04/16/2012 - Packet lig Completeness
TIGARD Review for Boards,
Commissions and
Committee Records
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Name of Board, Commission or Committee
April 16,2012
Date of Meeting
r
-ago= a V Q —
Doreen Laughlin
11/6/14
Date
14 '� City ofTigard
Planning Commission Agenda (Rev. 1)
TIGARD
MEETING DATE: April 16, 2012; 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard—Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m.
3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:01 p.m.
4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:03 p.m.
5. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED -x:05 p.n,.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT CPA2011-00004/DCA2011-00002
http://www.tigard-or.gov/community/trees/code revision.asp
REQUEST: To implement the city's Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Urban Forestry Master
Plan, the City of Tigard is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopting the "Significant Tree
Groves" Map and Tigard Development Code (Title 18) Amendments to Chapters 18.115, 18.120, 18.310,
18.330, 18.350, 18.360, 18.370 18.390, 18.530, 18.610, 18.620, 18.630 18.640, 18.715,18.745, 18.775, 18.790,
and 18.798. In addition, in support of the Title 18 amendments, amendments are proposed to the Tigard
Municipal Code (TMC) Chapters 1.16, 6.01, 6.02, 7.40, 8.02 thru 8.20, 9.06, and 9.08.
LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: Citywide.
6. OTHER BUSINESS—9:05 p.m.
• Update on City Budget Reductions and Impact on CD
• Debrief on April 10 Joint Meeting with Beaverton
7. ADJOURNMENT—9:35 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA—APRIL 16, 2012
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 1 oft
711 - ;$° City of Tigard Agenda Item #5
.0
Lt-( I� �' Memorandum
To: Members of the Tigard Planning Commission
From: Todd Prager, Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: April 16, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting
Date: April 5, 2012
Background
On April 16, 2012, Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the urban
forestry code revisions. The purpose of the hearing is to accept public testimony on the
oral and written amendment requests received until the record closed on February 17,
2012, deliberate on those amendment requests and forward a final recommendation on
the urban forestry code revisions to City Council.
Staff has summarized and provided responses to the amendment requests to help prepare
the Planning Commission for the hearing. Note that staff is recommending several
amendments to the proposal based on the amendment requests and the Planning
Commission's discussion on March 5, 2012.
Also, staff has prepared a three draft motions for the Planning Commission. The first
motion is to incorporate the land use related amendments into the urban forestry code
revisions. The amendments are listed by number so the motion can be modified to
exclude any the commission does not want to include. The second motion is to
recommend City Council approve the land use elements of the urban forestry code
revisions (with the amendments from the previous motion). And the third motion is to
advise City Council that the Planning Commission finds the non-land use elements of the
urban forestry code revisions are consistent with and supportive of the land use elements.
Finally, the staff report has been updated for consistency with the amendments and
procedures to date.
Procedural Note
Because of Oregon land use law, the land use elements of the proposal such as the Tigard
Development Code (Title 18), Comprehensive Plan, ESEE Analysis and Significant Tree
Grove Map will be addressed separately from the non-land use elements such as the
Tigard Municipal Code (titles other than Title 18) and Urban Forestry Manual.
In order to provide for a comprehensive approach to the urban forestry code revisions,
the Planning Commission review and deliberations have included both the land use
elements and non-land use elements of the proposal. However, the Planning
Commission's direct recommendation to Council is limited to the land use elements of
the proposal.
At the same time, there are many aspects of the non-land use elements that are consistent
with and supportive of the land-use elements. Staff recommends the Planning
Commission's recommendation to Council state that the non-land elements of the
proposal, including the non-land use amendments recommended by staff, are consistent
with and supportive of the land use elements. The suggested language for the
recommendation is reflected in draft motion 3 on pages 78-79.
Packet Materials
Page 1: Amendments Request Document
Page 78: Draft Motions Recommending Approval and Incorporating
Amendments
Page 80: Updated Staff Report
City of Tigard
TUT
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: John Floyd, Associate Planner and Todd Prager, Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Amendment Requests Document
Date: April 5, 2012
The February 6, 2012, Planning Commission hearing for the Urban Forestry Code
Revisions (UFCR) generated 47 land use related amendment requests and 47 non-land
use related amendment requests. The purpose of this document is to organize and
summarize all of the amendment requests and assist the Planning Commission in its
consideration of each request before a final recommendation to the City Council.
Public testimony on this document will be accepted at the April 16, 2012 meeting of
the Planning Commission.
