details at this time and he will bring more information to our next meeting. Brian added that for more information, an all day conference will be held in June regarding structural soil at the Forestry Center.This information will be passed along to the committee. Slide 15 • Todd and Adrienne reviewed the main decision points for the group to focus their discussion on: o Have we established reasonable canopy targets? o Have we expanded the use of future "in lieu of fees" into appropriate areas? o Have we provided reasonable preservation incentives and flexibility? o Is the discretionary review process adequate? Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 10 Meeting#7 DRAFT Summary -12- o Is the process for modifying a tree plan appropriate? o Are the specific soil volumes requirements for street trees and parking lot trees appropriate? Small group discussions Adrienne asked the committee to break into small groups and discuss the above questions (slide 15). Each group reported out the results of their discussions/response to the above questions: Morgan/John W./Tony: • Canopy targets: They are not quite sold on 40%as a target. They like that the draft code language clarifies that in order to receive the double credit for existing trees they must be in good condition and suitable for preservation based on defined categories (page 199). They would like to talk more about reducing the canopy target down from 40%. They indicated that it is difficult to say what that percentage would be reasonable because they still have questions about what the payment in lieu costs would be, and they also have questions about the drawing that Ken brought because it is quite different from Todd's.Todd verified that the draft code does say that the condition must be good to receive the double credit(rated at least a condition and suitability rating of a 2, see page 202). • In lieu of fees:They would like to have further discussion and have the amounts defined before weighing in any further. • Preservation incentives: Overall they thought the incentives were good, lot size averaging is ok but if there is going to be lot size averaging there will need to be reduced setbacks—they go hand-in-hand.John said they didn't see anything about transfer ability in the draft.Todd said for individual trees they didn't include the same incentives for the tree groves because tree groves have a higher value. Tree Groves will have more flexibility and options for transfer.The tree groves discussion will come later tonight. Standards for groves would be integrated into these other standards for canopy requirements, but there will be additional flexibility, options and incentives (groves will be mapped so people know what they are dealing with). Ken asked if he'd still have a stand after hazard trees are removed, or would he just have a individual trees.Todd said they'd like to leave it up to the consulting arborist to decide at what point you declare a group of trees a stand or individual trees. Ken thinks discretion needs to be removed to really write good code,Todd countered that there needs to be both. • Discretionary process: What has been proposed so far seems ok to them. • Tree plan modifications:They feel that staff review should be sufficient, if an arborist can provide written documentation why it is not feasible for the tree to exist anymore and removal is the preferred option, staff is capable determining whether or not the case has satisfactorily been made. If staff agrees it needs to come out, they can require mitigation on the site or on neighboring properties affected. • Soil: They are not sold on structural soil.Tony is interested in talking more about soil vaults. John F./Bret: John requested to "ruff" standards against survey results. i.e. the November survey results regarding Standards for Development do not necessarily match up with the draft code. • Canopy targets: Let's define canopy spread as max/min diameters (averaged) in the code. John clarified that Todd is just looking at the average mature spread of a tree for each species.Todd Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 11 Meeting#7 DRAFT Summary -13- said the use of"average" in the code is implying what John is saying but it needs to be clarified. They didn't debate the 40% number itself,they discussed how the number was calculated. • Preservation incentives: Curb-tight sidewalks are ok but not for the entire lot,they should meander so that there is a planter strip. • 2,4,5,6 were all ok. Bret said it is difficult to argue the validity of the 40% Canopy target because it is based on someone else's findings, he might come up with a different number if he were to do the calculations. Brian/Ken: • Canopy targets: They expressed concern that the results vary between Ken and Todd's examples.40% might not be realistic for all land use types (gas stations, retail/industrial development). The sign code may also need to be changed to allow flexibility for tree canopy. They have questions about mitigation fees and if the fee is appropriate for achieving our goals. Ken added that he can't see a 40% canopy resulting in a livable property. • In lieu of fees: How is the in-lieu money spent? Does it need to be that rigid? Could it be a range of percentages? Is it appropriate to have the Tree Board provide approval? Maybe it could just come from staff to remove that extra layer of approval. Ken added that the final tree canopy number everyone ends up agreeing on needs to be achievable for the property, so you aren't forcing every property owner in the city to pay the in-lieu of fee. He said that if you are going to do that you may as well do an SDC and let people plant what they want. • Preservation incentives:They requested there be the same flexibility for new trees if the goal is to have new large stature trees planted. Ken added he'd like to be able to put the sidewalk in the easement allowing him to maintain lot density, or possibly be able to put larger trees in a planter strip. • Discretionary review:They have concerns about what the alternatives are if you want to provide other environmental benefits (planters, green roofs, solar panels)the language is too vague right now and there needs to be more guidance while still allowing for flexibility.They indicated that this topic is not well defined enough to provide an opinion. Ken added that developers should to be able to deal with standing trees (not heritage trees)without going into a review process. • Tree plan modifications:They found the proposal overly burdensome. They felt it may not be necessary to have a public hearing if the objectives are being met. • Soil volume:They are happy with the proposal. Todd recapped that he heard enough feedback from the group to revise the proposed draft code. He hopes to come back at the next meeting with Type 1 review process, and will also consider bringing back a revised proposal for canopy targets. Adrienne recapped the feedback shared by the committee and asked if there were any other final thoughts to provide direction to staff before preparing revised draft code. The group shared the following comments: • Tony said that canopy percentage should be flexible by zoning. He added that citizen involvement and oversight should occur to ensure accountability for use of fees.Tony indicated the Tree Board is the appropriate group to do that. • Morgan suggested forgoing the break to let Ken talk about his drawing,the grouped agreed. • John W. echoed his agreement with addressing canopy targets by zoning. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 12 Meeting#7 DRAFT Summary -14- • Bret added that if we are trying look at an entire development as a whole maybe we should be looking at canopy targets for developments vs. single lots. • John F. agreed that there should be different standards for different zones, but not a lot of zones,just a few (perhaps three: residential, commercial, industrial). • Brian added that every lot in every zone should not need to achieve the standard. Brian suggested that Ken and Todd talk offline about Ken's drawing and come back to the group with a proposal that meets the recommendations of the group. The group agreed. Tree Grove Preservation Program Darren Wyss gave a presentation intended to provide additional information on the tree grove preservation program and address comments and questions that came up in the survey. Slide 2: Why conduct the Tree Grove Preservation Program Study? ■ Identified as top priority during Tigard UFMP process o Significant decline in tree grove acreage over past decade o Community surveys have shown support for preserving groves ■ City Council directed staff to pursue a program to protect remaining groves of native trees o Flexible and incentive-based program o Allow full development potential of property under current zoning Slide 3: How will the study be conducted? ■ Existing tree grove/GIS data review o Metro canopy cover greater than 2 acres ■ Inventory field work 0 70 groves, 544 acres ■ ESEE analysis (Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy) 0 Allowed/conflicting uses ■ Preservation program development 0 Provide options to property owners during development Slide 4: Identified Tree Groves ea,-ok€�Fa X IlN i y ;x I YYY � 4 L k Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 13 Meeting#7 DRAFT Summary -15- Slide 5: What is the focus of the study? ■ Property ownership 0 Privately vs. Publicly ■ Development potential 0 Yes vs. No ■ Focus of UFCR CAC 0 Privately owned with development potential 0 Code changes to provide flexibility and options Slide 6: What are possible outcomes of the study? ■ Tax Incentives 0 Exemptions, deferrals, etc. ■ Recognition Incentives 0 Naming, plaques, benches, etc. ■ Regulatory Incentives (main focus of the UFCR CAC) 0 Code changes to provide flexibility and options Slide 7: What is the existing structure? ■ Variances and adjustments ■ Density computations ■ Exceptions to standards ■ Sensitive Lands ■ Tree Removal Slide 8: What are Sensitive lands? ■ 100-yr floodplain ■ Slopes exceeding 25% ■ Drainage ways (Title 3 streams& buffers) ■ Wetlands(Title 3 wetlands & buffers) ■ Significant habitat areas (Title 13) Slide 9: What zones are Tree Groves located within? r.7 Sr rRA.a L -p gron.. 344.1 nc F oma. tee , Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 14 Meeting#7 DRAFT Summary -16- Slide 10: Inventoried tree groves ■ 335 acres (62%) in protected sensitive lands ■ 159 acres (29%) in unprotected sensitive lands ■ 50 acres (9%) outside of sensitive lands ■ 131 acres on buildable lands (154 properties) ■ 4.3 acres mixed-use ■ 86.0 acres residential ■ 40.7 acres commercial/industrial Slide 11: Tree Grove Survey ■ Concepts to explore or drop ■ Some options currently exist but there is a need to make them more specific/applicable to tree groves ■ There was general agreement from the CAC on most of the concepts expressed in the survey ■ Concepts needing further discussion due to lack of general agreement: ■ Mitigation ■ Density transfer ■ Removal permits Ken asked if a property owner can donate property to the City and receive a tax credit. Greg said many cities are reluctant to accept land due to liability issues and so it has to go through a non-profit to receive the tax credit. Ken said it would be a huge incentive to developers to preserve sensitive lands if they could donate it for a tax credit, and he'd like to see the City be more open to the concept. Tony commented that no one has mentioned conservation easements,just incentives, and he wanted to know why the subject it is being avoided. Darren said there was consensus from the group on the survey around utilizing conservation easements so we will not be spending time discussing it further at tonight's meeting. The discussion tonight will focus on areas of the survey where there was general disagreement.Tony added that another option to consider regarding tax credits is for the homeowner who is interested in keeping his land, not putting it into the development pool, but instead receiving some kind of agricultural deferment. Greg said under state law there is a provision that allows homeowners to have the ability to put land into a conservation easement and write it off on taxes, but it has to be a large piece of land. Tree Grove Preservation Survey Discussion John asked if we are going to go over the survey. Adrienne responded there were a number of areas the group agreed on, so staff will take that direction from the group to begin preparing draft code for review. She added that if there are some topics that need to be revisited, we can do that at the end of the meeting if there is time. Darren asked the group for additional feedback on the following areas of disagreement: mitigation, density transfer and removal permits. ■ Ken said he would like to see 100% density transfer, but at the discretion of the developer.The problem is zoning for the remaining parcel after the transfer, and if that land needs to be rezoned because the land becomes so small you cannot develop the same type of property any Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 15 Meeting#7 DRAFT Summary -17- more. Greg is going to come up with four scenarios that illustrate the density transfer options. He warned against too much discretion because it will get knocked down by the neighborhood associations. Density transfer always sounds good in the abstract but at the neighborhood level it is not as popular. ■ Brian asked if it is possible to transfer the density off site. Greg said Portland has tried that but they've had very few takers because it is very complex and challenging. Greg asked if the committee would agree to 100%density transfer if the housing type stayed single family but allowed for smaller lots (possibly attached housing). ■ John Frewing said yes. ■ Tony had that caveat that there needs to be some flexibility for infill, Greg said that is what they are talking about, most of these lots will be infill. ■ The group agreed that neighbors will push back less on small lots if trees are saved in exchange, but conversely these lots are typically going to be too small to consider for density transfer anyway, most would be less than one acre in size. ■ Ken said architectural guidelines would be helpful to ensure neighborhood compatibility, similar to a Type 2. ■ John Wyland said something similar exists in Washington County. Darren asked if the group thought it would be fair for the City to waive the minimum density standards to allow the developer to save the trees, and build to the standard neighborhood density.The group generally agreed to make the option available to remove the minimum density standards if feasible. Darren asked if the group was in favor of waiving mitigation fees with regard to the tree grove areas. ■ Brian voiced a concern that the mitigation fees are causing land owners to cut down their trees a year ahead of development, so they may be counterproductive, especially with regard to groves. ■ Morgan said she had concerns about partial tree grove preservation because there are issues with exposing interior trees in a stand, it may not be best for those interior trees that were once sheltered. She doesn't think it is fair and equitable to all tree grove property owners depending on the condition of the grove, requiring a certain amount be saved may not be realistic for everyone. We should be offering positive incentives but those issues need to be further explored. ■ Ken said that we already have the 2 for 1 mitigation on reforestation so maybe that section transfers over to other property in the code. Others agreed. ■ John Wyland isn't sure. ■ Tony said if we are moving away from mitigation what happens to the funds?Todd said for future fees collected (paid by people who did not been their canopy requirements) mitigation wouldn't be based on how many trees you cut, but on how many trees you are not providing. Ken said that some people will mitigate regardless,just because they do not want trees on their property. Darren asked the group if the $125 per caliber inch mitigation fee should apply to tree groves. ■ Ken agreed it should apply. ■ Brian said if we want to protect groves there may be opportunities to save a big grove one year, and not the next. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 16 Meeting#7 DRAFT Summary -18- ■ Morgan voted no, she thinks the group should explore one standard for all trees, she will think about it more. ■ Bret feels like the $125 fee is punitive so he doesn't like it. ■ John Frewing commented that there should be an incentive for a group of adjacent homeowners to preserve a grove as a unit. ■ Ken said the only real way to preserve tree groves is to have the city own them. Darren explained that tree removal permits are currently required for all sensitive lands. He is proposing that a tree grove be classified as a sensitive land which could require a tree removal permit (outside of the development process). Darren asked the group whether or not additional criteria should be required to obtain a tree removal permit for a tree within an identified Tree Grove. Ken asked what the cost of sensitive lands tree removal permit is. Cheryl said right now it is approximately$190 per tree. ■ Bret said, no,there shouldn't be additional criteria. ■ John Frewing said,yes, there should be additional criteria. ■ John Wyland said no. ■ Morgan said, no, she would rather see positive incentives. ■ Tony said no. ■ Brian said he was unsure at this time. He would like to know more about how it would work. ■ Ken said no. Next Steps Adrienne said the next meeting will be held on April 12th from 6-9 pm at City Hall. A confirmation email will be sent to the CAC along with the upcoming meeting packet. Adrienne reviewed the agenda topics for the April Meeting: ■ The CAC will hear a proposal from Todd and Ken regarding tree canopy targets ■ Staff will present revised draft code for Standards for Development. ■ Darren and Greg will present a first draft of the Tree Grove Preservation code language. ■ Options for Tree Removal Permit requirements will be introduced. Prior to the next meeting, the CAC will receive a survey on Tree Removal Permit Requirements. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:15 p.m. Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC Page 17 Meeting#7 DRAFT Summary -19- Patty Lunsford From: Ken Gertz<Ken@Gertzco.com> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 1:01 AM To: Adrienne@jla.us.com; Todd Prager; Ernie Platt Subject: UFCR CAC Jan 5 2011 part 2 Adrienne, Sorry this is so late. Please forward as necessary. Thanks UFCR CAC Jan 5 2011 part 2 Question 13: 1 agree. Question 14: Before I decide on this one, I would like to know how required soil volumes relate to underground utilities sharing the same place, as utilities, especially storm, water and sewer, are often placed at an invariable depth and location. Can staff provide more detail and discuss? Question 16: 1 think fee in lieu is a logical approach. I can see where certain projects could be unfeasible any other way. Question 17: 1 am strongly voting NO against this section. First, 40% has not been proved as reasonable canopy coverage, and I seriously doubt it can be reasonably done. The idea of paying that much money to not plant trees is unprecedented and crazy. People should be allowed to average tree canopy throughout their project, and the coverage numbers should be set to be able to do that. Solar access is a requirement in many jurisdictions. With the added cost of green energy you would add an additional insult of$8,640.00 to that? We expect solar energy to play a major part in the future of the construction industry, to the point of being a requirement at some point. Consider how you would fell if you were that a homebuyer that does not want trees in their yard. Why would you buy a home in Tigard and pay a tax to not have a tree? Would you pay that exorbitant fee, or take you money and buy in another city? If buyers don't buy in Tigard, property values go down, because the % of buyers is reduced. This tack would lower values in the City, which will have a distinct ripple effect on property taxes. If Tigard plans to implement the new code on all development property, several times more trees will be planted. Whether a few lots have trees or not, there are still a lot more trees than you will have under the current code. i -20- I can understand paying a fee in lieu for the cost of the planting, but not for future canopy, as when the fee in lieu is used to plant trees, the canopy will be provided either way. I am OK with the final paragraph about required trees with the exception of the parking lot trees as mentioned in Question 16 above. NOTE: The City of Tualatin collects a fee from each building permit for street trees. In the spring and the fall the City plants the trees. This does several things. It ensures the trees are planted to city specs, it shows the homeowner that the tree is city property, and I guarantees that the street trees are planted. While I prefer to plant my own street trees as it makes my communities feel better, and in the case of center medians tree need to be planted right away to give a finished look, I thought this may be a good option in some cases. Question 19: Please explain #2 and how the City plans to spend 25% of funds collected on preservation? It seems like a big number to me for pruning and maintenance. Question 23: 1 vote no on this. In my experience,there is no way to warranty a mitigation tree once the home has been sold, and in some cases sold several times before the warranty time is over. I have no ability to trespass and maintain the tree, I cannot force the owner to maintain the tree, and at the end of two years, I have no right to inspect the tree. In short, if I don't own it, I can't guarantee it. In the case of open space trees, there are still many factors that can kill a mitigation tree beyond my control, including animals, vandals and people purposely turning off the irrigation system to "Save Water", and these are just a few. Areas of general Disagreement Question 2: Continue to allow full removal. In some developments full removal is required. Question 3: Agree with exception to 40%. Question 4: Given the proposed scenario and no mitigation of standing trees, why would a developer remove trees prior to having a plan, if he can get 2X credit? I think no time limit would be needed. Question 11: 1 think there should be a lower limit to the requirement of a tree plan. It seems obvious that projects for the public good would be exempt. Running a utility line, pathway, sidewalk usually have little effect and provide great benefit, where building a shopping area could have a great effect. There is no reason to hang up a project that would be approved anyway just for the sake of red tape. The same goes for roads. If you really have to build a road in an area, then obviously you need to do it and should carry on without delay. Roads are a necessary part of the city's infrastructure and need to be built where they need to be built. If it is not practical to build the road, then it should not be built in the first place. Additionally, your not really going to stop ODOT from widening HWY 217 when the time comes are you? Sensitive lands are required to be brought up to standards with development in any case, so a path for instance would be a benefit in many ways not just being a path, but it would repair sensitive lands around the path. Personally, I tend to avoid sensitive lands leaving them as natural as possible or restoring them, and cannot think of a structure that could be built in a sensitive land area, but maybe I am missing something. Care should be taken not to limit the land owners ability to develop their property to it's potential. 2 -21- Question 12: 1 agree with the staff recommendation, but would add that minor partitions and lot line adjustments and subdivisions under a certain number of lots should also be exempt for the same reasons. These are typically small projects with little alternative for tree removal and the associated costs are a disproportionate and unnecessary expense for the participants. Tigard has a large supply of minor partition projects that are being passed up because the costs are as high to develop them, as it is to develop a whole subdivision. For Tigard to meet its required density, every effort should be made to simplify the development of these properties. Question 15: 1 don't see why a prescriptive path couldn't be used for soil volume. I suspect with some relaxation of utility location requirements, most often soil volume will not be a problem, and on what I assume is an occasional case, a prescriptive part would be the way to go. Also allowing sidewalks to be placed in an easement for the purpose of widening the planting strip, without affecting lot size or averages would help in this case. Question 18: Definitely habitat restoration. I think it would be a good idea to promote any wildlife, energy, water, storm, water quality or sanitary options as they are all in the public good. On site water disposal is in the forefront in the view of the building industry and many jurisdictions, especially Lake O. Solar should be given a good shot as well. Sod roofs have been around since before medieval time and are a proven energy efficient design. Every year there are several examples of these types of homes displayed in Building Trade Publications. Typically aimed at the energy efficient or naturalist client, I suspect the demographic that builds such a project would either be into trees or solar, so on one hand trees are planted, and the other, they should be exempt. I expect the number of sod roof homes to be built in any one year would be inconsequential, and if they become the rage, the code can be adjusted. The question is, do they require a separate design review, or can they be covered in the standard code? I think I would prefer a standard code, as it would lead to less opportunity to appeal. Perhaps it's own sub section. Question 22: 1 think you need to be careful with what you require for tree protection. Currently,Tigard is requiring cyclone fencing for tree protection and arborist reports every other week. It takes about 100 Lineal Feet of fencing and 10 posts to protect one small tree. Multiply that by a whole bunch of trees and you can see this stuff isn't cheap folks, and its overkill. We have always used orange plastic fencing with great success. I can understand if Tigard wants to have the option of requiring cyclone, if a person has a history of fence failure, but why punish the rest of us. Bi Weekly arborist reports are also over kill. As much as I like my arborist, I think if you check around, with those very few jurisdictions that even require reports, you will find monthly is the norm, and not at all when trees are not in danger. Once again, 2 years following planting is hard to justify. Once the home is sold, we have no right to do the 2- year inspection on private property, and how are we to police the proper care of the tree during the 2-year period? I view this as a disincentive to plant trees, having just been through this, because if the homeowner affects the tree, I have paid to plant, plus I have paid mitigation, therefore I have paid double the cost. So understanding that you may not get your money back, some developers may decide to just pay the money and be done with it. 3 -22- We have to keep in mind, that we will be planting way more trees throughout the entire city, not just on the currently treed property, so if there is some attrition, it may not be ideal, but it is still a lot better than it is now. Question 24. 1 agree with staff's proposal. Thank you Ken Gertz 4 -23- Patty Lunsford From: Todd Prager Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 8:31 AM To: 'Ken Gertz'; Tree Board Adrienne DeDonna Subject: RE: Missing quote, Sure, we will distribute. Sorry about that, when printing emails the attachments don't automatically print. -Todd -----Original Message----- From: Ken Gertz [mailto:Ken@Gertzco.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 20118:05 PM To: Todd Prager; Tree Board Adrienne DeDonna Subject: Missing quote, Adrienne and Todd did you not get the attached bid for planting? I see it was not in my packet. Would you please distribute. Ken Gertz President Gertz Fine Homes Voice 503-692-3390 Fax 503-692-5433 i -24- lioPROPOSAL FOR LANDSCAPE SERVICES Proposal ID: 3544 Date of Proposal:1/18/2011 Proposal for work at: Job/ Phase: 288 City of Tigard - Cook Park Contact: Alan DeHarport SW 92nd Ave Fax/ Email: (503) 709-2277 Tigard, OR 97224 aland@roundstoneproperties.com Project Name: Tree replacements Services to be performed: Provide and install approximately 200 caliper-inches of trees to replace trees in Cook Park that did not survive planting over the last 2 years. Varieties must be douglas fir, western red cedar, sequoia, grand fir, red alder, oak or maple. Item Qty/SF Unit/Size Price Tree planting-106 total 200 car' including maple,alder,oak and cedar In addition, we provide clean-up and removal of all debris from the project site. We propose hereby to furnish materials and labor-complete in accordance with the above specifications,for the sum of: $7,040.00 Sales Tax(if applicable,WA only): $0.00 Proposal Total: $7,040.00 Teufel Landscape Representative: Jim Pranger Proposal ID: 3544 Acceptance of Proposal: The above prices,specifications, and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined below. Signature: Date Accepted: PO#: This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within 30 days.Please allow at least two weeks for scheduling from date of approval. All aspects of this proposal are property of Teufel and may not be recreated in any way. Owner shall pay all invoices within 30 days of the date thereof.Owner shall pay a late pay fee on any invoice not paid in full within 30 days of the date thereof equal to 1.5%per month of the unpaid balance,or if such 1.5%is deemed to be unenforceable under applicable law,the highest late payment charge permissible under applicable law.In the event Owner fails to pay any sum owing to Teufel under this Agreement,Owner agrees to pay all collection costs and expenses incurred by Teufel in collecting such sum, including without limitation attorney fees.Guarantee:All material is guaranteed to be as specified.All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices.Any alteration of deviation from above specifications involving added costs will be executed only upon written consent,and will become an additional cost to the base bid.Teufel reserves the right to withdraw and/or modify the proposal(based on current material pricing)if it is not accepted in writing,within 30 calendar days.Furthermore, Teufel Nursery,Inc.cannot accept liability for scheduling delays if materials become temporarily unavailable or acts of nature beyond our control.Insurance:Contractor will obtain,maintain,at its own expense,Commercial General,Worker's Compensation Coverage and Automobile Liability Insurance.Owner shall promptly indemnify,defend and hold harmless Contractor and its directors,officers,employees,agents and affiliates from and against any and all 3rd party claims,suits,actions,damages,expenses, costs,fees(including reasonable attorney's fees)and liabilities for any injury or damage arising out of or in connection with Vendor's negligence or willful misconduct in the performance of services under this agreement,but not for any such claims,suits,actions, damages,expenses,costs,feed or liabilities caused solely by Owner's or Representative's negligence or willful misconduct..The indemifcation obligation in this paragraph shall survive any termimation of this agreement 100 SW Miller Rd.,Portland,OR 97225 Division of Teufel Nursery,Inc. Phone: (503)646-1111/Fax: (503)672-5085 24202 Frager Road S.,Kent,WA 98032 LCB#5133 Phone: (253)373-0344/Fax: (253)373-0345 -25- RECEMR(DALANCE of NAT ..m TREES and our FNVIRONMFNT Copies to: Mayor Other' February 2011 Councilors "",, ' FEB 0 9 2011 City Manager er City of Tigard Council Mail Administration Mayor's Calendar I am all for having beautiful living plants surround me. However,the BALANCE of NATURE is what is important and I think that your TREE COMMITTEE is NOT seeing the BIG PICTURE. Our city of Tigard is in Oregon ... the Northwest. We barely get enough sun as it is, and you are trying to make Tigard,Oregon more dark and gloomy. Have you heard about the values of sunshine? Think about this,there are studies on the lack of sunshine and the increase of depression and violence. I have visited marry cities that have a nice balance of large (canopy), medium and small trees. These cities are beautiful. My advice is to find a BALANCE ... do NOT go down the road of making Tigard a city of CANOPY TREES ... "Oh, please don't take our sunshine away!" 1. PLANTS need SUN to GROW: a. I can't tell you how many times I have heard people say, they used to have a beautiful vegetable garden OR flower garden but now the trees block out the sun. The Tigard residents are trying to "Go Green", but without sun,you are making it pretty difficult. b. NO SUN, means MORE MOSS,which means less of other plants. c. NO SUN, means more expense in cleaning up moss related problems. 2. COMMUNITY GARDENS versus NO SUN: a. All that money that the city of Tigard is spending on community gardens is going to be wasted if you don't get rid of the trees that are going to block the sun. You might as well remove the trees now while they are small because it is less expensive. 3. SOLAR need SUN a. Installing solar-powered flashing lights and school speed signs seems like a good idea. But I look around where these are located and it is only a matter of time when the trees around them grow tail and will block the sun. You are probably saying, "Well then we will cut down or trim the trees". Oh, the city can do this, but the home owner trying to grow a vegetable garden cannot? I 4. LEAF REMOVAL COSTS: a. CITED from PORTLAND, OREGON: City's Street Leaf Removal Program is to remove leaves from City streets for traffic safety and water quality protection.The service is provided to 28 designated leaf removal districts. These neighborhoods have high concentrations of mature street trees, where fallen leaves can clog catch basins, cause I street flooding, and create slippery road conditions that can be hazardous to the traveling public. Streets in leaf removal districts need a higher level of service than the City's regular street cleaning operation can provide to keep streets safe. Customers in these neighborhoods benefit from leaf removal from the directly adjacent street area and the street grid that provides access to their neighborhood street. For these reasons, the City leaf removal service will collect any leaves that are in the street or piled on the street between the curbs in the designated leaf removal districts. i -26- S. "These trees should be in a forest or a park... not in my back yard." Recently I heard a spoke person for a city;state that he was "More interested in creating green spaces, and planting,than fining people who took down trees". The City of Tigard would be well served to follow his model. When a tree becomes so large that the risk of it falling down on property could mean the loss of life, then I think the City of Tigard should allow the removal if the property owner requests it. It does not speak well when the City of Tigard cares more about a tree over the life of a human. One should not have to prove that the tree is dying or diseased. I have heard from many people during the rainy months, how they're children sleep in other rooms at night because they are fearful that a tree might fall on their property. A child or property owner should not have to go to sleep in fear. This is not good for a child or anyone. They should not have to lose sleep or thoughts worrying when a tree is going to fall on their property. I suppose if the people making the City of Tigard tree rules would agree to "personally" sign on the dotted line for the liability of medical expenses and property damage of the victim, they might look at it a little differently. "Oh, you say you would not sign?" But,you are willing to look away when the tree falls, because hey, it was an "act of nature". Only thing is, a life could have been protected and a family could have been whole. It is the City of Tigard that destroyed their life ... not an "act of nature". I I I i f -27- op MINOR 14 Patty Lunsford From: Todd Prager Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 11:43 AM To: 'John Frewing'; adrienne@jla.us.com Subject: RE: Tigard Tree Code for Development Thanks John, I have not yet had a chance to consider all of your comments, but I did want to send you some information on canopy based ordinances since we discussed this last night. The link below includes some information on the Athens Georgia canopy ordinance as well as others. http://www.urbanforestrysouth.org/resources/library/tree-canopy-ordinances/file Also, I agree that canopy based ordinances are emerging, but I think it is also important to consider that there will always be uncertainty regarding the future intended and unintended consequences of any tree ordinance (whether or not it is canopy based). Trees take time to grow and mature, and our goal is to try and set them up for success given the environmental, social, and economics pressures they face in urban areas. Thank you for your continued high level of participation in this process and while staff does not have the capacity to respond to every comment we receive from the many people we hear from on this topic, I can assure you that they are all considered when drafting the proposal. -Todd From: John Frewing [mailto:jfrewing@teleport.com] Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 11:00 AM To: Todd Prager; adrienne@jla.us.com Subject: Tigard Tree Code for Development Todd and Adrienne, You both have obviously put a lot of work into the material which was before the CAC last evening. However, again, I think we didn't have time to discuss many substantive issues regarding a Tigard Tree Code for Development. My review of the package didn't end until yesterday and I gave to you my comment memo at the meeting last night. We were led to only answer questions regarding six particular decision issues which Todd outlined, but there are many more which the CAC should consider before moving a Tigard Tree Code for Development forward. I would appreciate it if you would forward this email and its attached memo of my comments before last evening to the other CAC members for their consideration. Of particular import was issue No. 1 of last evening. You asked if 40 percent canopy coverage is the right goal for Tigard. The closest I could get to my comments D and U of my memo was to ask that you ruff the draft code words of last evening's packet against the survey results which we discussed a month ago. I don't think the survey results called for a canopy-based development code, or even mentioned a canopy-based development code. Last night,Todd will recall that I asked him whether other cities have adopted and used the same type of canopy-based development code; he indicated,yes, and named San Antonio and 'Georgia' as two examples. I have looked up the tree code for San Antonio and Atlanta, Georgia (is there some other city in Georgia that should provide an example?) and find that neither of them are based solely on achieving a specified canopy cover some 30 years in the future. San Antonio (I got to the ordinance thru www.treecoalition.org/canopyordnce ) has Ordinance 2010-05-06-0376 in Chapter 35 of its code. It does have as a goal a 40%tree canopy coverage in the city, as recommended by American -29- Forests. It has minimum tree preservation requirements for different situations as well as many other good features, but they base their removal and replacement activities on DBH inches rather than square footage of canopy cover. They do give credit for leaving trees, saying that they will give a canopy credit of 1.5 for preserved trees. Among the many interesting features of this ordinance is that it discounts planted trees by 10 percent to account for mortality in the future, it increases mitigation costs from $100 to $200 per DBH inch, it applies to site 're-development' which add more than 2500 sq ft to a building or parking lot, it requires the city arborist to confirm the identification of dead/dying trees, etc. I think overall, it would be good for our Tigard CAC to review it altogether. But my main point is that it in no way is a model for our canopy-based development code draft. Atlanta (My search was through the Atlanta, Georgia city website) has tree protection and replacement addressed in Chapter 158-103 of their municipal ordinances. It similarly has some 'purpose'words regarding canopy retention and enhancement, but when one gets to the actual submittal and approval criteria for development, it mandates a replacement of dbh inches by equal dbh inches. This is no model for the draft material we saw last night. If you can find any other city which utilizes the canopy-based development code without some present time enforceable preservation requirements, please let me know. There is nothing wrong with trying a new concept, but relying on conditions 30 years in the future for actual on-the-ground achievement of permitted development seems to be 'kicking the can down the road' and not appropriate here. Thanks for forwarding this to CAC members. John Frewing TREE CODE, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMMENTS OF JOHN FREWING 2/9/2011 A 'Tree Canopy' definition says it is an area, but elsewhere in the code,tree canopy is referred to as a distance (ie the diameter of spread of branches). The definition of tree canopy should say that it is the area vertically beneath the trunk, branches, etc., often calculated as the area of a circle,the diameter of which is the average of the maximum and minimum of tree canopy coverage. B In Section 18.790, I find no 'approval criteria'. My experience is that the courts and LUBA do not enforce what are only submittal requirements, but enforce 'approval criteria'. Approval criteria should be added. C The definition of'tree stand' should be added to say that it must be at least the size of a 'grove',which we have seen is defined as something over an acre. D I have commented earlier that I don't agree with the simple use of a 'canopy' standard. I don't know of any other city that has used this approach;Tigard need not invent new approaches on this matter now. A combination of 'preservation' standard and 'canopy' standard should be considered. E I would like to suggest that the Nuisance Tree list be augmented to include birch trees,which drop sticky material each year, and sweet gum trees,which have root systems which spread rapidly along the surface and sprout handily. F I have commented earlier that the mitigation cost in the present code is badly out of date. In the proposed code, a canopy coverage mitigation cost is calculated with assumptions which don't reflect the reality of trees growing in the Tigard area. For example,the canopy coverage mitigation cost assumes a 6 inch DBH conifer has a canopy spread of 30 feet (average of max and min diameter of canopy spread); see page 164 of tonight's package. Since receiving this package, I have looked around Tigard and find not one such tree. A more realistic, yet conservative, number, based on my observation would be 20 feet. I would be glad to accompany others on a walk or drive around Tigard for others to see if this is an appropriate number. I would like to review the full set of calculations, assumptions and references used in these calculations. As another example of mysterious assumptions, on page 203 of tonight's package, why is a factor of 25 used when determining a Tree Canopy Fee? 2 -30- G What will be the status of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual? Where are Sections 1 through 7 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual and the several Appendices shown on Table of Contents? This "TUFM" is referenced repeatedly in the proposed rules; I should see its full provisions before agreeing with the code rules. Will it be enforceable as it is referenced in the code? What is the meaning of the new proposed words at the end of Sections 8 and 9 "The City of Tigard City Manager or designee is authorized to adopt rules consistent with this section." Would such rules be 'administrative rules' as used in 18.790.080 A.2. on enforcement? The sections of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual which ARE included do not refer to their guidance as 'administrative rules'. If the material of this manual is not enforceable and can be changed without public process, I feel that the citizens of Tigard are being disenfranchised, and the rules are not being'coordinated' as called for by state law H The proposed development code rules use a term new to Tigard, 'Development Impact Area' (DIA). The rules infer that no impact is made on lands other than these DIA lands, but there is no effective rule that is enforced for this. The code rules should add a provision that these DIA areas should be fenced during construction of a land development just the same way that sensitive lands are to be fenced. Much of the tree preservation/canopy preservation provisions of the proposed code refer to this DIA, but when it comes to calculating effective tree canopy coverage, suddenly the rules (page 202 of tonight's packet) change to consideration of the entire lot or tract in the land review process. This sudden change effectively reduces the percentage of tree canopy protected (now or in the future) below what has been stated as policy, since the undeveloped area of the site is given full credit for tree canopy coverage, yet no control is established over this undeveloped area of the site. I Flexible Standards (18.790.050). The proposed rules say that flexibility shall be requested during the land use review process. In order that such flexibility be visible to the public in time for their comments,the wording should be clarified to say that flexibility shall be requested in the application for land development._ J There is much discussion of street trees in the proposed code. It is nowhere stated as to who is responsible for survival and maintenance of street trees and what rules apply regarding their removal. The rules add new provisions that curb tight sidewalks may be allowed and that developers can use easements in new ways; the rules for trees in these areas should be added to Chapter 790 or elsewhere in the Tigard code. K Allowance of curbtight sidewalks should be qualified, saying that just because one tree calls for removal of a parking strip, a curbtight sidewalk is not justified for the entire frontage of a lot. Such flexibility should call for a meander of the sidewalk so that the remainder of the frontage retains its parking strip. L The Implementation section of Chapter 790 is problematical. What does the term 'active' mean?—does it mean 'in effect and enforcable'?or something less? The proposed words say that 'prior to (the subject land use review activity), removal of trees shall be in accordance with Title 8 of the Municipal Code—does this allow removal of trees before application for development, so as to escape the rules of Chapter 790? 1 hope not. M The inspection requirements of Section 9 of the TUFM (page 204 of tonight's packet) call for the project arborist to visit the site and submit written approval that tree protection requirements are in place, prior to ground disturbance for construction. However, such visit and written approval may occur as late as the day that construction starts. There should be at least a week between the certification that tree protections are in place and start of construction, in order that the city or public might also review the situation and ask for compliance or otherwise enforce the code. N In the TUFM, Section 11 regarding parking lot tree canopy standards, the term 'parking area' should be defined; specifically it should include the impervious areas where automobiles can move, associated landscape areas, curbs and the impervious area of associated aisles/walkways/accessways to buildings. O How do the forestry plan/canopy plan/planting plan and implementation standards apply to city projects,where a building permit is not normally processed? 3 -31- P The definition of'open grown tree' should clarify that not only is it existing trees (has grown), but applies to planted trees which are intended to also grow alone. It should be clear that at maturity, by spacing and design,there will be no significant competition for light, space, etc. Q Under the definition of'Tree Care Industry Standards', why are not the ISA standards specifically mentioned? They are used elsewhere in these standards and without objection, should be listed here. R Do understory trees get credit for canopy cover? I think they should not. They get credit for landscaping already. S I have previously commented that 'redevelopment' should be defined and standards for redevelopment should be included in the code. I have suggested the Portland approach as feasible and useful. T In reviewing earlier correspondence, I see a number of my CAC comments which were provided (eg Nov 7 and Jan 12 emails) but which have not received a response. I ask that such comments be reviewed and incorporated or reasons for alternate wording provided. U The CAC'Development' survey seems to have preferences different than expressed in the proposed development rules. What is the purpose of the CAC if such preferences are not at least generally followed? 4 -32- Patty Lunsford From: Todd Prager Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:37 PM To: 'Ken Gertz' Cc: adrienne@jla.us.com; Ernie P Subject: RE: Hazard tree definition for Development property Thanks Ken. I will pass your message along to the CAC as well. -Todd -----Original Message----- From: Ken Gertz [mailto:Ken@Gertzco.com] Sent: Thursday, February 10, 20114:09 PM To: Todd Prager Cc: adrienne@jla.us.com; Ernie P Subject: Re: Hazard tree definition for Development property I do see your point, but as hazard trees came up in appeal several times, (even though it was to no avail,) I am leaning towards clarification that there need be no target for a tree to be hazardous, even if it were in a park or private property, technically, there is no target, but that doesn't mean it isn't hazardous and in the case of development would be hazardous during and /or after development, and as you say, could cause damage to workers etc. I think to be clear and objective, it would be a good idea to codify that. Every time someone writes something in their appeal, you have to respond to it, no matter how obvious it is. I am not into wasting money for anyone, including the city. My opinion anyway. Ken Gertz President Gertz Fine Homes Voice 503-692-3390 Fax 503-692-5433 On 2/10/201112:38 PM,Todd Prager wrote: > Ken, > I think this issue is addressed in a couple of ways by the proposal. > First, mitigation is not based on existing trees, but rather the lack of preserving trees or planting a required amount of future trees. >Also, during the course of development, the target becomes the workers and/or developing structures on the site. Development does not have to be complete for a hazard to exist. In fact, the tree risk assessment methodology was developed in large part to ensure worker safety around trees. i -33- > I did consider this parking lot item when developing the urban forestry standards for development. Although the definition of "hazard tree" is the same as for non-development, I think it will adequately address development scenarios as well. >Thanks, >Todd > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Gertz [mailto:Ken@Gertzco.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 201111:59 AM >To: Tree Board Adrienne DeDonna; Todd Prager; Ernie Platt > Subject: Hazard tree definition for Development property >Todd, > I just want to be sure we have a different Hazard tree definition for Development property, especially since there would be no "Target" until after development. We put this in the "parking lot" early on, and as you are starting to write code, this will need to be addressed, as the needs of development are different than those of completed projects. >Thank you > Please distribute as necessary. > Ken Gertz > President > Gertz Fine Homes >Voice 503-692-3390 > Fax 503-692-5433 > DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." 2 -34- Patty Lunsford From: Todd Prager Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 4:50 PM To: 'John Frewing'; adrienne@jla.us.com Subject: RE: Canopy Cover Calculations Thanks John. I did put setbacks from paved surfaces in the Urban Forestry Manual to help prevent damage to both trees and pavement. I do think parking lot trees are the most at risk of the tree types you mention, we will consider this as we develop that aspect of the design manual. Let me think about this some more, but I don't want to put language in the code that will act as a disincentive to planting trees near auto areas since we know that there are many environmental benefits to doing so. I will include this in the next CAC packet. -Todd From: John Frewing [mailto:jfrewing@teleport.