Amendment requests are grouped as land use related and non-land use related, and
listed in chronological order by date received within each group. Some of the
amendments requests contain both land use and non-land use elements. In these cases
they are included in both groups.
Each request is documented with the following:
➢ Number of the request. (note: land use requests are prefaced with "LU" while
non-land use requests are prefaced with "NLU")
➢ Name of the requester(s).
➢ Date(s) of the request.
➢ A generalized statement of the request(s). In cases of short or specific requests,
staff has quoted directly from testimony received. In both cases staff drew from
the oral testimony at the February 6, 2012 public hearing and written
testimony presented to the Planning Commission until the record closed on
February 17, 2012.
1
➢ Staff response.
➢ Staff recommendation.
➢ Recommended amendment language, if applicable. (note: land use amendments
are prefaced with "LU" while non-land use amendments are prefaced with
"NLU")
In cases where the requester made the same request multiple times, or where two or
more parties commented on the same issue, staff has combined them into one entry
for purposes of efficiency. Thematic variations or directly opposing requests are noted
in each entry. Staff responses are proportional to the specificity and complexity of the
amendment request.
Based on the amendment requests received, staff recommends the following
amendments to the staff proposed UFCR (see the full request, response and
recommendation at the page number listed for more complete information):
➢ LU Amendment 1: Minor text amendment to the summary heading of section
18.790.030.A (see page 14)
➢ LU Amendment 2: Reduce the per lot effective tree canopy cover requirement
to 15% in Chapter 18.790 (see page 23)
➢ LU Amendment 3: Correct scrivener's error in section 18.790.030.0 (see page
24)
➢ LU Amendment 4: Correct scrivener's errors in ESEE (see page 34)
➢ LU Amendment 5: Correct boundaries of significant tree groves #38 and #62 to
reflect changes due to recent tree removal (see page 34)
➢ LU Amendment 6: Minor text amendment to clarify the review and approval
process in sections 18.790.070.B.1-3 (see page 37)
➢ NLU Amendment 1: Grant 1.25x bonus credit for planting native trees (see
page 44)
➢ NLU Amendment 2: Reduce the per lot effective tree canopy cover
requirement to 15% in the Urban Forestry Manual (see page 55)
➢ NLU Amendment 3: Minor text amendment to remove a repetitive approval
criterion for tree removal permit requirements in sensitive lands (see page 57)
Key to Acronyms used in this document:
➢ CAC: Citizen Advisory Committee
➢ COT: City of Tigard
➢ CWS: Clean Water Services
➢ DBH: Diameter at Breast Height
➢ DLCD: Department of Land Conservation and Development
2
➢ ESEE: Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy [elaborate?]
➢ GIS: Geographic Information System
➢ LU: Land Use
➢ LUBA: Land Use Board of Appeals
➢ NLU: Non-Land Use
➢ ODFW: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
➢ OAR: Oregon Administrative Rules
➢ ORS: Oregon Revised Statue
➢ SDC: Systems Development Charge
➢ TDC: Tigard Development Code
➢ TMC: Tigard Municipal Code
➢ UFCR: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project
➢ UFM: Urban Forestry Manual
➢ UFP: Urban Forestry Plan
➢ USDA: United States Department of Agriculture
3
Land Use (LU) Related Amendment Requests
LU1, Steve Martin,January 11, 2012
Amendment Request: Increase allowed residential density in the MUE zone or
remove limitations like the MUE-1 zone to make retaining tree groves economically
meaningful.
Staff Response: The state's Transportation Planning Rule requires a city proposing a
zone change to perform a traffic impact analysis. Allowing additional units is a zone
change and the city does not have the budget or time to complete a traffic impact
analysis as part of the UFCR project.
The MUE zone is located in the Tigard Triangle and it is a goal of the city to increase
density and spur development in this area. Currently, a high capacity land use study is
being finalized and a Tigard Triangle plan is in its beginning stage. Both processes are
looking at potential changes to the Tigard Development Code and zoning that would
make the Tigard Triangle more attractive to developers and a location for increased
density. The high capacity land use study and Tigard Triangle plan are more
appropriate venues for discussing revising MUE regulations to facilitate the
preservation of significant tree groves.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
4
LU2, Steve Martin,January 11, 2012
Amendment Request: Building height restrictions in the MUE zone need to be
increased or removed to allow increased density. If a maximum height must be set,
then it should be at least 85 feet.
Staff Response: The CAC consensus recommendation was to allow increased
building height for commercial and industrial developments to facilitate the
preservation of significant tree groves (see UFCR Volume I, page 17). However, the
CAC also recommended protecting surrounding development from impacts associated
with excessively tall buildings.