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 20113:20 PM To: Todd Prager; adrienne@jla.us.com Subject: Canopy Cover Calculations Todd, This continuing work on revising the Tigard Urban Forestry Code certainly sensitizes us non-professionals to the issues of trees in our town. In the proposed code at our last CAC meeting,you explained how a 32 percent actual canopy cover can translate to an 'effective' 40 percent canopy cover(by taking credit for canopy over right of way or neighboring property). I want to suggest that we do away with this extra canopy credit for a single reason—the trees that are planted in many cases will not grow to natural mature size or live that long. My thoughts come from looking at the Costco trees recently planted in their parking lot. I was over there this afternoon and looked briefly at all of the INTERIOR parking lot trees—not those on the edge of the parking lot, since they are set back further from cars and in many cases have a steep slope or fence that protect them (it looks to me like they are also of a smaller mature tree size—ie their species, although I can't name that species). Of what I counted as 25 recently planted INTERIOR parking lot trees, at least five have significant trunk damage, some of which is healing over, but will either slow/delay growth or allow bugs/disease to enter and are likely to suffer more trunk damage in the years ahead. Hence, I would say that trees near automobile areas (street trees, parking lot trees,trees near paved driveways, etc. ought to get only an 80 percent credit for mature canopy cover. This seems consistent with what I think I saw in the Athens, GA code. What do you think? Please consider this as a CAC comment and consider it in your continuing drafting work for the Tigard Urban Forestry Code. I think it would also be appropriate to forward this note to the other CAC members. Thanks, John Frewing -35- Patty Lunsford From: John Frewing <jfrewing@teleport.com> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:47 PM To: Todd Prager Subject: RE: Canopy Cover Todd, I agree with you on the history of Burnham project; but was just checking if the canopy desires stated in the comp plan were being met. I understand that tree planting for the Hall/99W intersection is still under review; hope you get a shot at it. Yes, I think the CAC would benefit from seeing things as they are today. John Frewing From: Todd Prager [mailto:todd@tigard-or.gov] Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 10:41 AM To: John Frewing; adrienne@jla.us.com; 'Tony Tycer'; david.walsh@spnewsprint.com; Kim McMillan Subject: RE: Canopy Cover John, It is important to remember that the proposed code would not apply retroactively to past projects. Also, the plans for Burnham were years in the making and not developed through current procedures that require review by the City Arborist. Do you want this passed on to the CAC for their next packet? Thanks, Todd From: John Frewing [mailto:jfrewing@teleport.com] Sent: Thursday, March 10, 20118:57 AM To: Todd Prager; adrienne@jla.us.com; 'Tony Tycer'; david.walsh@spnewsprint.com; Kim McMillan Subject: Canopy Cover Todd, I've been away some, but on returning home, have tried to see if Tigard is anywhere near trying to provide canopy cover over paved areas. On Burnham Street, I read the tags on two types of trees planted there. One was Pyramidal European Hornbeam (PEH) and the other was Nyssa Sylvatica (Black Gum). I looked up these species and PEH shows as a 'relatively small to medium tree', with a crown columnar in shape. The Black Gum appears to be somewhat larger(30 feet high at 20 years, max height to 74 feet, trunk to 3 feet in diameter). Burnham Street should get all the summer shade it can get,what with its width and wide sidewalks. There appear to be no power lines along Burnham to restrict tree height. I don't think the planted trees will achieve the canopy goals. Now is the time to fix the situation, if Tigard really means what it says in wanting to increase canopy cover. Did you or Tree Board or someone with expertise review the planting plans? What rationale was used for selecting these trees? Is there other information which suggests that these trees, not native to this area, in this planting situation will be anything different than I note above (ie they may be smaller with limited root area)? 1 -36- Thanks for reviewing this situation. Perhaps all of the code advisory committee should be aware of this situation. John Frewing DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." 2 -37- Todd RE: 2/9/11 Code revisions I had a thought of another incentive for saving trees. To allow developments that save trees to have their for sale signs in city property with prior approval. The current code makes it really hard to market new homes. As this is only available to sites that save trees, the visual impact would be minimal but I think it will be a good incentive. A sticker stating a Tree City Community could be affixed to the sign to denote it as an OK sign and to give the City credit for trying to save trees. These are my thoughts for now on the documents you provided. Over all a good job. I think there needs to be a general laymen's explanation of how the general concept for the canopy works. Perhaps as a cover letter to the code. It is pretty dense and long and without a previous knowledge, I am not sure I would know what to do. And some examples would be good too. 170a on Page 611 see you have 12" above the ground. I have never seen that standard used in development. Isn't caliper measured at DBH on larger trees? I see you have it on page 63. When do you use each one? I think DBH is more standard and should be used. Page 63 Hazard Tree. I think development needs to specifically be exempt from the target rule. This has been mentioned in previous appeals, and it should be put to rest. Pg 61 d and Page 65 n. I see you use "Would not be" at times in the document. As this term is subjective, I suggest you change that to `Are Not" as a definitive... Pg 65g. 16 feet for a tree is kind of short. I think it should be higher to not include ornamental such as Japanese Maples and the like. I think a tree is something that will grow taller than a 2-story house and maybe even the roof. Is an Arbor Vida a tree or a shrub? Should there be a diameter standard? Italian Cypress and those tall narrow poplar trees used for wind breaks may be good in some cases as they do serve a purpose and help with air wind and water quality,but I would not want to see a shrub be counted as a tree. Pg 82 18.350.060, Has anyone ever looked at a site plan with trees and 1' contour lines? It can get pretty crowded and unreadable. With Tree Protection Zones and required monitoring when excavation is within the T.P.Z., are they really necessary? If you really think you need them, I suggest they only be required when trees are being saved and only where the trees are. PG 83 18.350.060.B.1. Same thing here. On steep slopes, you will end up with one big black stripe for a contour line. See above. -38- PG 83 18.350.070.4.a.1 Not clear and objective. What exactly is "The greatest extent possible"? It is open ended and asking for appeal. At the very least, practical would be better choice of words,but it is still not a Yes/No Question. Ask the City Attorney if The Director's decision could be the deciding factor. Perhaps we need criteria to follow, i.e.: taking into account, Required grading, utilities,public improvements, etc. PG 91 B and C. Please explain why one is 20% and one is 15% when it looks like they are the same criteria, gross area. Is it possible to get 15% on all of these types of projects? Small lot Row houses? How will this play into density bonuses for saving trees, which would make the lots smaller? PG 92 Good job. PG103 etc. 18.530.050.B. and B.l As I read this, is this for a special review which adds additional requirements, or is this just the review all Industrial properties go through? When you talk about lot coverage, are you talking about future canopy, or actual land in landscaping? Is it possible to have 80% lot coverage and 20% landscaping? 2.a Street trees are required to be 3"? Why? 2"will be the same size as a 3" in one year due to the greater stunted growth of the 3"tree as compared to the 2"tree. Wouldn't a 2"tree have a greater survivability rate in a parking strip? 2.b What is it now? Will this reduce the usefulness of the property? PG111 18.620.030.5 Does this mean there will be an 8' planter setback to the building front facing the street? It is not clear to me. It appears you wish to have street front shopping, so I assume that would not be the case? I think it would be nice to allow a restaurant or similar business to have a paved space between the sidewalk and the building to have cafe tables and awnings or umbrellas? It would promote a more human friendly environment. Is there allowance for pedestrian pathways between parking lots and sidewalks so people don't make their own? IE: the planter does not have to be continuous when over x LF. I would think that connections would be encouraged esp. for ADA. PG113 A.I Does Dartmouth cross 217? I did not think it did. Should this also include HWY99 and 681h Park Way? 18.620.070.1 Should the tree size be 3"to be consistent with 18.530.050 .B.1? I would like to allow trees to be planted closer than 30-40' if possible, maybe down to 20' to allow for a tighter cluster of trees, as I expect the trees will be somewhat stunted in this urban environment. It would also help achieve a greater canopy goal. Also applicable to 18.630.090.A.I on page 123. Will the sign code be addressed? 18.620.070.2. City Manager is misspelled. PG 129 18.640.200.B.3&4 Consider changing contribute to minimum landscape requirements to count towards to be clearer. -39- PG 139 A.1. Shouldn't some of the Items of the old 18.745.040 C.2 be included, including d, Vision Triangles, h. Light poles, i. Pavers etc? Pg 151 EA. Add that the 30% or whatever it will be is calculated at 30 year tree maturity, not at planted maturity. You may need to have a subsection somewhere that details the specifics better that can be referred to throughout the code. Pg 164 $8,640. is too much. People would just plant the trees and remove them later. Pg 169 Verify 40% canopy is approved by CAC. Pg 173 18.790.050.A.4. Is a 2% rule effective for the sizes of property we have? What is the 2% referring to? 2% of total land coverage? Pg 175 A I assume Final Occupancy for residential is what you consider acceptance, not plat recording? Pg 177,B. How often? Monthly? As determined by the City Arborist? Should Active be defined as when construction is occurring on the site? I think it could be construed that a plan is active as long as it has not been finaled and would require reports over long periods of inactivity, and that should not be the case... Pg 179 18.790.070 B.Lb It is unclear if a good tree can be removed without a type II. I think there should be allowance for this as this has been a problem in the past, and it should be made perfectly clear that it is allowable. If I can't change the tree plan to remove trees, I would just make my application to remove all trees, then during construction, save as many as I can then submit a changed tree plan at the end. So why bother with a tree plan to begin with? Pg 181 179 18.790.070 B.2...b A Fee in lieu should be allowed as the developer or builder doesn't know what the future owner wants for trees. Should an owner want no trees, a reasonable fee in lieu would be appropriate. Pg 181 179 18.790.070 B.3.a. Change the "how"to "that"to avoid appeals. The project arborist's word should be sufficient. Pg 181 179 18.790.070 C. Assuming there is allowable tree removal above, there may need to be a limit to how many good trees can be removed and mitigated for to trigger a type II. Personally, I don't think there is a need to trigger a type II with the canopy goal criteria you have and the limited remaining treed area. Just allow people to work with the trees as best they can. PG 185 Pg 185 18.790.0680.2 Consider minimum of$100.00 as more reasonable, and stepping up to the higher amount with repeat offences. I guess a question would be, -40- when is it $100 and when is it $500? Is it at the Cities discretion? It should be spelled out PG 185 Pg 185 18.790.0680.3 Consider minimum of$50.00 as more reasonable as this is an administrative report. I guess a question would be, when is it$50 and when is it $500? Is it at the Cities discretion? It should be spelled out PG 185 Pg 185 18.790.0680.4 Consider changing "Shall" to "May" to give more flexibility Pg 196 TUFM Part l.g Do you really need 1' contours? I think this is excessive and will make some plans hard to read. If you really need 1' contours,which I doubt, consider they be applied only areas around saved trees so the plan is more readable. Pg 196 TUFM Part l.j.i Did we agree on 6" for the new tree diameter rather than 12"? At what minimum size do you stop getting canopy credit for saved trees? Pg 197 TUFM Part 2.L. Wouldn't it be better to use DBH instead of height for evergreen because sometimes you can't see the tops? Pg 198 TUFM Part 2.L.i and 2.L.iv seem to be in essence the same. Pg 198 TUFM Part 2.m.ii. Does this apply for large stature trees too? Pg 199 TUFM Part 3 1 assume the Arborists report that accompanies the application? Pg 201 TUFM Part 3.f Do we really need 5' cyclone? Pg 202 TUFM Part 3.j.vi Could we maybe just assume most trees have>1000 CF and maybe just require soil volumes for those trees that need it rather than all trees? Might avoid confusion. Pg 202 TUFM Part 3,k,iv Should caliper inches be included for panted trees? Pg 203 TUFM Part 3.m.ii.d. What exactly is the mature tree canopy for planted trees, or for small standing trees? I think it needs a definition. Or reference to page 211? Pg 203 TUFM Part 3.n Adjust 40%to a reasonable lot coverage per zoning district. I think a coverage is better than a per tree basis because of the issue of calculating existing standing trees and groves. Pg 203 TUFM Part 4.i I think you have forgotten to allow for averaging canopy over the entire area. Also the % of coverage to be per zoning district. Canopy should be achievable on site. Add wording to state Canopy should be reasonably achievable on every site to cover any unusual situations. -41- Pg 203 TUFM Part 4.ii Can't we use Sq Ft rather than inch? Inches could be astronomical. Price per foot should be reasonable. Pg 204 Section 9 Part Lb Allow for periods of non work in the code to avoid problems. Pg 204 Section 9 Part l.d I think this is over kill and should be stricken. Pg 204 Section 9 Part LNOTE: Allow for tree plan modification with the Building Permit of the structure/improvement. Pg 204 Section 9 Part 2.a I would like to have a real number for tree cost. It is imperative for budgeting and bonding purposes. Pg 204 Section 9 Part 2.b How is this supposed to work with residential lots we the developer has no control over the trees as previously discussed with the CAC? Pg 205 Section 9 Part 2.d. This may be cumbersome for bonding companies? Pg 205 Section 9 Part 2.e.How are we to be able to replace trees on private property after 2 years? That would be a good trick! I think this is unreasonable. Pg 205 Section 9 Part 2.e., g & h Now I know your Joking! If I am to warrant trees on private property and stand the chance of losing my bond, I would be better off not to plant at all wouldn't I? Lets think this through a bit more. I think the sheer number of trees that will be planted will more than compensate for any trees lost due to Home Owner neglect Pg 206 Section 10 Part La In note that a standard street planter strip of 5' would take 26.66 LF to achieve the 400 CF requirement. (3 X 5 X 26.667=400CF Is this reasonable? That would barely equate to 30' centers on the street trees but would not allow for driveways, wheel chair ramps utility vaults and the like. Note: A laymen's question here, does amended soil still allow for a tree that will root in such a way as to not topple over and take out the buried gas lines with it? Pg 206 Section 10 Part 2.a. Should this be assumed to be 4' deep? I don't know the answer to this question. Pg 206 Section 10 Part 2.f So the way I read this, if you have a planter strip tree, you would subtract the sidewalk area from the 50 and subtract the street area too? Is tat correct? So if we installed loose soil under the sidewalk this would work? Perhaps there should be some example drawings like on Page 159? I think that this is a new requirement and it would be nice to have some prescriptive paths we could follow for this requirement. -42- Pg 207 Section 10 Part 3.b.v, c & d. What if there is no project landscaper architect? Those dudes are expensive for small projects. I rarely have a landscape architect on my developments, let alone a remodel or single home. Pg 207 Section 10 Part 3 e. Maybe the soil vault should be up to the person who is pulling the building permit, building the sidewalks and planting the tree, rather than the developer? So it would be tied to building permits for homes, remodels and multi family, so the builder would know about it for sure. If all of this is required from a development, if feels more like a type 3 than a type 2... Pg 209 Section 11 Part 3.c.iv Why are you subtracting the amount not over the parking spaces? Isn't it all canopy? Is there a different requirement for parking lots? Pg 211-214, I suggest adding the Sq Ft of canopy to use for calculations. I think it would be easy to do and save on discrepancies. Would we want to explore center road planter strips as an option for development standards? Remember to re-write the sign code to allow for the added trees in parking areas blocking business signs. Thanks Ken Gertz -43- 9 it Staff Response to February 9, 2011 CAC Input on the Preliminary Draft Urban Forestry Standards for Development CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE SECTION The tree canopy target of 40% still does not seem to As requested by the CAC, Ken and Todd met shortly after the February CAC -18.790.030 be agreeable to the group. meeting to discuss revised canopy targets. Their four major discussion points -Section 8, are each listed below. Part 3, Most members felt that the number is too high and Tigard some requested there be different targets for different Ken's major points are: Urban zones. 1. Averaging of canopy should be allowed (e.g.look at overall site instead of Forestry individual lots). Manual The group agreed to have Ken and Todd work 2. 40% effective canopy will not work for every situation such as dense (alley together to present a recommendation to the group at loaded) residential,commercial,and industrial development. Attachment 1 is the next meeting. the example of 40% effective canopy Ken provided at the February meeting of two adjacent subdivisions (Edgewood and Edgewood 2) in Tigard. Attachment 2 is an example of 40%effective canopy Ken provided of an alley-loaded development in Oregon City. 3. Many sites do not have existing trees, so they cannot take advantage of double credit for preservation and it will be difficult for them to meet their effective canopy requirements through planting. 4. 40% effective canopy will preclude other amenities such as play areas, swimming pools,gardens, etc. Todd's major points are: 1. Averaging of canopy should be allowed,but a minimum canopy requirement per lot should be established. This will more evenly distribute environmental benefits and management costs of trees while incentivizing and crediting the preservation of cohesive areas of canopy. 2. 40% effective canopy is attainable across all zones. Rational and examples are provided below: o Streets are excluded from the canopy requirement and preserved trees receive double credit. This makes it easier to meet effective canopy requirements and rewards preservation. -44- 9 it Staff Response to February 9, 2011 CAC Input on the Preliminary Draft Urban Forestry Standards for Development CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE SECTION o Parking lots often occupy over 50%of commercial/industrial sites and are available for strategic plantings. o Adjacent cities (i.e.Lake Oswego and Durham) currently have over 40%actual canopy citywide (including streets) according to the 2009 Regional Urban Forestry Assessment and Evaluation for the Portland- Vancouver Metro Area. This shows that significant tree canopy is achievable within the urban growth boundary. o Careful design of the"tree-scape"can achieve canopy goals and allow for functional and aesthetically pleasing development. Attachments 3 and 4 are alternate layouts of trees for lots 1-6 (Edgewood) and 7-18 (Edgewood 2) respectively of Ken's example in Attachment 1. The alternate layouts show more and larger street trees,and show trees preserved (per Ken's proposed plan) that would get double credit. If averaging of 40% effective canopy is allowed with 20%minimum effective canopy per lot,most of the trees shown planted in backyards in Attachments 3 and 4 would not be required. o A recent submittal for a Carl's Junior on Pacific Highway was sampled and 40%effective canopy through planting and preservation (see Attachment 5) could be achieved. If the reduced effective canopy requirements for commercial,industrial,and mixed used properties listed below were adopted,then less trees would be required. This illustrates that even on highly developed commercial/industrial sites such as those in the Pacific Highway corridor,40%effective canopy is achievable. o There are alley-loaded communities such as the First Addition neighborhood in Lake Oswego that have over 40%actual canopy including streets (see Attachment 6). Just because a development is alley-loaded,does not mean it cannot achieve significant tree canopy. o Buildable lands have significant existing tree resources to draw from to meet effective canopy cover requirements. Staff performed a GIS -45- 9 it Staff Response to February 9, 2011 CAC Input on the Preliminary Draft Urban Forestry Standards for Development CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE SECTION analysis of the City's buildable lands inventory and determined that buildable lands currently have an average of 41% canopy cover. If some of this canopy is preserved during development,it would receive double effective canopy credit. o In many cases,development(and tree removal)is restricted on a portion of a development site due to existing sensitive lands protections (for wetlands, streams, floodplains,etc.). Staff performed a GIS analysis of existing canopy that is protected on buildable lands due to its location in protected sensitive lands. The analysis demonstrated that an average of 12.29%of canopy on buildable lands would be preserved due to its location in sensitive lands. Therefore,because of double credit for preservation,development on buildable lands will achieve an average of 24.58% effective canopy through the preservation of trees that are already required to be preserved. Attachment 7 illustrates this with a site specific example that would achieve 51.08% effective canopy through preserving trees that are already required to be preserved (assuming all other trees are removed and no additional trees are planted). 3. Canopy does not necessarily preclude other amenities. Tree selection and maintenance can be such that other uses can coexist underneath canopy. Attachments 8 and 9 show an example of a property with over 100%canopy cover and other amenities (play area,garden,etc.) underneath. 4. Alternatives to planting or preserving trees are allowed for cases where canopy requirements are not desirable or achievable. Alternatives include a fee in lieu of planting or preservation and a discretionary review for alternative proposals (e.g. build to Earth Advantage or LEED standards instead of planting or preserving the required amount of trees). After considering Todd and Ken's canopy discussion,general input from the CAC that a blanket 40% effective canopy requirement is too high, and input -46- 9 it Staff Response to February 9, 2011 CAC Input on the Preliminary Draft Urban Forestry Standards for Development CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE SECTION from the CAC to pursue zoning specific requirements, staff has amended their proposal as follows: • The minimum effective canopy requirement has been reduced to 20%per individual lot as long as the applicable effective canopy requirement for the overall development site (following bullet) has been met. This will more evenly distribute environmental benefits and management costs of trees while incentivizing and crediting the preservation of cohesive areas of canopy. • Zoning specific density requirements have been established based on the anticipated intensity of development. The percentage of required landscaping in the development code was used as a proxy for the anticipated level of development. In other words, sites that are required to have high percentages of site landscaping were anticipated to have less intense development and vice versa. Schools (both public and private) are the exception because although they are found in residential zones,their landscape areas are typically put to intensive use with sports facilities (baseball, football,etc.)which are incompatible with tree planting. Schools are also typically very large sites so the relative percent effective canopy that can be achieved by street tree planting is low,thus requiring more planting on the interior of the site where conflicts with the sports facilities will arise. The revised canopy requirements are as follows: 0 40% for Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential (R- 1,R-2,R-3.5,R-4.5,R-7,and R-12) districts,except for schools (18.130.050Q)); 0 33% for Medium-High Density Residential and High-Density Residential (R-25 and R-40),Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, General Commercial,and Professional/Administrative Commercial (C-N,C-C,C-G,and C-P),Mixed Use Employment, Mixed Use Employment-1,Mixed Use Employment-2,Mixed Use Commercial, and Mixed Used Residential (WE,MUE-1,MUE-2, MUC,and MUR),and Industrial Park(I-P) districts, except for schools -47- 9 it Staff Response to February 9, 2011 CAC Input on the Preliminary Draft Urban Forestry Standards for Development CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE SECTION (18.130.050Q));and o 25%for the Mixed Use-Central Business District(MU-CBD),Mixed Use Commercial-1 (MUC-1),and Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial (I-L and I-H) districts,and for schools (18.130.050Q)) in all districts. Several members requested additional information on Staff has added additional links about structural soils to the resources page of the -Section 10 structural soil and how it works. Staff will bring more project website: and Section information to the next meeting. 11 of the htW://www.tigard-or.gov/community/trees/code revision resources.asp Tigard Urban The relevant links include: Forestry • Cornell Structural Soil Manual • Cornell Structural Soil—An Update after More than a Decade of Use in the Urban Environment • Managing Stormwater Using Trees and Structural Soils • City of Olympia,WA Structural Soil Case Study • Tree Space Design by Casey Trees In general, structural soils are a unique soils mix of larger stone particles mixed with topsoil that can provide structural support for overlying pavement and traffic while allowing for tree root growth underneath (see Attachments 10 and 11). In response to a question at the CAC meeting,research of structural soils has demonstrated that lateral water movement beneath traditional pavement is adequate'. Lateral movement of water through soil happens through adhesive and cohesive forces. Soil moisture beneath traditional pavement (concrete and asphalt) should be sufficient due to natural porosity of overlay materials,hydrologic connectivity to ground water, and moisture trapping ro erties of overlay matierals2. -48- 9 it Staff Response to February 9, 2011 CAC Input on the Preliminary Draft Urban Forestry Standards for Development CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE SECTION Keep in mind that staff is not proposing to require structural soils to achieve soil volume requirements for street trees and parking lot trees. Structural soils are simply proposed to be allowed as part of the suite of tools that could be used. Staff will be working with a consultant to develop some drawings and specifications for developers if they choose to utilize structural soils to achieve required soil volumes. 'Bartens,J.,J. 2011. Personal Communication on March 16. Post-doctoral Associate in the Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation,Virginia Tech. Blacksburg,VA. 2Urban,J. 2008. Up by Roots: Healthy Soils and Trees in the Built Environment. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture. 479p. There was general agreement that tree plan Staff has revised the proposal so that modifications to approved urban forestry -18.790.070 modifications can be handled by staff and public plans (such as cutting down existing trees and planting with new trees) will be notice requirements might be burdensome. reviewed through a Type I procedure which is a staff level review and does not require public notice. Part of the rationale for requiring a lower level review is because applicants may be less likely to opt for preservation during the land use approval process if the process for subsequent removal is expensive and/or time consuming. ATTACHMENTS: ATTACHMENT 1: KEN'S EXAMPLE OF 40% EFFECTIVE CANOPY FOR EDGEWOOD AND EDGEWOOD 2 SUBDIVISIONS -49- Staff Response to February 9, 2011 CAC Input on the Preliminary Draft Urban Forestry Standards for Development ATTACHMENT 2: KEN'S EXAMPLE OF 40% EFFECTIVE CANOPY FOR AN ALLEY LOADED DEVELOPMENT IN OREGON CITY ATTACHMENT 3: ALTERNATE EXAMPLE OF 40% EFFECTIVE CANOPY FOR EDGEWOOD SUBDIVISION ATTACHMENT 4: ALTERNATE EXAMPLE OF 40% EFFECTIVE CANOPY FOR EDGEWOOD 2 SUBDIVISION ATTACHMENT 5: 40% EFFECTIVE CANOPY EXAMPLE FOR A PENDING CARL'S JUNIOR ON PACIFIC HIGHWAY ATTACHMENT 6: AERIAL OF ALLEY LOADED NEIGHBORHOOD (FIRST ADDITION) IN LAKE OSWEGO WITH 51% ACTUAL CANOPY ATTACHMENT 7: EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATING 51.08% EFFECTIVE CANOPY THROUGH PRESERVING TREES THAT ARE ALREADY REQUIRED TO BE PRESERVED DUE TO THEIR LOCATION IN SENSITIVE LANDS ATTACHMENT 8: AERIAL OF LOT WITH OVER 100%ACTUAL CANOPY ATTACHMENT 9: GROUND SHOT OF LOT WITH OVER 100%ACTUAL CANOPY IN ATTACHMENT 7 WITH PLAY AREAS, GARDENS, ETC. UNDERNEATH CANOPY ATTACHMENT 10: STRUCTURAL SOIL MIX DETAIL ATTACHMENT 11: PLAN VIEW OF STRUCTURAL SOIL UNDER PARKING LOT -50- Ken's example of 40% effective canopy from the February meeting. Attachment 1 C il 65 n 0 rj 0 W)0 x W r s Pfo� LU - t y W Edge ood 2 CO w •~ N (alter ate � • c "g L — ! exam le in Attac ment 4) gg CL t. � '�,. � � _ fib►=��'! C n ham. ow••.t�R� V avl�5' (WY 4 7; J D a r r_ • Edgev'ood (alterr'ate lr�- I, r N example in - !! 1 Attachment 3) & J o & Z o L L C n N Y a 7p w w C W Y Ln C •- rn $ �] j P 9 d K w° w w o W 0 ct a0 Y J v0 vio �E Vf 1:J a d:{n{/na 3 Less street trees, more yard trees, and no preserved trees compared to alternate examples in Attachment 3 and 4. -51- Ken's example of 40% effective canopy for alley loaded lots. Attachment 2 GERZ COMPA Y IINC.M / BUIL04NO CUSTOM HCMES SINCE 1977 S03►692.3no s 4?s _ - ae+, a A 44 s �r�, D ;I0 s L J 4 .y. C �.� ••' Am r —i D LOT J 170 V,. LD T.2' 6 3 1974 .799 5 v ;'I Aor` r �T 40.00• - 4--s(o1 - 5D ,.en f r r NW JORDAN LANE j c..�. 10eas' Vt�V HOME SELECTION HOMESfTE HOME DESIGN AVOCET 3 STORY KINOFU*WR 113 CAR 3 AvaMaWa 4 FALCON 111 6 Avagable 6 MAKM 7 CUSTOM NOME -52- Todd's alternate example of 40% effective canopy (Edgewood). Attachment 3 III-M UffJt�1. A�•IMi- � C - .� _. - -._._---• — '+ are s+r f UY WM 51 -�� 4w w UXrdOC r u La UX 2 YUL ■� •l.�s \,I��i3.�M-0M�+ris Y�lCRi 4• Ipll A.- -tree planted �I-✓ d-tO•U— IIJJ w.Z�r-•Ir.. �ut+� WII L�OBC tree preserved e•.....r..,,r ' (per plan) r ,SW �I lvtitr�•�1 ---- rOOp�MM,Y ' � _ - _ --�•'--• � wry:.\r,w e orwLor � ryLsv L W i M Lars I 7 cwt IU— Lb1\ 101\\( LONWCOE I RMI 1 D 4*- 1�[1 Los b� 11 D8 1 I More/larger street trees, less yard trees, and includes preserved trees compared to Ken's example in Attachment 1. -53- Todd's alternate example of 40% effective canopy (Edgewood 2). J Attachment tree planted ,.rw�n.�.e.Ir.r• � F�6 tree preserved �d ': ;y • I I ' (per plan) s v Ts I I r r r�Tu i O +e i'� •ar ra a*u rr+l c.nr•s ` �� u rRACTIr • r , p �` r '• -_ ....... �. ...� y --_ +I Moa � 6 � O • a_- r I, I I o •, M I w . .+ pr1 wry ar. �a rtn d W O , ar, ! O f t a r �_ is c R v c, a w o kI .TE99F Flit"UatC .� Darr r MTwce• A OaT.e T\rp rex ta•Va e..a w 7e/pl IN, v.... .•.. ...•i Teres ._____. Cg.r•!twrM Man•MCAs II em••rw mlrn +•al4 aro.W I rI I •rY Ne/•Rlrrr :M dM TCIrL • T.F r/11br Mrecear O rRTR Mr•.• N• /Mk r CM.r MITI + O1.• a NCID C•.Mr J •I C'';1 Mrerr rLr..•.1 carr eMTr eat • Twe■re.w.®. LIJ 1 r � •'�[1re . � u•T.rc f/rr0[ T+Ar•e L-11 melt • r•!o•D;wtrrr V.•a.t lU a rr 1 r - law R iwwa Mrr([ • par-T roa r•Mr T•rrpTC►YaK•S Z oarua r 'a r Q C,MmKL Ow-a •• OM1••160001. '� n/wu 1.7Q re[!•S •a.1. M H I I t 1 I - IfiJ. a 00101 mriR Mr10n 1W�r N.101 W ~D A N 'I I ••a �r _ —•-- onfTewl. -- Tay{0 ew uc ftwq r ywrr.7[01• d -- -- -..— ;1 I �------- if 1ee•r rMr.C•W.0 — --!~.- Ir IM1C VR/r.C•LT011 '� rw�rr.r.�rar O GFH 06 002 �I -- - --,- —'— err'flak 110 +IK�arwwf�rar w. tl +•rwD swaT uFt W eenw mrrw ? PE'40WL o L ISSW Duan w a -..t— eas,k.Iror,wl SII! I a sETlI1CICi n r.r-1,-'r.4,11Z PLAN • eaorrem..Q-..T Carr•ew W" ""` •" (3 0100101 0100101.ae � -•,*ozo.•w..r � � ,..... O QS More/larger street trees, less yard trees, and includes preserved trees compared to Ken's example in Attachment 1. -54- Attachment 5 Example of 40% effective canopy for upcoming Carl's Junior on Pacific Highway. — 1,979.5 sq.ft. canopy1�� preserved ; �. 3,958 sq.ft. of effective - canopy area (2x credit for preservation) ,. ... ... ti....a. �: nu.O°PFR.-...-.J.0 ZD.•R CZTJOfI.l.T�sva � . - �'.•1 swPe��wr4rMe v.-y./+w Y...w.r-� 5I.PIr i�ubi�iM�e~�� w • - Y ��'LL_ - v ` � - IM'FE ./.Nr lw- Nw'.w-b.r-.wPsr al•. pJa _ , - •-ws._ .wF.4!.�M�.�Lr4M..gt.[.Y•Y�N�.F^ilna.. V. �X � ';• tree planted r: per plan- > g g ;+ proposed alternate tree y, =` planting- z tree preserved per plan- 'I, Zone: C-G Lot Size: 32,424 sq. ft. 9,675 sq.ft. canopy planted _. Canopy 13,633 sq. ft. --`. *note-trees with dashed lines were not - proposed in original plan % Effective Canopy: 42% PLANTING F „ — L-1 -55- First Addition Neighborhood, Lake Oswego Attachment 6 �t ALt X41_ First Addition neighborhood in Lake Oswego is primarily alley loaded and has 51% tree canopy cover (includes lots and right-of- way) -56- Attachment 7 v r 14' � � •'fit � _+ � . Zone: R-25 Lot'Size: 25.68 acres - > ; Canopy that is in Prot: Sens. Lands: 6.55 acres % Effective Canopy-if only canopy in Prot. e 4k Senn Lands is Preserved: 51.08% - > , + i , ► ! ti"l' moi' `: .tIr lly Canopy on Selected Parcel N — .' �14"r, ' ��,� �• � Subject Parcel ;� �►; " �� .'��.,yv .1% . `�.ra�F�1. -�J�� {, . '• 4 Protected Sensitive Luids i� 4i IF i -57- Attachment 8 `k 1 t w /V AW' Q f Lot with over 100% tree canopy cover. -58- *Ar lop v• 46 TV 4A okr LJ 41 09' ,. - -f � d •may• • • Eye alt 1901t Attachment 10 Loading or Compaction Effort _ 71 Stone particle i •i • • t i• i • Soil particle 1 1 s • �� Air or water pore i — Stone contact points i 41i•1 •1� , •' -�i where load is • transferred -60- Attachment 11 ! 1 Gxtent of Structural Soil I I 36, TYP, I I I I I I 1 I lancing Island Curb PLAN VIEW OF PLANTING ISLAND -61- City of Tigard . . Memorandum To: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist Re: Log of Revisions to the February 9, 2011 Preliminary Draft Urban Forestry Standards for Development Date: March 31, 2011 Section 18.115 List of Terms (Code) Chane Stand Of Trees See Tree Related De anitionr Comment Added "Stand (Of Trees)" to the List of Terms Chapter since a definition for "Stand (Of Trees)" has been added to Chapter 18.120. Section 18.120.030 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms Code Change e p. "Stand (Of Trees)" - A distinct area of stand grown trees, often predominantly native and with contiauous canopies which form a visual and or bioloaical unit. Comment Section 8 of the TUFM allows groups of stand grown trees (stands) to be delineated at their edges. A definition of Stand (Of Trees) is provided for additional guidance as to what is considered a stand. Section 18.120.030 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms (Commentary) Change Stand (Of Trees): Section 8 of the TUFM allows mou s of stand e own trees (stands) to be delineated at their edges. A definition of Stand (Of Trees) is provided for additional guidance as to what is considered a stand.... ...Dripline: This definition is for sections 8 of the TUFM to clarify what portion of a tree is eligible for the 4997,�effective canopy requirement. Nuisance Tree: A nuisance tree list has been added to the TUFM to specify the types of trees that are prohibited from planting or receiving credit towards the 40°7,�effective canopy requirement. A Nuisance Tree is defined as any tree on the nuisance list... Comment Commentary has been added for the definition of"Stand (Of Trees)". Reference to the 40% requirement has been removed because a blanket 40% re uirement is no longer proposed. -62- Section 18.120.030 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms (Code) Change C. "Certified Tree Risk Assessor" -An individual certified by the Paeifie -Northwesf Chapter of International Society of Arboriculture to conduct tree risk assessments. Comment The ISA will be taking over certification of tree risk assessors in the near future. Using the more general term (International Society of Arboriculture) covers both the local chapter and international organization, and will avoid the need for a code amendment in the near future. Section 18.120.030 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms (Code) Change e. "Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)" -The average diameter of the trunk of a tree measured 4'/a feet above mean ground level at the base of the trunk. If the tree splits into multiple trunks above ground, but below 4'/ feet, the DBH is the average diameter of the most narrow point beneath the split. If the tree has excessive swelling at 41/z feet, the DBH is the average diameter of the most narrow point beneath the swelling. If the tree splits into multiple trunks at or directly below ground,it shall be considered one tree and the DBH shall be the square root of the sum of the DBJ4 o€ cross-sectional area of each trunk at 41 a feet above men round level multiplied by 1.1284. Comment The method for measuring a multi-stem tree has been revised for consistency with industry standards. Section 18.120.030 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms (Code) Change g. "Hazard Tree" - Any tree or tree part that has been or could be determined by an independent certified tree risk assessor to constitute a high level hazard requiring hazard tree abatement with an overall minimum risk rating of 8 for trees or tree parts W to 4 inch DBH_ 9 for trees or tree parts greater than 4 inch and un to 20 inch DBH. or 10 for trees or tree parts than 20 inch DBH using the most current version of the tree risk assessment methodology developed by the Paeifie Northwest Chap of the International Society of Arboriculture. h. "Hazard Tree Abatement" -The process of reducing or eliminating a hazard to an overall risk rating of less than 8 for trees or tree parts up to 4 inch DBH 9 for trees or tree parts greater than 4 inch and up to 20 inch DBH. or 10 for trees or tree parts greater than 20 inch DBH using the most current version of the tree risk assessment methodology developed by the International Society of Arboriculture through pruning, tree removal, or other means in a manner that complies with all applicable rules and regulations. Comment After discussing the risk rating system with an expert and instructor of tree risk assessment, some modifications to the definition of hazard tree and abatement have been made. A blanket rating of 9 may understate the risk of small trees or tree parts and overstate the risk of large trees or tree parts. The tiered system of defining hazard trees is recommended to better reflect actual risk. Also, using the more general term (International Society of Arboriculture) covers both the local chapter and international organization, and will avoid the need for a code amendment in the near future. Section 18.350.060 Detailed Development Plan Submission Requirements (Code) Chane Contour intervals of one foot unless otherwise approved... -63- Comment The phrase "unless otherwise approved" has been included because there will be many cases where such detail is not necessary or will make the plans illegible. The phrase has been added to the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual (TUFM) as well for the same reasons. Section 18.350.060 Detailed Development Plan Submission Requirements (Commentary) Change The phrase "unless otherwise approved" is included because there will be many cases here such detail i not necessary or will make the plans ille ' le. Comment Commentary has been added to complement the code amendment. Section 18.390.020 Description of Decision-Makin Procedures Code Change (Type I Permit) Urban Forestry Plan Modification to the Urban 1$.790.070 Forestry Plan Component of an Approved Land Use Permit (Type II Permit) UrbftnFaresictRi m medic:. o eer-a__..a rr fbft i o Winn n7-n ftn�-rvrrrvcc��ia �-�v�ry Comment Modifications to the urban forestry plan component of an approved land use permit will be reviewed through a Type I procedure which is a staff level review and does not require public notice. The Type I process was recommended by a majority of the CAC at their February 9, 2011 meeting. The name of the permit has been revised slightly to resolve a technical issue since the applicant would be revising the urban forestry component of an approved land use permit (not the urban forestry plan itself). Urban forestry plans are not a permit type, so they cannot be revised. The heading in chapter 18.790, section 18.790.070, and corresponding commentary have been revised to reflect the new name of the permit. Section 18.390.020 Description of Decision-Makin Procedures (Commentary) Change far-estfy p6n. Type 11 ffiodifieftfiens would Of the surrounding fieighb for ffiftjoi!modifications such fts eutti#g down exi—i —id feplacing them wi new trees. The fall process for a Modification to ftn Approved Urbftn Forestry Plan is included ita seetion 18.790.070. A new Type I process is proposed for major modifications to the urban forestryplan component of an approved land use permit. Type I modifications are performed as a staff level decision and do not require notice of the surrounding neighbors. The full process for a Modification to the Urban Forestry Plan Component -64- Annroved Land Use Permit is included in section 18.790.070. Comment Commentary has been added to complement the text revision. Section 18.390.020 Description of Decision-Makin Procedures (Commentary) Change A new Type III process is proposed for a Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review Option as an alternative to meeting the clear and objective 407%effective canopy requirements. Type III modifications require notice of the surrounding neighbors, and a hearing in front of Planning Commission. This option could allow people to utilize green features such as green roofs,green streets, etc. as a substitute for the environmental benefits provided by trees. The full process for a Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review Option is included in section 18.790.040. Comment Reference to the 40% requirement has been removed because a blanket 40% re uirement is no longer proposed. Section 18.620 TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS (Commentary) Change 18.620 TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS DIST4UCT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARD-S Comment Corrected mistake in commentary heading. Section 18.620.070 Landscaping and Screening Code Change The L-2 standard applies to all other reel trees and shrubs required by this chapter and chapter 18.745 (ems t those required for the L-1 Parking Lot Screen other- these required by seetion 18.620.070.A.1). For trees and shrubs required by c�ha 18.745, the L-2 standard is an additional standard. The nd-is in addition to othef standards in other- ehapter-s of this fide. L-2 trees that are also street trees. median trees, and trees required to frame entryortals shall be selected in conformance with Table 18.620.1 below...the City Manager or designee may approve alternative selections. Comment The wording of the L-2 standard has been clarified as requested by the Current Planning Division, and a spelling error has been corrected. Section 18.630.090 Landscaping and Screening (Code) Change The L-2 standard applies to all other required trees and shrubs required by this chapter and chapter 18.745 (except those required for the L-1 Parking Lot Screen ocean these required by section ). For trees and shrubs required by chapter 18.745. the L-2 standard is an additional standard. The T `' standard ift addition to other- standafds in a4ter ehapters off-this title. Comment The wording of the L-2 standard has been clarified as requested by the Current Planning Division. Section 18.640.200 Landscaping and Screening Code Change The L-2 standard applies to all other r-equired trees and shrubs required by this chapter and chapter 18.745 (except those required for the L-1 parking lot screen a those required by- seetion . ). For trees and shrubs required by chapter 18.745, the L-2 standard is an additional standard. The T 2 s~a~-d-s-d :'s -i~ -aaai~ffift ~-R other stafidar-ds ift other chapters af-diis tide. -65- Comment The wording of the L-2 standard has been clarified as requested by the Current Planning Division. Section 18.775.070 Sensitive Land Permits Code Change Within the approval criteria for sensitive lands permits, the following language has been added: 1. Compliance with all of the applicable req uirements of this title; Comment Type I1 and III Sensitive Lands Reviews are required to comply with the urban forestry plan requirements in chapter 18.790. Language has been added in the sensitive lands chapter that compliance with all applicable requirements in Title 18 (which includes chapter 18.790) is an approval criterion for sensitive lands permits. The text changes to chapter 18.775 are included as an attachment to this memo. Section 18.775.080 Application Submission Requirements (Code) Change Within the application submission requirements for sensitive lands permits, the following revisions have been made: A. Application submission requirements. All applications for uses and activities identified in Sections 18.775.020.A-18.775.020.G shall be made on forms provided by the Director and must include the following information in graphic, tabular and/or narrative form. The specific information on each of the following is available from the Director: 1. A CWS Stormwater Connection permit; 2. A site plan; 3. A grading plan;*ad 4. An urban forestryplan per ter 18.790 (for 18.775.020.G and F onl : and 45. A landscapilIg plan. Comment Type II and III Sensitive Lands Reviews are required to comply with the urban forestry plan requirements in chapter 18.790. The application submission requirements have been revised to provide a cross reference to the urban forestry plan requirements. The text changes to chapter 18.775 are included as an attachment to this memo. Section 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requiremen Urban Forestry Pl�quirements (Code) Change A. General Provisions. An urban forestry plan shall be required for the land use review types identified in section 18.790.020(A) and for a Type 11 modification an approved to the urban forestry plan component of an approved land use permit per section 18.790.070. For land use projects limited to an existing right-of-way or easement the de elo went site shall be considered the existin ri ht-of--wa or -66- easement and the urban forestrTplan requirements shall be limited to the existing right- of-way or easement. Comment This clarification was requested by the TAC because public and private projects often occur within a right-of-way or easement where the surrounding property is not under the control of the right-of-way or easement owner. For example, an applicant needs a sensitive lands review to build a trail through an easement that was purchased on private property. The tree preservation and planting requirements are proposed to apply to the easement portion of the property only rather than the entire lot. The rationale is that the applicant only has control over the easement pordon of the property rather than the entire lot. Section 18.790.030 Tree Plffi Reqttireffien Urban Forestry Plan Requirements Code Change C. Tree Canopy Fee. When the Supplemental Arborist Report prepared according to the standards in Section 8, Part 3 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual demonstrates that 40°A thapplicable standard percent effective tree canopy cover in Section 8, Part i nn—will not be provided through any combination of tree planting or preservation for the overall development site (excluding streets) or 20% effective tree canopy cover will not be provided through any combination of tree planting or preservation for any individual lot or tract (when the overall development site meets or exceeds the standard percent effective tree canopy cover), the applicant shall provide the City a Tree Canopy Fee according to the methodology outlined in Section 8,Part 4 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. Comment Based on the February 9, 2011 CAC discussion regarding the effective canopy requirements, staff is proposing specific canopy targets by district and to allow averaging of effective tree canopy across a development site. However, staff is proposing a 20% minimum effective canopy requirement for each lot or tract even in cases where the overall development meets the effective canopy requirement for the overall development site. Staff analyzed the various districts and adjusted the canopy percentages based on the anticipated intensity of development. The percentage of required percent landscaping was used as a proxy for the anticipated level of development. In other words, sites that are required to have high percentages of site landscaping were anticipated to have less intense development and vice versa. Schools (both public and private) are the exception because although they are found in residential zones, their landscape areas are typically put to intensive use with sports facilities (baseball, football, etc.) which are incompatible with tree planting. Schools are also typically very large sites so the relative percent effective canopy that can be achieved by street tree planting is low, thus requiring more planting on the interior of the site where conflicts with the sports facilities will arise. The details of the canopy requirements are in Section 8, Part 3, item n of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual and are as follows: • 40% for Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential (R-1, R-2, R- -67- 3.5,R-4.5,R-7, and R-12) districts, except for schools (18.130.050Q)); • 33% for Medium-High Density Residential and High-Density Residential (R-25 and R-40), Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, General Commercial, and Professional/Administrative Commercial (C-N, C-C, C-G, and C-P), Mixed Use Employment, Mixed Use Employment-1, Mixed Use Employment-2, Mixed Use Commercial, and Mixed Used Residential (MUE, MUE-1, MUE-2, MUC, and MUR), and Industrial Park (I-P) districts, except for schools (18.130.050Q)); and • 25% for the Mixed Use-Central Business District (MU-CBD), Mixed Use Commercial-1 (MUC-1), and Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial (I-L and I- H) districts, and for schools (18.130.0500)) in all districts. The rationale in establishing a minimum canopy requirement per lot is to more evenly distribute the environmental and aesthetics benefits provided by trees. Also, distributing trees across multiple owners allows future management costs to be distributed more evenly. Language has also been added to clarify that streets are excluded from the effective canopy cover requirement (although TUFM allows canopy over a street to be creditable to the adjacent lot). Section 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requireffien Urban Forestry Plan Requirements (Commentary) Change The second part is the Tree Canopy site plan (Section 8, Part 2 of the TUFM). This plan shows all trees to be preserved as well as those to be planted. It is essentially a landscape plan that includes just the trees. It visually displays how the 48716 effective tree canopy requirements for the overall development site and individual lots/tracts will be met. It also includes specifications for spacing and placement of trees, measurement of trees, and acceptable/prohibited species. The third part is the Supplemental Arborist Report (Section 8, Part 3 of the TUFM). This is a narrative for the site plans and provides more detailed inventory data on the species, size, condition, and suitability of preservation of trees and stands of trees in a more standardized format than exists currently. It also contains supplemental preservation and planting information to be implemented during the development process. Finally, it contains the standards for determining how the 40'A effective tree canopy requirements for the overall development site and individual lots/tracts shall be met. Comment Commentary has been added to complement the text revision. Section Section 8,Part 3(m- ) and Part 4 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual (TUFM) Change m. A summary in table or other such organized format clearly demonstrating the effective tree canopy cover that will be provided for the overall development site (excluding streets) and each lot or tract (excludin; streets) `hat will res land• tie as follows: i. The area (in square feet) of the overall development site and each lot or tract -68- that WiH leesuft &E)m the land use review type. ii. The effective tree canopy area that will be provided for the overall develo ment site and each lot or tract which shall be considered the sum of following: a. Double the canopy area (in square feet) of all open grown trees in the Tree Canopy site plan proposed for preservation within the overall develo ment site andeach lot or tract (or associated right of way) that wi4 rest-'` froffi the land use review typ . Only trees with both a condition rating and suitability for preservation rating of 2 or greater are eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover. The overall development site and each lot or tract (or associated right of way) with the largest percentage of the trunk immediately above the trunk flare or root buttresses shall be assigned the effective tree canopy cover area for the corresponding tree. b. Double the canopy area (in square feet) of all stands in the Tree Canopy site plan proposed for preservation within the overall development site and each lot or tract (or associated right of way) that wi .,,..tA r af. the jand use- V—W LYFe. Only stands with both a condition rating and suitability for preservation rating of 2 or greater are eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover. The eligible tree canopy area shall be the portion directly above the overall development site and each lot or tract (or associated right of way) The canopy area of any stand grown tree with the largest percentage of the trunk immediately above the trunk flare or root buttresses outside of the stibjee overall development site and each lot or tract (or associated right of way) shall not be eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover requirement for that development site or lot or tract. c. The mature canopy area (in square feet) of all open grown trees in the Tree Canopy site plan to be planted and maintained within the overall development site and each lot or tract (or associated right of way) that vv-R d. The mature canopy area (in square feet) of each stand in the Tree Canopy site plan to be planted and maintained within the overall development site and each lot or tract (or associated right of way) that -- " -esuh froffi the land use r-e-�iew type. The eligible mature tree canopy area shall be the portion directly above the overall development site and each lot or tract (or associated right of way) . e. Divide the e£€eetive tree canopy area (calculated per a-d above, for the overall development site and each lot or tract by the !at or`iea e` total area-of the overall development site and each lot or tract respectivelv_to determine the effective tree canopy cover for the overall development site and each lot or tract F- n. The standard percentage of effective tree canopy cover for the overall development site shall be at least: i. 40% for Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential (R-1. R-2. R- 3.5_R-4.5_ R-7. and R-12) districts_ except for schools (18.130.05001). ii. 33% for Medium-High Density Residential and High-Density Residential (R-25 and R-401. Nei hborhood Commercial. Community Commercial_ General Commercial and Profession /Administrative Commercial C- C-C C-G -69- and C-PL Mixed Use Employment, Mixed Use Employment-1, Mixed Use Employment-2, Mixed Use Commercial. and Mixed Used Residential (MUE. MUE-1. MUE-2. MUC. and MUR). and Industrial Park (1-P) districts. except for schools (18.130.050(1)1: and iii. 25% for the Mixed Use-Central Business District (MU-CBD), Mixed Use Commercial-1 (MUC-1). and Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial (1-L and I- H) districts, and for schools (18.130.050a)) in all districts. o. If the percentage of effective tree canopy cover is less than 400�rth�licable standard percent in item n above for the overall development site or less than 20% for any lot or tract (when the overall development site meets or exceeds the standard percent effective tree canoe cover in ',...._i~ c the i� a calculate the Tree Canopy Fee required to meet the 40°A a li a le standard ercent effective tree canopy cover rpt in item n abovefor the overall development site or 20% effective tree canopy cover for each lot or tract (only if the overall development site meet or exceeds the standard percent effective tree canopy cover in item n but individual lots or tracts do not provide 20% effective tree canopy covert according to the methodology in Section 8, Part 4 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. p. A signature of approval and statement from the project arborist, attesting that: i. The Tree Preservation and Removal site plan meets all of the requirements in Section 8,Part 1 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual; A. The Tree Canopy site plan meets all of the requirements in Section 8, Part 2 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual; and iii. The Supplemental Arborist Report meets all of the requirements in Section 8, Part 3 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. Part 4. Urban Forestry Plan—Tree Canopy Fee Calculation Requirements: a. The Tree Canopy Fee shall be calculated as follows: i. If the percentage of effective tree canopy cover is less than the ap licable standard percentage in Part 3, item n above for the overall development site Ffind the difference (in square feet) between the proposed effective tree canopy cover and 40-OA the applicable standard effective tree canopy cover for the overall development site ° and ii.