The Tigard Building Division advised 20 additional feet of height is needed to
accommodate an additional floor for commercial and industrial buildings. The CAC
supported the staff proposal of allowing 20 additional feet of building height as a
compromise between providing a meaningful tree grove preservation incentive while
not allowing excessively tall buildings (see Section 18.790.050.D.3 and .4, page 323 of
Volume II)
If additional building height is desired in the MUE zone to allow increased density,
staff recommends further analysis through the high capacity land use study and Tigard
Triangle planning processes, for the reasons outlined in the staff response to LU1.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
5
LU3, Steve Martin,January 11, 2012
Amendment Request: Increase the reduction in required canopy coverage or give
administrator greater flexibility to reduce for the preservation of significant tree
groves.
Staff Response: The preservation of significant tree grove canopy would also receive
double credit for preservation towards the effective tree canopy requirements. In
addition, if 50% of a significant tree grove is preserved the "per lot" effective tree
canopy requirement would be waived (see Section 18.790.050.D.5, UFCR, Vol. II, p.
325). The CAC did not recommend further reducing effective tree canopy
requirements for the preservation of significant tree groves (UFCR, Vol.,I, p.17).
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
LU4, Steve Martin,January 11, 2012
Amendment Request: Remove as much uncertainty as to density, height restrictions,
setbacks and required canopy as possible for the preservation of significant tree groves.
Staff Response: The flexible standards and incentives for the preservation of
significant tree groves in Section 18.790.050.D are clear and objective standards that
provide certainty for applicants. A significant tree grove map will be maintained by
the director to identify the location and size of significant tree groves. The eligibility
requirements for the flexible standards and incentives are based on square footage and
percent preservation of significant tree groves. Flexibility on density, height setbacks,
and required canopy are also based on numerical standards that can be calculated
during land use review.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
6
LU5,John Frewing,January 12, 2012
Amendment Request: The canopy target approach should not be used because it is
novel to the United States.
Staff Response: The canopy target approach in the draft code is not novel in the
United States. Many cities and counties throughout the country, particularly in the
southeastern United States, have adopted tree canopy ordinances. The list includes,
but is not limited to:
> Louisville, Kentucky.
> Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
> Athens-Clark County, Georgia.
> San Antonio, Texas.
> Many cities/counties in Virginia as result of state enabling legislation adopted in
1989.
> Sherwood, Oregon [In the Council phase of the adoption process].
In 2003 the USDA Forest Service completed a white paper1 describing and comparing
ordinances based on the mature canopy growth of trees from sample cities in the
southeastern United States.
While tree canopy ordinances are well established in the United States, it is
recommended to tailor ordinance provisions to the local community to ensure broad
based support during implementation. This has been a priority during the UFCR, as
evidenced through the enhanced public engagement efforts throughout the project (see
Process Summary, UFCR Volume I, page 17).
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
1 Hartel,Dudley R.2003.Tree Canopy Ordinances. Athens, GA: Southern Center for Urban Forestry
Research and Information,USDA Forest Service.Accessed via the World Wide Web
<http://www.urbanforestrysouth.org/resources/library/tree-canopy-ordinances/file> on January 17, 2012.
7
LU6,John Frewing,January 12, 2012 (written), February 6, 2012 (oral), and
February 17, 2012 (written); Opposed by Ken Gertz, February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: Frewing: "require a calculated percentage of existing trees on
the development impact area of a site to remain as a condition of approval."
Gertz: "It is counterproductive and causes more trees to be cut than saved."
Staff Response: Consistent with the direction of the CAC majority, staff drafted code
that did not require a base level of preservation but instead gave bonus credits toward
meeting canopy targets to incentivize preservation. The committee's rationale for not
requiring a minimum level of preservation included not unfairly penalizing property
owners with trees, allowing flexibility for removing trees that may not be viable or
desirable and not impeding infill development (see November 10, 2010 meeting
minutes in the project record).
At the April 13, 2011 meeting, the eight of nine CAC members present voted to
approve the draft standards, which did not require a base level of preservation.
In response to public testimony received on the issue, Planning Commission discussed
whether to require a base level of preservation at their March 5, 2012, meeting. The
commission indicated their support for the CAC recommendation and did not direct
staff to include a base level of preservation in the draft code.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
8
LU7,John Frewing,January 12, 2012
Amendment Request: The canopy target approach should not be used because the
CAC was not provided any alternatives. "I urge you to start from the survey finding
that not all trees should be allowed to be removed, subject to mitigation, and then ask
staff to develop alternatives, which are in actual practice around the country."