-Mmultiply the difference (in square feet) by: a. The most recent wholesale median tree cost iff* established by the PNW-ISA for eaniferatts a 3" diameter deciduous trees in the Willamette Valley, OR divided by 25 59 squares. ii. In cases where the overall development site meets the standard percentage in Part 3, item n above yet the percentage of effective tree canopy cover is less than 20% for any individual lot or tract, find the difference (in square feed between the proposed effective tree canopy cover and 20% effective tree canopy cover for each deficient lot or tract and multiply the difference (in square feet) bv: a. The most recent wholesale median tree cost established by the PNW-ISA for a 3" diameter deciduous tree in the Willamette Valley, OR divided by 59 square feet. -70- Comment These technical changes in the TUFM specify the effective canopy requirements for each district based on the intensity of development. The required percent landscaping was used to determine the intensity of development. Schools (both public and private) are the exception because although they are found in residential zones, their landscape areas are typically put to intensive use with sports facilities (baseball, football, etc.) which are incompatible with tree planting. Schools are also typically very large sites so the relative percent effective canopy that can be achieved by street tree planting is low, thus requiring more planting on the interior of the site where conflicts with the sports facilities will arise. The changes allow averaging of effective tree canopy across a site as long as at least 20% effective tree canopy is provided for each lot or tract. Finally, the chages details the methodology for calculating the Tree Canopy Fee which is based on the PNWISA wholesale median tree cost of a 3 inch diameter deciduous tree divided by the canopy area of a 3 inch diameter tree based on the Krajicek formula for convertingtrunk diameter to maximum canopy spread (detailed below). Section Section 8,Part 2 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual OF Change ...Open grown trees shall be selected from any of the tree lists in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual (except the Nuisance Tree List) unless otherwise approved by the City Manager or designee. If an open grown tree approved for planting is not identified on any of the tree lists in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual, then the City Manager a designee project arborist shall determine the average mature tree canopy spread using available scientific literature for review and approval by the City Manav_er or designee. The City Manager or designee may consider recently planted trees as equivalent to newly planted trees if they meet all applicable species, size, condition_ and location re�auirements in this Section. Overall, the selection of open grown trees shall result in a reasonable amount of diversity for the site.... Comment The applicant's project arborist should be required to produce the documentation of the mature canopy spread of any proposed tree that is not on an approved list. The City then reviews and approves the proposed tree canopy based on the documentation provided. A fundamental of the land use application process is to place the burden of proof on the applicant. Trees that were recently planted should be considered newly planted if they meet the same species, size, condition, and location requirements for newly planted trees. This will eliminate the need to remove recently planted trees to make room for newly planted trees in an effort to meet effective canopy requirements. Section Section 8, Part 2(m) of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual (TUFM) Change ... The species of trees planted and maintained as stand grown trees shall be selected from the Native Tree List in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. The depiction of the mature canopy dripline shall be consistent with dimensions in the Native Tree List. The minimum size of stand grown trees shall be 2 feet in height (from the top of the root ball) or equivalent to a 1 gallon container size. The City Manager or designee may considerr n 1anted trees as eq&a1ent to noydy=p=ln if theLjmggL=al1= -71 applicable species, size_ condition_ and location requirements in this Section. Overall, the selection of stand grown trees shall result in a reasonable amount of diversity for the site..... Comment Trees that were recently planted should be considered newly planted if they meet the same species, size, condition, and location requirements for newly planted trees. This will eliminate the need to remove recently planted trees to make room for newly planted trees in an effort to meet effective canopy requirements. Section 18.790.030 Tree—PIfrReq; m Urban Forestry Plan Requirements (Commentary) Change The Tree Canopy Fee was developed by converting the wholesale median tree cost in the Willamette Valley, Orqgon developed by the PNWISA3 to a unit canopy cost. According to the PNWISA_ the median wholesale cost of a 3-inch diameter deciduous tree is $174. The formula developed by Kraiicek_ et a14 for open grown_ broad sprees trees maximum crown width (feet) = 3.183+1.829*DBH (inches)) was then utilized to convert tree diameter to canopy diameter. According to the Kra'icek formula, a 3-inch diameter tree should have a crown width of 8.67 feet or crown area of 59-square feet. These dimensions were confirmed as reasonable by staff through several local field samples. Using the median cost of a 3-inch deciduous tree ($174, an the crown area of a 3-inch diameter tree (59 square feet): the unit canopy cost or Tree Canopy Fee should be 82.95 per square foot. This methodolowz is a reasonable approach for three main reasons. First_ tree benefits (aesthetic_ stormwater management_ air quality, etc.) are derived primarilyfrom their canopies_ so proposing to place a value to tree canopy is appropriate. Second_ in the proposal_ tree canopy is valued using the median wholesale tree cost only whereas standard tree appraisal is based on the wholesale tree cost plus the cost of tree installation. Finally, the Kraiicek formula and field samples btaff are based on the maximum crown width to trunk diameter ratio_ and a typical tree does not have such a hiVh ratio. If the typical ratio were used, the unit canopy cost would increase. 3 Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture.Species Ratings for Landscape Tree Appraisal_2nd Edition;Silverton;OR:Pacific Northwest ISA;2007. 4 Krajicek,1.E._K.E.Brinkman_S.F.Gingrich 1961.Crown Competition-A Measure of Density. Forest Science 7:35-42. Comment Commentary has been added to more fully explain the methodology for the tree canopy fee. Please note that the methodology has been revised from the previous proposal based on further research of the relationship between trunk diameter and canopy area. Also, the valuation of tree canopy is based on wholesale tree cost only in the revised methodology (not wholesale cost plus installation cost as proposed previously) in order to provide a more conservative estimate of value. Section 18.790.040 ineenyes for Tree Detention Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review Option (Code) Change A. General Provisions. In lieu of providing payment of a Tree Canopy Fee when less than 40-'A the standard effective tree canopy cover requkedly Section 8, Part 3 of the -72- Tigard Urban Forestry Manual will be provided, an applicant may apply for a discretionary urban forestry plan review. The discretionary urban forestry plan review cannot be used to modify an already approved urban forestry plan, any tree preservation or tree planting requirements established as part of another land use review approval, or any tree preservation or tree planting requirements required by another chapter in this title... ...C. Approval Criteria. The Planning Commission shall approve the discretionary urban forestry plan upon determining: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed plan will equally or better replace the environmental functions and values that would otherwise be provided through payment of a Tree Canopy Fee in lieu of tree planting or preservation. Preference shall be given to projects that will receive certifications by third parties for various combinations of proposed alternatives such as: a. Techniques that minimize h d�gical impacts beyond regulatory requirements such as those detailed in Clean Water Services Low Impact Development Approaches (LIDA) Handbook including but not limited to porous pavement, green roofs. infiltration planters/rain gardens, flow throughplanters. LIDA swales, vegetated filter strips,vegetated swales, extended dry basins, and constructed water quality wed b. Techniques that minimize reliance on fossil fuels and production of greenhouse gases beyond atony requirements through the use of energy efficient building technologies and onsite enerwz technologies: and C. Techniques that preserve and enhance wildlife habitat beyond regulatory requirements including but not limited to the use of native plant species in landscape din, removal of invasive plant species and restoration of native habitat; and preservation of habitat through the use of conservation easements or other protective instruments. Comment Reference to the 40% requirement has been removed because a blanket 40% requirement is no longer proposed. In response to a suggestion by the CAC, additional detail has been included as to the types of alternatives to tree planting and preservation that would be considered through the discretionary urban forestry plan review option. The examples are not intended to be exhaustive,but instead are meant to provide guidance to people considering applying for the discretionary process. Section 18.790.040 TL.,.,.....:__es for--r fee R„t,,..tial. Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Rew O tion Comments Change The Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review Option is an alternative to meeting the clear and objective 40°A effective canopy requirements. An applicant could make their case at a public hearing in front of Planning Commission about how their proposal is an adequate substitute for the functions and values otherwise provided by trees. This trees.aption eauld a4aw people to tt64i5!e green featti-res sueh as green -roofs, green stfeets, The functions and values provided by trees that may be substituted through alternative means are broken down into threemain t ri : -73- 1. Hydrological-benefits (managing stormwater quantity and qualitvl: 2. Climate benefits (reducing fossil fuel consumption and carbon emissions when appropriate=ly placed for shading_ improving air quality through carbon storage and absorption of gaseous pollutants_interceparticulates_ etc. : and 3. Wildlife benefits (food and shelterl.s The discretionary ption provides examples of the alternative stormwater management_ energy efficiency, and wildlife enhancement methods that could be presented to the Planning Commission for consideration as adequate substitutes for the functions and values of trees described above. When deciding whether to approve alternative methods_ Planning Commission is encouraged to require certification through a third party system . Earth Advanta e_LEED_ etc.l. 5 McPherson_ E.G._ S.E. Maco_ P.J. Peper_ O. Mao_ A. VanDerZanden_ and N. Bell. 2002 Western Washington and Oregon Community Tree Guide: Benefits. Costs_ and Strategic Planting. International Society of Arboriculture_Pacific Northwest Chapter_Silverton.OR. Comment Commentary has been added to complement the additional detail provided for the discretionary urban forestry plan review option. Section 18.790.050 Perffiif A plicability Flexible Standards to Pr-offiete For Planting and Preservation Code Change 18.790.050 Perffiit Appheability Flexible Standards ` te For Planting and Preservation A. General Provisions. To assist in the preservation and/or planting of trees the Director may apply one or more of the following flexible standards as part of the land use review approval. Flexibility shall be requested by the project arborist as part of the land use review process and is only applicable to trees that are eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover of the site. A separate adjustment application as outlined in Section 18.370 is not required. 1. Lot size averaging. To fetaiii preserve existing trees in the development plan for any Land Partition under Chapter 18.420, lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size required in the underlying zone as long as the average lot area is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80% of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone; 2. Setbacks. The following setback reductions will be allowed for lots _preserving xijg=with trees using the criteria in subsection b below. a. Reductions allowed: (1)Front yard — up to a 25% reduction of the dimensional standard for a front yard setback required in the base zone. Setback of garages may not be reduced by this provision. (2)Interior setbacks - up to a 20% reduction of the dimensional standards -74- for an interior side and/or rear yard setback required in the base zone. Perimeter side and rear yard setbacks shall not be reduced through this provision. b. Approval criteria: (1) A demonstration that the reduction requested is the least required to achieve the desired effect; (2) The reduction will result in the preservation of trees on the lot with the modified setbacks; and (3) The reduction will not impede adequate emergency access to the site and structure. 3. Sidewalks. Location of a public sidewalk may be flexible in order to r-etfti preserve existing trees or to plant new large stature street trees. This flexibility can be accomplished through a curb-tight sidewalk or a public sidewalk easement recorded on private property and shall be reviewed on a case by case basis in accordance with the provisions in Chapter 18.810. Street and Utility Improvement Standards. For preservation, this flexibility shall be the minimum required to achieve the desired effect. For planting, preference shall be given to retaining the planter strip and separation between the curb and sidewalk wherever practicable. If a preserved tree is to be utilized as a street tree, it must meet the criteria found in the Landscaping and Screening section 18.745.040(A)(5). 4. Commercial/industrial/civic use parking. For each 2% of effective canopy cover provided by preserved or planted trees incorporated into a development plan for commercial, industrial or civic uses listed in Section 18.765.080, Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements, a 1% reduction in the amount of required parking may be granted. No more than a 20% reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one development; 5. Commercial/industrial/civic use landscaping. For each 2% of effective canopy cover provided by preserved trees incorporated into a development plan, a 1% reduction in the minimum landscape requirement may be granted. No more than 20% of the minimum landscape requirement may be reduced for any one development. Comment Based on CAC discussions, the flexible standards have been revised to facilitate the planting of large stature street trees. The preference is to provide additional planter strip width (beyond the 5 feet already required) rather than moving to curb tight sidewalks. The HBA has requested that additional planter strip width occur through an easement rather than additional right of way dedication in order to preserve maximum development potential. The TAC agreed with this request and asked for a cross reference to Chapter 18.810 where the street standards are administered on a project by ro ect basis. -75- Staff added a flexible standard to facilitate the planting of trees by reducing competition for space with parking lots. The current standard allows up to a 20% reduction in the required amount of parking for preservation, and staff is proposing to extend this for planting. This will allow more soil volume available for tree planting, and help to achieve canopy requirements within parking lots. Finally, because the section is for the purpose of preserving and planting trees, a requirement that the request for flexibility come from the project arborist has been added to ensure the appropriate professional has been involved in the decision making process. Section 18.790.050 Pefniit Appheabili Flexible Standards tte For Planting and Preservation (Commentary) Change Additional flexibility is added to facilitate the planting of large stature street trees (flexible sidewalk locations) and to reduce competition for space between trees and =arkinj(z lots (ally reductions in minimum pang requirements when providing canopy throu�,h plantin L �tt Commentary has been added to complement the flexible standards that have been added for planting. Section 18.790.070 Modification to the Urban Forestry Plan Component of an Approved Land Use Permit Code Change 18.790.070 Modification to the Urban Forestry Plan Component of an Approved Land Use Permit A. General Provisions. Except as exempted in section 18.790.070(B) below, any modification to the urban forestry plan component of an approved land use permit shall be processed as a Type I1 land use decision as described below. B. Exemptions. The following activities shall be exempt from the Type I1 Modification to am Appreved-the Urban Forestry Plan Component of an Approvell Land Use Permit process: 1. Removal of any tree shown as preserved in the Tree Canopy site plan (per 18.790.030(B)(3)) and Supplemental Arborist Report (per 18.790.030(B)(4)) of a previously approved urban forestry plan provided: a. The project arborist provides a written report prior to removal attesting that either the condition rating (per Section 8, Part 3, item d-vii of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual) or suitability of preservation rating (per Section 8, Part 3, item d- viii of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual) of the tree has changed to a rating of less than 2; and -76- b. A revised Tree Canopy site plan and Supplemental Arborist Report are submitted prior to removal for review and approval that reflect the proposed changes to the previously approved urban forestry plan and demonstrate how either 40-OA the effective tree canopy cover requirements Section 8, Part 3 of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual will be provided by the proposed combination of tree planting and preservation; and/or, payment of a Tree Canopy Fee in lieu of planting will be provided to make up the difference between the proposed effective tree canopy cover and 40-OA the effective tree canopy cover requirements in Section 8, Part 3, of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual for the lot or tract where the modification is proposed... C. Application Procedures. Modifications to anappraved the urban forestry plan component of an approved land use permit that are not exempted by 18.790.070(B) shall be processed as a Type II procedure, as governed by section 18.390.049030, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.790.070(D) below. D. Approval Criteria. The City Manager or designee body shall approve the modification to the urban forestry plan component of an approved land use permit upon determining: 1. The project arborist has provided a report and statement certifidng that the previously approved urban forestry plan did not account for the circumstances that lead to the proposed modification; 2. There project arborist has provides ort and statement certifying that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed modification; and 3. The project arborist appheant demonstrates through a revised urban forestry plan, compliance with section 18.790.030. Comment The language to the section has been revised (Modification to the Urban Forestry Plan Component of an Approved Land Use Permit) because the Urban Forestry Plan is not a permit type. The modification is to the Land Use Permit, and is limited to just the Urban Forestry Plan component. Modifications to Urban Forestry Plans will be reviewed through a Type I procedure which is a staff level review and does not require public notice. The Type I process was recommended by a majority of the CAC at their February 9, 2011 meeting. Part of the rationale for requiring a lower level review is because developers may be less likely to opt for preservation during the land use approval process if the process for subsequent removal is expensive and/or time consuming. The approval criteria have been modified to reflect that the decision will be made at the staff level. Also, since Type I decisions require clear and objective criteria only, the approval criteria have been revised so that as long as the project arborist certifies the chane was unanticipated, there is no practicable alternative to the change, and -77- compliance with the urban forestry plan can be achieved through a revised plan, the modification will be automatically approved. Keep in mind that the Enforcement section (18.790.080) of the Chapter prohibits false or misleading information from the project arborist and provides a process for enforcement when the City has reason to believe false or misleading information has been provided. Finally, reference to the 40% requirement has been removed because a blanket 40% requirement is no longer proposed. Section 18.790.070 Modification to an Approved the Urban Forestry Plan Compontnt-of an Approved Lan d Use Perrmqit (Commentary) Change 18.790.070 Modification to the Urban Forestry Plan Component of an Approved Land Use Permit Two levels of modifications to ft-n approved the urban forestry plan component of an approved land use permit will be allowed. Minor modification to will be completed as a staff level, technical review. The following items would be considered minor modifications: • Removal of hazard trees if there is sufficient documentation by a certified tree risk assessor; • Modification of the quantity,location, or species of trees to be planted, provided the same or greater tree canopy will result; • Modification of the location of tree protection fencing,provided the arborist certifies that the viability of the trees will not be impacted; • Modifying any other site elements (e.g. paving,building, etc.) that do not also require a modification to the location of the tree protection fencing; and • Maintenance of trees (pruning, mulching, fertilization, etc.) in accordance with tree care industry standards. Significant modifications to of-appre ed the urban forestry plan component of an approved land use permit such as cutting down existingtrees lacing them with new trees will be required to be a Type I1 land use decision. lype II decisions are clear and objective decisions and do not teauire notice of the surrounding neighbors with new tf The criteria for approving such modifications are: • The project arborist has provided a report certifying that trees are being -78- removed due to unforeseen circumstances; • There project arborist has provided a report certifying that that project has provided a report demonstrating that there is no practicable alternative to tree removal; and • The brolect arborist demonstrates that the canopy requirement will be met through a revised plan. Comment Commentary has been revised to reflect the chane from a Type II to a Type I process. Section 18.790.0680 Enforcement (Code) Change 18.790.0680 Megftl Tree ReffieI Enforcement (Code) P. General Remedies. A violation of this chanter shall constitute a Class 1 civil infraction. If the City Manager or designee has reason to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred, then he or she may do any or all of the following: 1. Pursue enforcement action pursuant to Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 1.16; 2. Issue a stop work order pursuant to-Ssection 18.230 of this title; or 3. Take any other action allowed by law to abate or obtain compensation for the violation. Comment Added language specifying that a violation of the chapter is a Class 1 civil infraction to clarify that the enforcement procedures of Chapter 1.16 would apply. Made the "s" in section lower case for consistency purposes. ATTACHMENT 1: REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 18.775 -79- Attachment 1 Chapter 18.775 SENSITIVE LANDS Sections: 18.775.010 Purpose 18.775.020 Applicability of Uses: Permitted,Prohibited, and Nonconforming 18.775.030 Administrative Provisions 18.775.040 General Provisions for Floodplain Areas 18.775.050 General Provisions for Wetlands 18.775.060 Expiration of Approval: Standards for Extension of Time 18.775.070 Sensitive Land Permits 18.775.080 Application Submission Requirements 18.775.090 Special Provisions for Development within Locally Significant Wetlands and Along the Tualatin River,Fanno Creek,Ball Creek,and the South Fork of Ash Creek 18.775.100 Adjustments to Underlying Zone Standards 18.775.110 Density Transfer 18.775.120 Variances to Section 18.775.090 Standards 18.775.130 Plan Amendment Option 18.775.140 Significant Habitat Areas Map Verification Procedures 18.775.010 Purpose [No change.] 18.775.020 Applicability of Uses: Permitted,Prohibited, and Nonconforming [No change.] 18.775.030 Administrative Provisions [No change.] 18.775.040 General Provisions for Floodplain Areas [No change.] 18.775.050 General Provisions for Wetlands [No change.] 18.775.060 Expiration of Approval: Standards for Extension of Time [No change.] 18.775.070 Sensitive Land Permits A. Permits required. An applicant, who wishes to develop within a sensitive area, as defined in Chapter 18.775, must obtain a permit in certain situations. Depending on the nature and intensity of the proposed activity within a sensitive area, either a Type Il or Type III permit is required, as delineated Sensitive Lands 18.775-1 Code Update: 10109 -80- Attachment 1 in Sections 18.775.020.F and 18.775.020.G. The approval criteria for various kinds of sensitive areas, e.g., floodplain, are presented in Sections 18.775.070.B-18.775.070.E below. B. Within the 100-,year floodplain. The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request within the 100-year floodplain based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title: 4-2. Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway shall not result in any encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development unless certified by a registered professional engineer that the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge; -23. Land form alterations or developments within the 100-year floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.120 of the Community Development Code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards; -34. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood; 45. The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said pathway is deemed by the Hearings Officer as untimely; -56. Pedestrian/bicycle pathway projects within the floodplain shall include a wildlife habitat assessment that shows the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habitat while balancing the community's recreation and environmental educational goals; 67. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS permits and approvals shall be obtained; and -78. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. C. With steep slopes. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit on slopes of 25% or greater or unstable ground based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title; -�2. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; Sensitive Lands 18.775-2 Code Update: 10/09 -81- Attachment 1 23. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; -34. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural stability and proper drainage of foundation and crawl space areas for development with any of the following soil conditions: wet/high water table; high shrink-swell capability; compressible/organic; and shallow depth-to-bedrock; and 45. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745,Landscaping and Screening. D. Within drainageways. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within drainageways based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title: 4-2. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; -23. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; 34. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased; 45. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745,Landscaping and Screening; -56. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan; 67. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals shall be obtained; -78. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. E. Within wetlands. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within wetlands based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title; Sensitive Lands 18.775-3 Code Update: 10/09 -82- Attachment 1 4-2. The proposed land form alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map nor is within the vegetative corridor established per "Table 3.1 Vegetative Corridor Widths" and "Appendix C: Natural Resources Assessments" of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards," for such a wetland; -23. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use; 34. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated; 45. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance with Chapter 18.745,Landscaping and Screening; 56. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met; 67. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals shall be obtained; -78. The provisions of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal, shall be met; 99. Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplains and Wetlands, Natural Areas, and Parks, Recreation and Open Space policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been satisfied. (Ord. 09-11) 18.775.080 Application Submission Requirements A. Application submission requirements. All applications for uses and activities identified in Sections 18.775.020.A-18.775.020.G shall be made on forms provided by the Director and must include the following information in graphic, tabular and/or narrative form. The specific information on each of the following is available from the Director: 1. A CWS Stormwater Connection permit; 2. A site plan; 3. A grading plan;and 4. An urban forestry plan per chanter 18.790(for 18.775.020.G and F only); and 45. A landscaping plan. 18.775.090 Special Provisions for Development within Locally Significant Wetlands and Along the Tualatin River,Fanno Creek,Ball Creek,and the South Fork of Ash Creek [No change.] 18.775.100 Adjustments to Underlying Zone Standards Sensitive Lands 18.775-4 Code Update: 10109 -83- Attachment 1 [No change.] 18.775.110 Density Transfer [No change.] 18.775.120 Variances to Section 18.775.090 Standards [No change.] 18.775.130 Plan Amendment Option [No change.] 18.775.140 Significant Habitat Areas Map Verification Procedures [No change.] Sensitive Lands 18.775-5 Code Update: 10109 -84- / *, / City o '`tibard Urban Forestry February 2011 Open House Final Report Tigard's Tree Grove Preservation Program I. Summary Event Details: Tree Grove Preservation Program Open House February 17, 2011 Tigard Town Hall Attendance: 52 people signed in,head count at 7:30 was 65 people II. Response to Development Options Description of Options To illustrate the different options being considered, four development scenarios were created for a property containing a tree grove. There are no plans to develop the site; the examples are for illustrative purposes only. Illustrations of, and respondent support for, each option is included below. Option 1: Standard Lot Subdivision—No Tree Grove Preserved �s Su port for ption 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 ne '=°�• °� ■Supportive M Somewhat Supportive Option 1-Standard Lotsuddivlsfon Neutral Have Concerns No Tree Grove Preserved ■Not a Good Option -85- Tree Grove Preservation Program Open House Final Report Option 2: Standard Lot Subdivision—All Tree Grove Preserved Support for Option 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 — ■Supportive ■Somewhat Supportive Option 2-StardardLot Subdivision Neutral ■Have Concerns All Tree Grove Preserved - "Not a Good Option Option 3: Standard Small Lot Subdivision—40% of Tree Grove Preserved Supp rt for O tion 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 / ■Supportive Somewhat Supportive Option 3-Standard and Small Lot Subdivision 40%of Tree Grove Preserved I Neutral Have Concerns ■Not a Good Option Option 4: Rowhouse/Courtyard/Small Lot Subdivision—All of the Tree Grove Preserved = Existing House Su port for ption 4 se Cou Ouse Small L -J,j 0 5 10 15 20 25 >e Supportive ■Somewhat Supportive Option 4-Rowhouse/Courtyard/Small Lot Subdivision Neutral ■Have Concerns All of the Tree Grove Preserved ' ■Not a Good Option 2 -86- Comments How about preserving the meadow too?They are interdependent habitats. Asa resident and property owner I believe preservation does more for my quality of life and the value of my property and the goodness of our town, than developing-aavay our legacy. lle want no loss of trees/forests. Pamphlet states 700%preservation (`full treegrove protection"is typically not viable—yet options 2 and 4 show 100% preservation, was that chosen to use extremes to judge community preference?Or a more nuanced choice seems more realistic; while people may have a harder time making a choice, it might be more thoughtful and less knee jerk. No growth—save the forests! Option 4 and 5 trees and trail trade. Trees are vital to the livability of our state and its affects our planet as a whole. Don't letAsplundh top trees—that kills the trees! Bare oak trees need to be preserved at all costs. Tree inventory—arborist visits the site before development to ID and protect oaks— rare native trees. Protecting trees to grow during development—trees in parking lots and street trees to do a soil mixture with structured soil— www.hort.cornell.edu/uhi/outreach/bdfs/cu torous asphaltpd�. Option 2 best, option 3 second best. Option 1—unacceptable III. Incentive Survey Results Incentives What incentives would you support to preserve tree groves? In general, attendees supported all of the 100 incentives listed to preserve tree groves. Overall, relief from zoning restrictions and 75% minimum density requirements received the most support,with 91% of respondents choosing that they would support these s ■No incentives. ■Yes 25% Increased building height received the least amount of support (590/o), although the majority D% . of survey respondents were still in favor of Relieffrom Reduced Increased Reduced Reduced Relief from Zoning Building Building Parking Street Widths Minimum using increased building heights as an incentive Restrictions Setbacks Height Requirements Density for tree grove preservation. Requirements 3 -87- Tree Grove Preservation Program Open House Final Report Density Transfer Wouldou support pport density transfer? When asked if they would support density transfer from the tree grove to the non-tree grove portion of a site to incentivize Yes preservation, 77% of survey respondents i answered that yes, they do support density transfer. Options 3 and 4 above included density No transfer. Option 3 included standard and small lots to preserve 40% of the tree grove. Option 4 included rowhouse/courtyard/small lot a s io is 20 subdivision to preserve 100% of the tree grove. Acceptable Tradeoffs If density transfer is used as an incentive, the What would be acceptable in a single-family neighborhood? community would need to accept some sort of 1°°% clustering. When asked what would be acceptable in a single-family neighborhood, four 75% of six of the options would generally be acceptable to survey respondents. More people so% disliked 3-4 story buildings (64%) multi-family ■rr4 housing (55%) than liked. 25% .Yes The most popular choices were small lot single- family housing (88%yes), and reduced front ° —Small lot attached Multi-family Reduced 3-4 Story More On- and side yard setbacks (79%yes). single-family (Row) Housing Front and Buildings street housing Housing Side Yard Parking Setbacks Comments What incentives would you support to preserve tree groves? Tax relief Tigard is built out!No more growth! What incentives would you support to preserve tree groves? Or trails Would you support density transfer... Yes, if other options are included(like trails What incentives would you support to preserve tree groves?Relief from zoning restrictions—maybe Increased building height—maybe Would you support density transfer... No, they are interdependent. We need adjoining diverse natural habitats. I feel this whole session was assuming development is agiven. Isn't it feasible to ask, shall we develop orpreserve?Or, if we need to develop, can't we redevelop areas that have been unwisely developed? Option #1 is definitely not the best one in my opinion. Option #3 will result in habitat fragmentation which will notpreserve the wildlife of the grove. 4 -88- I am concerned about what the relaxation of the building restrictions avill mean as far as the integrity of these structures. These restrictions were developed for a reason (earthquake,fire, other ha.Zards� and obviously this should not be compromised. IV. Discussion Summary A variety of viewpoints and questions were presented during the question and answer portion of the open house. Some of the common themes were: • Some in attendance felt there was too much focus on residential incentives, and that the current proposal does not include tree groves identified on non-residential properties such as the Fields site at Hunziker. • There was a perception by staff that most of the attendees were tree grove property owners. • The Tualatin Riverkeepers sent out a notice in advance of the open house encouraging their members to attend. Several Riverkeepers supporters attended. • A few members of the Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee were in attendance. • For a few who disliked Option 3,it was because of the loss of tree groves, not the associated development type. • The vast majority of attendees agreed that preservation is a good thing for the Tigard community. • A developer shared his perspective from the development community that what gets built at any given site is determined by the market. • Questions were asked about the long term maintenance of groves once they are preserved. 5 -89- CITY OF TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISIONS PROJECT DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS: HAZARD TREES (AUG 2010) STREET TREES (OCT 2010) USE OF CURRENT TREE REPLACEMENT FUND (NOV 2010) URBAN FORESTRY STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT (FEB 2011) TREE GROVE PRESERVATION INCENTIVES (APR 2011) TREE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS (JUN 2011) PRELIMINARY DRAFT April 13, 2011 -90- Acknowledgements Tigard City Council Mayor Craig Dirksen Council President Gretchen Buehner Councilor Nick Wilson Councilor Mark Woodard Councilor Marland Henderson Tigard Planning Commission Dave Walsh,President Jeremy Vermilyea,Vice President Tom Anderson Margaret Doherty Karen Ryan Timothy L. Gaschke Stuart Hasman Donald Schmidt,Alternate Richard Shavey,Alternate Citizen Advisory Committee Scott Bernhard, DC,Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Dave Walsh,Planning Commission Don Schmidt, Planning Commission Bret Lieuallen,Tree Board Tony Tycer,Tree Board Ken Gertz,Portland Metropolitan Home Builders John Wyland, Developer Brian Wegener,Tualatin Riverkeepers and Board Member of Oregon Community Trees Morgan E. Holen, ISA Certified Arborist John Frewing, Citizen at Large Technical Advisory Committee Susan Harnett,Assistant Community Development Director Brian Rager,Assistant Public Works Director Gus Duenas,Development Engineer Ted Kyle, City Engineer Steve Martin,Parks and Facilities Manager Kim McMillan, Engineering Manager Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner Todd Prager,Associate Planner& City Arborist Nate Shaub, GIS Analyst Albert Shields,Permit Coordinator Carla Staedter, Surface Water Quality Coordinator Mark Van Domelen, Building Official Vance Walker, Streets Supervisor Damon Reische, Clean Water Services Ron Kroop, ODOT District 2A Manager Mark Buffington, ODOT Region 1 Landscape Manager -91- Additional Tigard Staff Contributors (Not on Technical Advisory Committee) Craig Prosser, City Manager Ron Bunch, Community Development Director Dennis Koellermeier, Public Works Director Darren Wyss, Senior Planner Cheryl Caines,Associate Planner& Code Editor Marissa Daniels,Associate Planner John Floyd,Associate Planner Doreen Laughlin, Senior Administrative Specialist Patty Lunsford,Planning Assistant -92- Table of Contents ProjectSummary.............................................................................................. Background...................................................................................................... Development Code Amendments.................................................................... -93- BACKGROUND Tigard City Council adopted the Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan in 2008 and accepted the Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP) in 2009 to help guide and inform an update of the City's tree and urban forestry related code provisions. The Urban Forestry Code Revisions project implements four goals of the UFMP including: 1) Revise Tigard's tree code (Chapter 18.790);2) Revise Tigard's landscaping code (Chapter 18.745); 3) Develop a tree grove preservation program; and 4) Develop a hazard tree identification and abatement program. PROJECT SUMMARY The Urban Forestry Code Revisions project will address the UFMP goals through a series of six thematic code packages including 1) Hazard Trees; 2) Street Trees; 3) Use of the Tree Replacement Fund; 4) Urban Forestry Standards for Development; 5) Tree Grove Preservation; and Tree Permit Requirements. These packages will be developed sequentially by staff under Technical and Citizen Advisory Committee (TAC and CAC) review through September 2011. On consensus by the Advisory Committees, the proposed code amendments will be forwarded as a single package to the Planning Commission after review by a panel of development and urban forestry experts. Commission hearings will be scheduled at the beginning of 2012 with City Council hearings and adoption by April 2012. TREE GROVE PRESERVATION INCENTIVES The Tree Grove Preservation Incentives are intended to implement the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies that were further refined by the recommendations in the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Specifically, the flexible standards and preservation incentives "focus on preserving large groves of native trees...while allowing for the full development of property under current zoning" as recommended in the Urban Forestry Master Plan. 70 native tree groves covering 544 acres have been identified as significant through the State Goal 5 requirements and are eligible for the additional incentives. The following is a summary of flexible standards and incentives intended to encourage and facilitate tree grove preservation: • The existing preservation incentives (i.e. double credit for preservation,lot size averaging, decreased setbacks,flexible sidewalk locations,reduction in parking requirements,and reduction in landscape requirements) are also applicable to the preservation of significant tree groves; • Minimum density requirements may be reduced based on the percentage of a significant tree grove that is preserved; • Up to 100%density transfer is permitted from the tree grove to the non-grove portion of a development site. Reduced lot sizes and attached units are allowed to facilitate density transfer; • Commercial and industrial development are allowed additional building height and greater setback flexibility for preserving a significant tree grove; • The lot by lot effective canopy requirement may be waived in favor of an overall site canopy requirement when a significant tree grove is preserved;and • Street and utility standards may be modified on a case by case basis to facilitate the preservation of a significant tree grove. • In order to become eligible for the special incentives,a development site has to have at least 10,000 square feet(—'/a acre) of significant tree grove canopy that is not already protected through wetland,floodplain,or stream regulations;at least 50%of the grove needs to be preserved; connectivity and viability of the grove need to be maximized,and;the preserved portion of the grove needs to be permanently protected from future development. -94- Development Code Amendments How to Read This Section This section is organized by Development Code chapter number. Odd-numbered pages show the existing language with proposed amendments. Text that is proposed to be added for Significant Tree Groves is shown with double underlines. Text that is proposed to be deleted for Significant Tree Groves is shown with st6kethrough. Other text that has been previously revised is in plain text format for ease of reading. Even-numbered pages contain commentary on the amendments,which establish,in part, the legislative intent in adopting these amendments. -95- Commentary 18.115 List of Terms Chapter 18.115 (List of Terms) is a newly codified chapter of the Tigard Development Code (TDC) that is provided for easy reference of defined terms in chapter 18.120 (Definitions). A definition for Significant Tree Grove has been created so it is added to the list of terms. -96- Code Amendments Chapter (18.115) List of Terms The following terms are defined in Chapter 18.120, Definitions,unless indicated otherwise. ...Sign Structure See Chapter Surface Street See Chapter • Tree 18.780, Signs 18.780, Signs • Tree Canopy Significant Tree Grove See Tree Tax Lot See Lot-Related • Tree Canopy Cover, Definitions Related Definitions Effective Temporary Sign See Chapter • Tree Care Indus Single-Family Dwelling See 18.780, Signs try Dwelling-Related Definitions gTemporary Use Standards Site Tenant Sign See Chapter 18.780, • Tree Removal Sloe S Slope gi ns • Understory Tree Source-Separated Recyclable Through Lot See Lot-Related Tree Removal See Tree Related Definitions See Chapter 18.755,Mixed Definitions Solid Waste And Re clable Tigard-Based Nonprofit Turret See Design-Related Organization Definitions.. Storage Traffic Flow Plan Special Adjustments,See Section Transom See Design-Related 18.370.020,Adjustments Definitions Specified Anatomical Areas See Tree See Tree Related Definitions Adult Entertainment-Related Tree Canopy See Tree Related Definitions Definitions Specified Sexual Activities See Tree Canopy Cover,Effective Adult Entertainment-Related See Tree Related Definitions Definitions Tree Care Industry Standards Stand (Of Trees) See Tree See Tree Related Definitions Related D fnilions Tree Related Definitions Stand Grown Tree See Tree • Caliper Related Definitions • Certified Arborist Storage Area See Chapter • Certified Tree Risk Assessor 18.755,Mixed Solid 11Waste • Covered Soil Volume And Recyclable Storage • Diameter at Breast Height Story Story,First (DBH) Story,Half • Dripline Street • Hazard Tree Street,Private • Hazard Tree Abatement Street,Public • Hazard Tree Owner or Street Tree See Tree Related Responsible Party Definitions • Heritage Tree String Course See Design-Related • Median Tree Definitions • Nuisance Tree Structural Alteration See • Open Grown Tree Chapter 18.780, Signs • Oen Soil Volume Structure P Subdivision • Parking Lot Tree Substandard Lot See Lot-Related • Si=ificant Tree Grove Definitions • Stand (Of Trees) Substantial Improvement • Stand Grown Tree • Street Tree -97- Commentary 18.120.030 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms A definition for Significant Tree Grove is needed since flexible standards and preservation incentives that are specific to Significant Tree Groves have been added to chapter 18.790. A Significant Tree Grove is a native stand of trees (already defined) that have been identified as significant through the Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 5 process. A map of Significant Tree Groves is available through a publicly accessible mapping program. The term is in the list of Tree-related definitions for ease of cross referencing. -98- Code Amendments Chapter 18.120 DEFINITIONS Sections: 18.120.010 Meaning of Words Generally 18.120.020 Meaning of Common Words 18.120.030 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms 18.120.010 Meaning of Words Generally [No change.] 18.120.020 Meaning of Common Words [No change.] 18.120.030 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms A. For additional words and terms, also see Use Categories (Chapter 18.130); Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage (Chapter 18.755); Sensitive Lands (Chapter 18.775); Signs (Chapter 18.780); and Wireless Communication Facilities (Chapter 18.798). As used in this title and corresponding administrative rules,the following words and phrases mean: [No change in definitions 1-169.] 170. Tree-related definitions: a. "Caliper" - The tree care industry standard for measuring the trunk diameter of nursery stock. Caliper is the average diameter of the trunk of a nursery tree measured six (6) inches above the ground for trunks less than or equal to an average of four (4) inches in diameter (when measured six (6) inches above ground). When the trunk of a nursery tree is greater than an average of four (4) inches in diameter (when measured six (6) inches above ground), caliper is the average diameter at 12 inches above ground. b. "Certified Arborist" - An individual certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as a certified arborist. c. "Certified Tree Risk Assessor" - An individual certified by the International Society of Arboriculture to conduct tree risk assessments. -99- Commentary 18.120.030 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms (continued) List of Tree-related definitions continued. -100- Code Amendments d. "Covered soil volume" - A volume of soil that is under pavement and specially designed to support the growth of a tree. Covered soil volumes contain existing, new or amended soil with the physical, chemical, and biological properties necessary to support the growth of a tree, while at the same time supporting the load-bearing requirements and engineering standards of the overlying pavement. Covered soil volumes would not be considered tree growth limiting by a project arborist in an urban forestry plan developed per the standards in chapter 18.790 and corresponding administrative procedures. e. "Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)" - The average diameter of the trunk of a tree measured 41/2 feet above mean ground level at the base of the trunk. If the tree splits into multiple trunks above ground, but below 41/z feet,the DBH is the average diameter of the most narrow point beneath the split. If the tree has excessive swelling at 41/z feet, the DBH is the average diameter of the most narrow point beneath the swelling. If the tree splits into multiple trunks at or directly below ground,it shall be considered one tree and the DBH shall be the square root of the sum of the cross-sectional area of each trunk at 41/2 feet above mean ground level multiplied by 1.1284. f. "Dripline" -The outer limit of a tree canopy projected to the ground. g. "Hazard Tree" - Any tree or tree part that has been or could be determined by an independent certified tree risk assessor to constitute a high level hazard requiring hazard tree abatement with an overall minimum risk rating of 8 for trees or tree parts up to 4 inch DBH, 9 for trees or tree parts greater than 4 inch and up to 20 inch DBH, or 10 for trees or tree parts greater than 20 inch DBH using the most current version of the tree risk assessment methodology developed by the International Society of Arboriculture. h. "Hazard Tree Abatement" - The process of reducing or eliminating a hazard to an overall risk rating of less than 8 for trees or tree parts up to 4 inch DBH, 9 for trees or tree parts greater than 4 inch and up to 20 inch DBH, or 10 for trees or tree parts greater than 20 inch DBH using the most current version of the tree risk assessment methodology developed by the International Society of Arboriculture through pruning, tree removal, or other means in a manner that complies with all applicable rules and regulations. i. "Hazard Tree Owner or Responsible Party" - The property owner or responsible party with the largest percentage of a hazard tree trunk immediately above the trunk flare or root buttresses. In cases where the hazard tree consists of a branch instead of an entire tree, the hazard tree owner or responsible party is the person who owns or is responsible for the property from where the branch originates. j. "Heritage Tree" - Any tree or stand of trees of landmark importance due to age, size, species, horticultural quality, or historic importance that has been approved as a Heritage Tree by Tigard City Council and completed the designation process outlined in Chapter 9.08 of the Tigard Municipal Code. -101- Commentary 18.120.030 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms (continued) Definition for Significant Tree Grove in the list of Tree-related definitions for ease of cross referencing. -102- Code Amendments k. "Median Tree" - Any tree within the public right of way under City of Tigard jurisdiction between opposing lanes of vehicular traffic. Trees in the centers of cul- de-sacs and roundabouts within the public right of way under City of Tigard jurisdiction shall also be considered median trees. 1. "Nuisance Tree" -Any tree included on the Nuisance Tree List in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. m. "Open Grown Tree" - Any tree that has grown and established in an isolated manner without significant competition for light, space, and nutrients from other trees. Open grown trees generally retain more foliage, develop greater trunk tapers, have more extensive root systems, and are more resistant to windthrow than stand grown trees. n. "Open Soil Volume" - An unpaved volume of soil, which contains existing, new or amended soil with the physical, chemical, and biological properties necessary to support the growth of a tree. Open soil volumes would not be considered tree growth limiting by a project arborist in an urban forestry plan developed per the standards in chapter 18.790 and corresponding administrative procedures. o. "Parking Lot Tree" - Any tree used to meet the requirements in section 18.745.050(E). p. "Significant Tree Grove" - A stand of trees that has been identified as significant through the Statewide Land Use Planning Goy ifi process. A map of Signcant Tree Groves is maintained by the Director. q. "Stand (Of Trees)" - A distinct area of stand grown trees, often predominantly native and with contiguous canopies,which form a visual and/or biological unit. r. "Stand Grown Tree" - Any tree that has grown and established in close association with other trees and, as a result, has experienced significant competition for light, space, and nutrients from other trees. Stand grown trees generally retain less foliage, develop less trunk taper, have less extensive root systems, and are less resistant to windthrow than open grown trees. s. "Street Tree" - Any tree equal to or greater than 1 1/2 inch caliper or DBH within a public right of way under City of Tigard jurisdiction or easement for public access under City of Tigard jurisdiction, or any tree equal to or greater than 1 1/2 inch caliper or DBH outside of a public right of way or easement for public access that the City can demonstrate was planted or preserved as a street tree to meet the requirements for a City permit or project. Median trees shall not be considered street trees. -103- Commentary 18.120.030 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms (continued) List of Tree-related definitions continued. -104- Code Amendments t. "Tree" - A woody perennial plant, often with one dominant trunk, the capacity to achieve a mature height greater than 16 feet, and primarily referred to as a tree in scientific literature. u. "Tree Canopy" - The area above ground which is covered by the trunk, branches, and foliage of a tree or group of trees' crowns. v. Tree Canopy Cover, Effective - A formula detailed in Chapter 18.790 and corresponding administrative procedures used to calculate the amount of tree canopy that will be provided for a given lot or tract through any combination of preserving existing trees and planting new trees. In general, the formula grants bonus tree canopy credit based on the existing tree canopy of trees that are preserved, and grants additional tree canopy credit based on the projected mature tree canopy of newly planted trees. w. "Tree Care Industry Standards" - Generally accepted industry standards for tree care practices detailed in the most current version of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Standards for Tree Care Operations. In addition, tree care industry standards shall include adherence to all applicable rules and regulations for the completion of any tree care operation. x. "Tree Removal" - The cutting or removing of 50 percent (50%) or more of a crown, trunk, or root system of a tree, or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability or causes the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling. y. "Understory Tree" - Any tree that is adapted to grow and complete its lifecycle within the shade and beneath the canopy of another tree. [No change in definitions 171-181.] -105- Commentary 18.790 Urban Forestry Plan Additional flexibility and incentives for Significant Tree Grove preservation are included in the Urban Forestry Plan chapter in order to consolidate the urban forestry related development regulations in one place. The additional flexible standards and incentives for Significant Tree Grove preservation have been added to section 18.790.050, Flexible Standards for Planting and Preservation. No other sections of chapter 18.790 have been modified to incorporate the additional incentives. Only development sites with Significant Tree Grove identified through the Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 5 process are eligible for the additional incentives. A map of Significant Tree Groves is available through a publicly accessible mapping program. -106- Code Amendments Chapter 18.790 URBAN FORESTRY PLAN Sections: 18.790.010 Purpose 18.790.020 Applicability 18.790.030 Urban Forestry Plan Requirements 18.790.040 Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review Option 18.790.050 Flexible Standards For Planting and Preservation 18.790.060 Urban Forestry Plan Implementation 18.790.070 Modification to the Urban Forestry Plan Component of an Approved Land Use Permit 18.790.080 Enforcement 18.790.010 Purpose [No change.] 18.790.020 Applicability [No change.] 18.790.030 Urban Forestry Plan Requirements [No change.] 18.790.040 Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review Option [No change.] -107- Commentary 18.790.050 Flexible Standards for Planting and Preservation There are two categories of flexible standards for planting and preservation. The flexible standards in subsection "A" are available for the planting and/or preservation of all trees. The flexible standards in subsection "B"have been added since the last CAC review and are available only for development sites with a Significant Tree Grove. However, development sites with Significant Tree Groves are also eligible for all of the flexible standards and incentives in both subsections. Text has been added to the general provisions portion of the section that all the flexible standards and incentives supercede conflicting standards in the code unless the flexibility would present an unreasonable risk to public health, safety or welfare. The Director has been authorized to use discretion when granting flexibility. The general consensus of the CAC was to allow applicants to take advantage of the flexibility without requiring a public hearing. -108- Code Amendments 18.790.050 Flexible Standards For Planting and Preservation A. General Provisions. To assist in the preservation and/or planting of trees and signifini�ant tree groves. the Director may apply one or more of the following flexible standards as part of the land use review approval. To the extent that the standards in this section conflict with e standards in other sections of this Title, the standards in this section shall apply exp cep cases where the Director determines there would be an unreasonable risk to public health safety, or welfare. Flexibility shall be requested by the project arborist as part of the land use review process and is only applicable to trees that are eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover of the site. A separate adjustment application as outlined in Section 18.370 is not required. B. Flexible Standards. The following flexible standards are available to applicants in order to preserve and plant trees on a development site. C. 1. Lot size averaging. To preserve existing trees in the development plan for any Land Partition under Chapter 18.420, lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size required in the underlying zone as long as the average lot area is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80% of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone; 2. Setbacks. The following setback reductions will be allowed for lots preserving existing trees using the criteria in subsection b below. a. Reductions allowed: (1) Front yard — up to a 25% reduction of the dimensional standard for a front yard setback required in the base zone. Setback of garages may not be reduced by this provision. (2) Interior setbacks - up to a 20% reduction of the dimensional standards for an interior side and/or rear yard setback required in the base zone. Perimeter side and rear yard setbacks shall not be reduced through this provision. b. Approval criteria: (1) A demonstration that the reduction requested is the least required to preserve or plant trees: and (2) The reduction will result in the preservation of or the addition to tree can9W on the lot with the modified setbacks; and (3) The reduction will not impede adequate emergency access to the site and structure. 3. Sidewalks. Location of a public sidewalk may be flexible in order to preserve existing trees or to plant new large stature street trees. This flexibility may be accomplished through a curb-tight sidewalk or a public sidewalk easement recorded on private property and shall be reviewed on a case by case basis in accordance with the provisions in Chapter 18.810, Street and Utility Improvement Standards. For preservation, this -109- Commentary flexibility shall be the minimum required to achieve the desired effect. For planting, preference shall be given to retaining the planter strip and separation between the curb 18.790.050 Flexible Standards For Planting and Preservation (continued) Some base requirements have been included in order for an applicant to be eligible for the additional flexible standards and preservation: • There has to be at least 10,000 square feet (-'A acre) of native tree canopy within a development site that is part of or continuous with a Significant Tree Grove. • The 10,000 square feet of native Significant Tree Grove canopy is not already protected by floodplain, stream corridor, and/or wetland regulations. • The project arborist demonstrates consistency with the applicable provisions in the urban forestry plan for the development site. If these base requirements are met, there are six (1-6) flexible standards and incentives that may be utilized by the applicant. The first is a reduction in minimum density requirements. The applicant will be given the option to remove the Significant Tree Grove portion of their property from their minimum density calculations. This will allow applicants to build only on the non-tree grove portion of their property. The applicant would also be required to work with their project arborist to designate 50% or more of their tree grove for preservation,maximize the connectivity and viability of the remaining portion of the tree grove, and protect the remaining tree grove through a conservation easement or other protective instrument. -110- Code Amendments and sidewalk wherever practicable. If a preserved tree is to be utilized as a street tree, it must meet the criteria found in the Landscaping and Screening section 18.745.040(A)(5). 4. Commercial/industrial/civic use parking. For each 2% of effective canopy cover provided by preserved or planted trees incorporated into a development plan for commercial, industrial or civic uses listed in Section 18.765.080, Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements, a 1% reduction in the amount of required parking may be granted. No more than a 20% reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one development. 5. Commercial/industrial/civic use landscaping. For each 2% of effective canopy cover provided by preserved trees incorporated into a development plan, a 1% reduction in the minimum landscape requirement may be granted. No more than 20% of the minimum landscape requirement may be reduced for any one development. C. Additional Flexible Standards and Incentives for the Preservation of Significant Tree Groves. A man of Significant Tree Groves is maintained by the Director. The following additional flexible standards and incentives are available when a development site contains at least 10.000 square feet of native tree canopy that is part of or contiguous with a Significant Tree Grove and is not also within the sensitive lands tomes in section 18.775.010(G)(1-3). If any of these special flexible standards and incentives are requested, the project arborist shall clearly demonstrate in the urban forestry n�per section 18.790.030(B)) consistency=with the applicable provisions. 1. Reduction of Minimum Density. The minimum number of units required by Section 18.510.040 (Density Calculation) may be reduced to preserve a Siznificant Tree Grove. The amount of reduction in minimum density shall be calculated by subtracting the square footage of preserved Significant Tree Grove from the square of the development site used to calculate the minimum density requirement. Reduction of minimum density is permitted provided that: At least 50% of the Significant Tree Grove's canopy within the development site (and not also within the sensitive lands types in section 18.775.010( )(1-3)) isreserved: Q21The project arborist certifies the preservation is such that the connective and viability of the remainingSignificant Tree Grove is maximized: and a3 The Significant Tree Grove is protected through an instrument or action sub'ect to approval by the Director that demonstrates it will be permanently preserved and manaV_ed such as: i A conservation easement, ii. An open space tract: iii. A deed restriction, or iy- Through dedication and acceptance by the City. -111- Commentary 18.790.050 Flexible Standards For Planting and Preservation (continued) The second flexible standard and incentive is residential density transfer. This will allow applicants to build attached units and reduce lot or unit area by 50% so they can preserve a Significant Tree Grove while building to allowed densities on the non-tree grove portion of the site. In order to develop with the 100% density transfer, housing types not typically allowed in lower density zones will now be permitted if a tree grove is preserved. These housing types include attached single family and duplexes. Currently these uses are either not permitted in lower density zones, are a conditional use, or require a Planned Development application. The proposed changes would allow these uses with the staff level Type II review and not require a public hearing process. The development standards are adjusted accordingly to accommodate smaller lots including: 1) reduced lot widths; 2) reduced front, side, and rear yard setbacks; 3) reduced garage setbacks, and 4) increased building height. Lots that abut a developed residential zone with the same or lower density are only allowed a 25% reduction in lot area so they are more compatible with the abutting lots. The applicant would also be required to work with their project arborist to designate 50% or more of their tree grove for preservation, maximize the connectivity and viability of the remaining portion of the tree grove, and protect the remaining tree grove through a conservation easement or other protective instrument. -112- Code Amendments 2. Residential Density Transfer. Un to 100% density transfer is permitted from the preserved portion of a Significant Tree Grove within a development site to the buildable area of the development site. 1 Density mu be transferred provided that: a At least 50% of the Significant Tree Grove's canopv within the development site (and not also within the sensitive lands types in section 18.775.010(Gl(�1- 311 is preserved: b. The Vroject arborist certifies the preservation is such that the connectivity and viability of the remaining Si4nificant Tree Grove is maximized. c- Maximum density for the net site area includingthe Si�gMficant Tree Grove is not exceeded: d. The standards in Table 18.790.1 below are met; and -, The Significant Tree Grove is protected through an instrument or action subject by the Director that demonstrates it will be permanently preserved and managed such as: i. A conservation easement: ii An open tract; A deed restriction; or iv. Through dedication and acceptance by the City. 2 The proposed development may include the following a Zero lot line single-family detached housing for the portion of the development site that receives the density transfer. b. The following variations from the base zone development standards are ermitt i Up to 25% reduction of average minimum lot width: ii Up to 10 foot minimum front yard setback: iii. Up to 33% reduction of side and rear yard setbacks: iy. Up to 4 foot minimum garage setback: and Y- Up to 20% increase in maximum height a� as height adjustments comply with the International Building Code. c. When the portion of the development site that receives the density transfer abuts a developed residential district with the same or lower density zoniny, theme area of abutting perimeter lots shall at least be 150% Vreater than the corresponding minimum lot area in this table. -113- Commentary 18.790.050 Flexible Standards For Planting and Preservation (continued) Table 18.790.1 (Density Transfer Table for Preservation of Significant Tree Groves) allows reduced lot and unit sizes to facilitate density transfer from the tree grove portion to the non- tree grove portion of a site.. -114- Code Amendments TABLE 18.790.1 DENSITY TRANSFER TABLE FOR PRESERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT TREE GROVES Residential Detached SQ-FT.1 Attached-SQ-FE pix Multifamily Or courtyard single- District Minimum Lot Size family housing Minimum Lot Size Minimum Unit Area Minimum Lot Size B=1 15.000 sa. ft. Not Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed B--2 10.000 sa. ft. 55 00 Not Allowed Not Allowed R--3.5 5.000 sa.ft. 3.500 sa. ft. 10.000 sa. ft. Not Allowed R-4.5 33 75 22 50 77 50 Not Allowed R=7 22 50 22 00 55 00 Not Allowed R_12 Single family,duplex and multifamily housing permitted at the following densities: 1,525 sq. ft.minimum er unit R-25 Single family,duplex and multifamily housing permitted at the following densities: 740 sq. ft.minimum per unit R-40 Single family,duplex and multifamily housing permitted with no upper density limit. -115- Commentary 18.790.050 Flexible Standards For Planting and Preservation (continued) The third and fourth flexible standards and incentives are applicable to commercial and industrial development. They both allow up to 50% reduction in minimum setbacks and 20 feet additional building height (1 story) for Significant Tree Grove preservation. Buffering and screening per chapter 18.745 would still be required between differing land uses. The applicant would be required to work with their project arborist to designate 50% or more of their tree grove for preservation,maximize the connectivity and viability of the remaining portion of the tree grove, and protect the remaining tree grove through a conservation easement or other protective instrument. -116- Code Amendments 3. Adjustments to Commercial Development Standards. Adjustments to Commercial Development Standards (Table 18.520.2) of un to 50% reduction in minimum setbacks and up to 20 feet additional building height are permitted provided: (1)At least 50% of a Significant Tree Grove's canopy within a development site (and not also within the sensitive lands tunes in section 18.775.010(G)(1-3), is preserved: (2)The prQiect arborist certifies the preservation is such that the connectivity and viability of the remaining Significant Tree Grove is maximized- (3)Applicable Buffering and Screeningrequirements in section 18.745.050 are met: (4)Any heiV_ht adjustments comply with the International Building Code: and (5)Anv setback reduction is not adjacent to residential zoning: and (6)The Significant Tree Grove is protected through an instrument or action sub}ect to approval by the Director that demonstrates it will be permanentlV preserved and mimed such asas: i. A conservation easement, ii. An open space tract: iii. A deed restriction: or iv. Through dedication and acceptance by the City. 4. Adjustments to Industrial Development Standards. Adjustments to Development Standards in Industrial Zones CTable 18.530.21 of u to 50% reduction in minimum setbacks and un to 20 feet additional building height are permitted pro (1)At least 50% of a Significant Tree Grove's canopy within a development and not also within the sensitive lands rhes in section 18.775.010(Gl(�)1 is preserved- (2)The project arborist certifies the preservation is such that the connective and viability of the remaining Significant Tree Grove is maximized: (3)Anphcable Buffering and Screening requirements in section 18.745.050 are met: (4)Any height adjustments comply with the International Building Code:and (5) Any setback reduction is not adjacent to residential zoning and (6)The Significant Tree Grove is protected through an instrument or action subject to approval by the Director that demonstrates it will be permanently preserved and managed such as: i. A conservation easement- ii. asementii. An open space tract iii. A deed restriction; or iv. Through dedication and acceptance by the Citv. -117- Commentary 18.790.050 Flexible Standards For Planting and Preservation (continued) The fifth flexible and incentive based standard is an adjustment to the minimum effective canopy requirement. A standard urban forestry plan requires 20% effective tree canopy per lot in addition to the overall development site canopy requirement which is based on zoning (25%, 33%, or 40%). In order to facilitate the preservation of Significant Tree Groves, the "per lot" effective canopy requirement could be waived. This could benefit development that uses density transfer and reduced lot sizes to preserve a Significant Tree Grove by not requiring trees on individual lots as long the overall development site meets the zoning specific canopy requirement. The applicant would be required to work with their project arborist to designate 50% of their tree grove for preservation, maximize the connectivity and viability of the remaining portion of the tree grove, and protect the remaining tree grove through a conservation easement or other protective instrument. The final flexible and incentive based standard is an adjustment to the street and utility standards. The intent is to highlight the Director's authority in chapter 18.810 to vary from street and utility standards to preserve natural features (such as a Significant Tree Grove) provided the adjustment does not result in an unreasonable risk to public safety. In addition, variation from the street tree standards in chapter 18.745 would be permitted to facilitate the preservation of a Significant Tree Grove. The project arborist would be required to show that the variation from the standards will facilitate preservation and help to maximize the connectivity and viability of a Significant Tree Grove. The applicant would also be required to protect the remaining tree grove through a conservation easement or other protective instrument. -118- Code Amendments 5. Adjustment to Minimum Effective Canopy Requirement. The requirement for 20% effective tree canopy cover per lot is not required when: (1)At least 50% of a Significant Tree Grove's canopy within a development site land not also within the sensitive lands types in section 18.775.010(G)�(�)l is preserved: (2)The arborist certifies the preservation is such that the connectivity and viability of the remaining Significant Tree Grove is maximized: (3)The applicable standard percent effective tree canopy cover in Section 8, Part 3, item n will be provided for the overall development site (excluding streets (4)The Significant Tree Grove is protected through an instrument or action subject to approval by the Director that demonstrates it will be permanently preserved and managed such as: i. A conservation easement; ii. An o ens ace tract: iii. A deed restriction, or iv. Through dedication and acceptance by t"Ci 6. Adjustment to Street and Utility Standards. If requested. the Director shall use his or her discretion when considering adjustments to Chapter 18.810_ Street and Udlity Improvement Standards and section 18.745.040; Street Trees provided: (1)The adjustments will facilitate preservation and help to maximize the connectivity and viability of a Significant Tree Grove: (2)The Significant Tree Grove is protected through an instrument or action subject to approval by the Director that demonstrates it will be permanently preserved and managed such as: i. A conservation easement; ii. An ope tract, iii. A deed restriction, or iv. Through dedication and acceptance by the Cite. 18.790.060 Urban Forestry Plan Implementation [No change.] 18.790.070 Modification to the Urban Forestry Plan Component of an Approved Land Use Permit [No change.] 18.790.080 Enforcement [No change.] -119- City of Tigard . . Memorandum To: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist Re: Tree Permit Requirements Date: October 18, 2010 Introduction The Urban Forestry Code Revisions (UFCR) Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) will be providing staff with input on the topic of "tree permit requirements" at their April 13, 2011 meeting. This memo is intended to provide the CAC with background on the topic, commentary on CAC priority issues related to the topic, and discussion items for potential options for this portion of the UFCR project. The table below summarizes the code topic, relates it to CAC priority issues and Urban Forestry Master Plan goals, and lists the main code sections that will likely be impacted by the revisions. Code Topic CAC Priority Issues Urban Forestry Primary Tigard Master Plan Code Sections Goals Tree Permit -Tree Code (clear standards) 1.1, 2.2, 3.1, Chapter 18.790 Requirements -Groves and Forest Functions 3.2, 6.3, 6.4 Chapter 9.08 -Multi-level permits Chapter 9.06 -Canopy Enhancement (street trees and parking lot trees) -Nuisance vs. Desired Species -Solar access/view corridors -Heritage Trees Background The City currently addresses tree permits through Chapters 18.790 (Tree Removal), 9.08 (Heritage Trees), and 9.06 (Trees on City Property). Chapter 18.790 (Tree Removal) Chapter 18.790 requires tree permits prior to removal of trees over 6 inches in diameter within sensitive lands areas. Sensitive lands cover approximately 2,206 acres (-30% of Tigard) and are defined as: • 100-year floodplain -120- • Slopes exceeding 25% • Drainage ways (Title 3 streams and stream setback areas) • Wetlands (Title 3 wetlands and wetland setback areas) • Significant habitat areas (Title 13 lands) The significant habitat areas overlay is mapped and covers the vast majority of the other sensitive lands categories. The other sensitive lands areas are partially mapped and need to be delineated by an expert on a case by case basis to determine their actual boundaries. Hazardous trees are exempt from the permit requirements and City review. Permits for non-hazardous trees are automatically approved if adequate erosion control is provided. For sensitive lands within 50 feet of a stream, canopy cover is required to be maintained. The current cost of a tree removal permit is $294 per tree. Commercial forestry (the sale of 10 or more trees per acre per year) is prohibited in Tigard. The most common concerns about the current tree permit requirements in Chapter 18.790 are: • The permit requirements are largely a "paper-pushing" exercise that is costly to applicants with limited community benefits. • The impacts of tree removal on erosion are difficult to quantify, so reviewing permits based on erosion standards is problematic. • Determining whether sensitive lands (other than significant habitat areas) exist on a property can be difficult for the average property owner and creates uncertainty when deciding whether a permit is required or not. • The definition of"hazardous tree" is not well defined in the current code, so people have a difficult time determining whether they are exempt from the tree permit requirements. • Clean Water Services has jurisdiction over erosion issues within 50 feet of a stream. Requiring City review for the same items is duplicative. Chapter 9.08 (Heritage Trees) Chapter 9.08 creates a process for property owners, including the City, to nominate, recognize, and protect trees and stands of trees on their own property. The nomination is reviewed by the City Arborist, Tree Board, and City Council to determine whether a tree or stand of trees is of citywide significance. If the nomination passes through the required filters, a deed restriction is required to afford permanent protections for the tree(s). The City provides a plaque and maintenance assistance for designated Heritage Trees. Permits are required to remove Heritage Trees, and will be granted if a Heritage Tree is dead or hazardous. Permits will also be granted for other reasons if approved by City Council following a recommendation by the City Arborist, but mitigation of caliper inches would be required. The most common concern about the Heritage Tree program in Chapter 9.08 is: • The requirement to file a deed restriction to permanently protect Heritage Trees can act as a disincentive to participate in the program for those property owners that do not want to lose flexibility on their land. -121- Chapter 9.06 (Trees on City Property) Chapter 9.06 requires permits for the planting and removal of trees on City property and City right-of-way when the planting or removal is done by anyone other than the City. The CAC and staff have worked to develop planting and removal criteria for trees in right-of-way (street and median trees) previously during the UFCR process. The most common concerns about the permit requirements for trees on City property (excluding right-of- way) in Chapter 9.06 are: • It is unnecessary to include this information in the code. People should not be removing trees on City property without City permission. That is a trespass issue and is handled through other legal avenues when it does occur. Other Considerations for Tree Permit Requirements The CAC and staff have been working on urban forestry standards for development which include standards for tree planting and preservation to meet canopy requirements as well as tree planting requirements for street trees,parking lot trees, and trees required to buffer differing land uses. The CAC and staff have developed a process that addresses the removal of street trees when not associated with a land use permit. Street tree removal will be approved if trees are in poor/hazardous condition, nuisance trees, causing damage, or preventing allowed development to occur. There is also another option for applicants to remove trees if a designated review body agrees that there are other reasons (views, solar access, etc.) that are appropriate for removal. Replanting of street trees will be required if there is room on site. Staff will be working with the CAC to determine whether similar requirements should be extended to trees required to meet the canopy requirements, for parking lot trees, and trees required to buffer differing land uses. During the Comprehensive Plan process, City Council adopted Goal 2.2 Policy 3 which states "The City shall continue to regulate the removal of trees within environmentally sensitive lands and lands subject to natural hazards". The policy is currently implemented through the tree permit requirements in Chapter 18.790 described above which allows removal as long as adequate erosion control is provided. Staff will be working with the CAC to determine whether similar requirements as those established for street trees should be extended to trees in sensitive lands. Finally, during the Urban Forestry Master Plan process, City Council accepted recommendation 6.3.a which states "Develop standards that require tree removal permits prior to the removal of a specified number of trees per year". Staff will be working with the CAC to establish the number threshold. Overview of CAC Priority Issues/Outcomes Related to Urban Forestry Standards for Development Tree code (clear standards, view towards future -The urban forestry standards for development set up a number of tree planting and preservation scenarios as part of the development process. Once the -122- development process is complete it is important to have clear permitting standards so that applicants and the City have a clear framework for decision making when future tree removal is requested or required. In addition, permit requirements for trees in sensitive lands and removal of over a certain number of trees should have a clear framework as well. Staff anticipates working with the CAC on establishing the framework for decision making. Groves and Forest Functions-Tree groves/forests have a number of functions and values including rainfall interception/retention/infiltration, thermoregulation (shading), air/water/soil pollutant attenuation, carbon storage, soil stabilization, wildlife habitat, recreation, aesthetics, and educational opportunities. Staff anticipates working with the CAC to consider these functions and values when developing the framework for permitting decisions for tree groves/forests outside of the development process. Multi-level permits-Staff anticipates continuing the current process of developing multiple levels of permitting. Thus far, a framework has been developed for street trees and trees/groves during the development process. Additional frameworks are needed to address other trees required to be planted or preserved during the development process such as parking lot trees, trees required to buffer differing land uses, and trees used to meet canopy requirements. A discussion of possible revisions to the existing frameworks for trees in sensitive lands (i.e. tree groves), Heritage Trees, and the number of trees that may be removed per year is also on the table. Canopy enhancement (street trees and parking lot trees)-Permitting standards for street trees have already been established, staff will be working with the CAC to develop permitting standards for parking lot trees outside of the development process. Nuisance vs. desired species-Nuisance trees are prohibited from planting as street trees and during the development process. As a result of the street tree discussions, street trees that are nuisance trees will be approved for removal. Staff will be working with the CAC to decide if similar planting prohibition/removal approval for nuisance trees should be extended to the additional permitting decisions under review. Solar access/view corridors-For street tree permitting decisions, solar access and view corridors was included as criteria for a discretionary process which would be balanced against tree quality, contribution to the environment and community, and aesthetics. Staff will be working with the CAC to decide if a similar process should be extended to the additional permitting decisions under review. Heritage Trees-Staff anticipates working with the CAC to determine if the existing process for permitting the designation and removal of Heritage Trees should be revised. Discussion Items Staff would like the CAC to provide guidance on the following options for consideration when developing "tree permit requirements": 1. Which of the following would best implement the City's urban forestry goals: a) continue to base tree permitting decisions in sensitive lands primarily on erosion criteria; or b) base tree permitting decisions on tree condition, hazard potential, stocking levels, etc. similar to the street tree permitting criteria. -123- 2. If the permitting criteria for trees in sensitive lands were expanded beyond erosion considerations,would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to include a discretionary option for decision making before a review body similar to the street tree permitting process? This could create an avenue for allowing removal for additional reasons such as views, solar access, aesthetics, etc.: a) yes; or b) no. 3. The current practice for the street tree permitting process is to not require permit review fees. Should the City consider reducing or eliminating the permit fee for trees in sensitive land ($294 per tree) and subsidize the process through the City's general fund? a) yes; or b) no. 4. Currently, if a tree in sensitive lands is dead or hazardous it is exempt from the permit process and no City review is required. In these cases, the City recommends the property owner retain documentation of tree condition in case someone complains. Which of the following would best implement the City's urban forestry goals: a) continue to allow removal for all clear and objective reasons such as hazardous condition without City review as long as the property owner retains appropriate documentation; or b) require City review for all tree removal in sensitive lands. 5. Mapped sensitive lands areas (e.g. significant habitat areas) overlap the vast majority of the other sensitive lands types. Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to restrict sensitive lands tree permitting requirements to map based sensitive lands only rather than requiring permitting in the sensitive lands types that need to be delineated in order to determine their boundaries? a) yes; or b) no. 6. Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to expand permitting requirements for trees within sensitive lands to trees within the 50 acres of inventoried tree groves that are outside of sensitive lands? a) yes; or b) no. 7. If the permitting criteria for trees in sensitive lands were expanded beyond erosion considerations,would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to limit the removal of dead trees that are not also considered hazardous (e.g. tree would fall in a place where there are not people or structures) in order to benefit wildlife? a) yes; or b) no. 8. Tree permit requirements in sensitive lands currently apply to both native and non-native trees. Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to limit the applicability of tree permit requirements in sensitive lands to native trees only? a) yes; or b) no. -124- 9. Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to make optional the requirement to permanently protect Heritage Trees through a deed restriction? a) yes; or b) no. 10. If permanent protection of Heritage Trees is optional, should City assistance with tree maintenance be limited to those trees that do have permanent protections in place? a) yes; or b) no. 11. Staff and the CAC have been developing urban forestry standards for development which will result in tree preservation and planting requirements as part of certain development processes. Street trees are one tree type that are required as part of these processes. The CAC and staff have previously developed a process that would address the removal of street trees whether or not development is occurring. Street tree removal will be approved if trees are in poor/hazardous condition, nuisance trees, causing damage, or preventing allowed development to occur. There is also another option for applicants to remove trees if a designated review body agrees that there are other reasons (views, solar access, etc.) that are appropriate for removal. Replanting of street trees will be required if there is room on site. Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to apply this permitting process to other trees required to be planted or preserved during development (e.g. parking lot trees, tree required to buffer differing land uses, and trees required to meet canopy requirements)? a) yes; or b) no. 12. If permanent protection of Heritage Trees is optional, should City assistance with tree maintenance be limited to those trees that do have permanent protections in place? a) yes; or b) no. 13. There is interest on the part of the Tree Board and City Council in expanding tree planting efforts, including on private property,using the Tree Replacement/Urban Forestry Fund. Currently, trees that are planted on public property using the Tree Replacement/Urban Forestry Fund are protected through written contracts (such as with the School District) or due their location in the public right-of-way (street trees are protected by the municipal code). All trees planted using the Tree Replacement/Urban Forestry Fund are included in the City's GIS inventory of trees. Should the code simply require permits prior to the removal of trees that were planted using the Tree Replacement/Urban Forestry Fund whether on public or private property? a) yes; or b) no. 14. If permits are required prior to the removal of a certain number of unprotected trees per year,would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to require a similar permitting process as established for street trees? -125- This would establish clear and objective approval criteria that would allow the removal of trees in poor/hazardous condition, nuisance trees, trees causing damage, or trees preventing allowed development to occur. There would also be another option for applicants to remove trees if a designated review body agrees that there are other reasons (views, solar access, etc.) that are appropriate for removal. Replanting would be required if there is room on site. a) yes; or b) no. 15. If a permitting process based on number of trees removed is modeled after the street tree permitting process previously established,which of the following would best implement the City's urban forestry goals: a) allow removal for all clear and objective reasons such as hazardous condition without City review as long as the property owner retains appropriate documentation; or b) require City review for a certain number of trees per year for any reason in all cases. 16. If limits are placed on the removal of a certain number of unprotected trees per year, which methodology makes the most sense to trigger the permit process? a) Set size threshold as 6" DBH and require permits prior to the removal of over 5 trees per year. For properties over an acre, set threshold at 5 trees per acre per year. b) Set size threshold higher than above and retain the 5 trees requirement. c) Retain the size threshold above and increase the number of trees requirement? d) Increase both the size and number requirements above. e) Decrease the size and number requirements above. 17. Commercial forestry (the sale of 10 or more trees per acre per year) is prohibited in Tigard. If someone is approved to remove 10 or more trees per acre per year, should they be allowed to sell them? a) yes; or b) no. 18. Other issues for group discussion (explain). -126- City of Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions TAC TIGARD Meeting Summary MEETING DATE: March 15, 2011, 3:00-4:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Works Auditorium 8777 SW Burnham St.,Tigard, OR 97223 Members Present— Gus Duenas (Development Engineer),Ted Kyle (City Engineer), Steve Martin (Parks and Facilities Manager), Gary Pagenstecher (Associate Planner),Todd Prager (Associate Planner/Arborist), Brian Rager (Assistant Public Works Director), Damon Reische (CWS),Nate Shaub (GIS Analyst) Visitors Present—Tim Lehrbach (Planning Assistant), Darren Wyss (Senior Planner) 1. Call to Order,TAC Meeting#7 Summary Gary Pagenstecher opened the meeting and reviewed the agenda for the meeting. The group approved the summary for the February 15, 2011 TAC Meeting#7 with no corrections. 2. Update on Urban Forestry Standards for Development Todd Prager provided an update on the urban forestry standards for development,which staff has continued to revise in response to feedback from the TAC and CAC. • The proposed blanket effective canopy requirement of 40% across all lots in all zones has been changed to effective canopy of 20%. For overall development sites, effective canopy will vary based on zoning. • Low and medium density residential will have to meet an average effective canopy of 40%. High density residential,industrial parks, and most commercial areas will have a 33% requirement. Downtown Tigard, mixed use commercial-1, and light and heavy industrial areas will have a 25% requirement. • Modifications to approved tree plans during the land use review process will be allowed through a Type I application. Under the current code, any such modification is done through a Type II application,which requires public notification and a comment period. This is proposed so that developers will be more likely to agree to tree plans that preserve more trees, knowing that it will be easier and faster to amend the plan later as needed. • Language was added to say that one foot contours on grading plans are required unless otherwise approved. In some cases it is not necessary or practical to require one foot contours so the revised language provides flexibility to not require it. • Specific language was added to allow flexibility in sidewalk and parking requirements in order to facilitate planting and preserving large-stature trees. A cross reference to the review standards in Chapter 18.810 was added and preference was given to retaining the planter strip to avoid a profusion of curb tight sidewalks. Todd Prager asked the group for comments on these changes. Steve Martin asked how tree removal will be evaluated when canopy is not reduced, such as when groves are thinned. Todd responded that the current Urban Forestry Code Revisions TAC Meeting Summary— March 15, 2011 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 3 -127- mitigation requirement of replacing caliper inches is going away. If a grove is thinned of interior trees and the integrity and overall size of the grove is retained, then it would receive credit towards the effective canopy requirements. He added that retained trees receive double credit towards the effective canopy requirements and mitigation is not required based solely on tree removal. Todd also pointed out that the Tigard-Tualatin School District is concerned about the proposed canopy requirement and its impact on their school sites. 3. Presentation and Discussion of Tree Grove Preservation Program Darren Wyss presented information about the progress made on the tree grove preservation program. He noted that the program was called for by the Urban Forestry Master Plan. City Council has called for a flexible,incentive- based program to preserve Tigard's tree groves while still allowing full site development. The program involves completing an inventory according to the procedures set forth in state planning Goal 5, and this has been done utilizing canopy data collected by Metro to identify groves, field study to inventory the groves by location and quality, and an Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy analysis (ESEE) currently underway. The inventory found 70 groves on 544 acres. The focuses of the program are on how to preserve groves on private, developable properties (131 acres are located within the Buildable Lands Inventory), how to ensure preservation of groves in sensitive lands, and how to manage groves on City-owned properties. Approaches considered for privately-owned groves include tax incentives,recognition incentives, and regulatory incentives or exceptions. Comments from the CAC and the public who attended a recent open house reflected support for the incentive-based approach, but not for regulatory exceptions that would allow multi-family housing in single-family residential neighborhoods. Darren Wyss asked the TAC for feedback. He requested that the group call attention to any issues they foresee with allowing density transfers, and also wondered whether criteria in addition to erosion control was needed for tree removal in sensitive lands. Ted Kyle noted that there are important reasons to preserve trees in sensitive lands that go beyond erosion control including stormwater management and pollutant control. Steve Martin said that likewise there are reasons for tree removal in sensitive lands, such as when trees become hazards. Darren said that this is what needs to be hashed out—the code presently allows removal of trees in sensitive lands as long as the applicant gets an erosion control plan approved, and new criteria may be appropriate while retaining flexibility for hazard tree management and other needs. Darren Wyss asked the group what they believe the City's role should be in maintaining the groves identified by this program,up to and including acquiring the groves from private property owners. Steve Martin and Brian Rager pointed out that the City's policy on acquiring properties for their natural resource value is generally that this is done only when the resource is accessible by the public or meets additional needs such as a trail extension. Many groves isolated on private property probably don't meet this standard. Ted Kyle suggested that off-site mitigation and ownership transfers with conservation easements could be ways to make sure groves are protected. Damon Reische pointed out that easements are often forgotten or ignored after time, and he offered that if this approach is taken, attention must be paid so that easements are not transferred or eliminated as property changes ownership. Todd Prager submitted that when developers receive a benefit under this program for protecting the grove, there could be an option for City acquisition but the City should not be obligated to take over ownership, especially if there are City staff or funding constraints to doing so. Brian asked how continued preservation would be enforced, and Todd answered that it would be the City Arborist's responsibility (just as all tree enforcement action currently are). Darren Wyss said that one possibility is that the City will only take ownership of groves that were given a high score during the inventory process. Gary Pagenstecher asked if it is an intended point of the program to do something Urban Forestry Code Revisions TAC Meeting Summary — March 15, 2011 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of 3 -128- about the highest-scoring groves in particular, and Darren replied that it is not an explicit outcome. Brian Rager asked what would happen if the City was focusing on high-scoring groves, but the score of a given grove conflicted with the City's other criteria for acquiring a property—could the City be compelled to take on a property that does not meet those other criteria? Darren answered that this would not occur because no set of criteria for acquiring groves will be adopted as code, that this is a question about general policy. Todd Prager said that the purpose of the City being open to taking ownership of groves is to offer developers who do not want responsibility for particular groves to be able to call the City and work out a transfer of ownership. The City could take or leave the offer given their full set of acquisition criteria. Darren Wyss also suggested that the City should consider adopting a parks and open space overlay for parks property. Steve Martin said that because all parks are presently zoned residential or industrial, all parks development requires a Conditional Use permit. A parks and open space overlay could be beneficial but is out of scope of this project. Darren Wyss said the next steps in the process are to develop code language and to take this to the CAC and TAC. Todd Prager asked if the City should protect public groves from development through regulation,leaving the program for privately-owned groves incentive-based. Steve Martin responded that the City already meets higher standards for tree protection and that its policies are to develop for the public good, not for profit. Todd offered that there may be value in showing the City's commitment to protect the groves it owns. Steve said that it is important to see where the groves are when determining what level of protection will be placed on them. Ted Kyle suggested that plans for protecting specific groves could be placed in park plans through their Conditional Use process. Gary Pagenstecher wondered whether the City Council might be a more appropriate review body than the Hearings Officer for discretionary review over questions such as whether a tree grove or ball field is to be preferred at a given site. Brian Rager reminded that Public Works already has a greenway and open space program with its own coordinator and submitted that this is enough protection for publicly-owned groves. 4. Scheduling, Closing Remarks, and Adjournment Gary Pagenstecher said that the next meeting would be on April 19. The meeting was adjourned. Urban Forestry Code Revisions TAC Meeting Summary — March 15, 2011 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 3 of 3 -129-