Staff Response: Alternatives to the proposed code were considered, but the CAC
selected the canopy target approach as the preferred alternative.
In working with the CAC, staff developed pre-meeting surveys on each of the code
topics to differentiate between items where there was general agreement and general
disagreement. When there was general agreement on an item, staff drafted code
language consistent with the CAC's consensus. When there was general disagreement
on an item, it was pulled for further discussion at a CAC meeting. After discussion at
a CAC meeting, staff drafted code based on the direction of a majority of the CAC
members. Staff then returned with draft code language for a consensus decision by the
CAC as to whether the draft language was consistent with a majority of the
viewpoints of the CAC members.
The question of whether to require a base level of tree preservation was asked as part
of the pre-meeting survey for the November 10, 2010, meeting of the CAC. The
responses varied from the CAC members, so the question was pulled for further
discussion at the CAC meeting.
At their November 10, 2010, meeting, the CAC formed three small groups to discuss
the issue in more detail. When reporting back on their discussion results, two of the
groups were opposed to requiring a base level of preservation and one of the groups
was in favor.
Consistent with the direction of the CAC majority, staff drafted code that did not
require a base level of preservation, but instead gave bonus credits toward meeting
canopy targets to incentivize preservation. The CAC further discussed and refined the
draft code at subsequent meetings. At the meeting on April 13, 2011, the CAC voted
on the refined draft standards, which included tiered canopy targets based on zoning,
no base level of preservation and bonus credits to incentivize preservation. Of the nine
CAC members present, eight supported the draft standards and one did not support
the draft standards. Mr. Frewing was the dissenting vote, citing the lack of a base
preservation requirement as one of his reasons for dissention.
9
Staff believes the CAC had ample opportunity to discuss alternatives to the proposed
code which could have included a base requirement for preservation. However, the
consensus of the CAC was to not require a base level of preservation and the proposed
code reflects that consensus.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
10
LU8,John Frewing,January 12, 2012
Amendment Request: The draft code ignores smaller sites, which predominate in
Tigard. Revise so that code applies to infill development and redevelopment. "The
City of Portland has set a good example, requiring compliance with the new urban
forest code when a specified major change occurs on an existing site - e.g., a specified
change in square foot of the development or a specified monetary addition to a
development. Such provisions should be included in the Tigard Code."
Staff Response: The draft code does not ignore smaller sites and redevelopment sites
in Tigard.
The draft code standards are applicable to Minor Land Partitions (see Section
18.790.020, page 295 of UFCR Volume II) when lots are divided to create two or three
lots. These infill sites represent a significant portion of potential future development
and applying the draft canopy standards to Minor Land Partitions support Tigard's
long-term urban forestry goals.
The draft code standards are also applicable to larger projects such as Subdivisions and
Planned Developments, redevelopment projects that require Conditional Use Permits,
Downtown Design Reviews and Site Development Reviews (see Section 18.790.020,
page 295 of UFCR Volume II). Redevelopment projects are triggered by activities that
exceed specified thresholds and represent significant opportunities to increase canopy
by applying the draft code standards in commercial, industrial and institutional areas
of Tigard.
However, Tigard's application of proposed urban forestry requirements for single
family residential development would differ markedly from Portland's. Portland's
requirements are triggered when a certain threshold for single family residential
remodeling is exceeded. Tigard's requirements would be triggered for single family
residential development only in conjunction with land divisions (Minor Land
Partitions and Subdivisions). This is consistent with the structure of the Tigard
Development Code for applying of other development code requirements and
continues current application of urban forestry regulations.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
11
LU9 & NLU2,John Frewing,January 12, 2012
Amendment Request: The draft code should be revised to allow public input on
future changes.
Staff Response: The public would have input opportunities for changes to the code
and administrative rules in the UFM.
Changes to the development code (Title 18) require public notice and opportunity for
appeal as governed by Section 18.390.060 of the Tigard Development Code.
Changes to the municipal code (non-Title 18) are required by ordinance, which is
noticed publicly through the City Council agenda and packet and governed by
Chapter VIII of The City of Tigard Charter. Council practice is to adopt potentially
contentious municipal code ordinances (e.g. urban forestry), following a public
hearing, to consider any public input prior to voting.
Changes to administrative rules in the UFM require public notice and opportunity for
appeal as governed by Section 2.04.070 of the Tigard Municipal Code.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code, municipal code
or UFM based on this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
12
LU10 & NLU3,John Frewing,January 12, 2012 and February 17, 2012; Opposed by
Ken Gertz, February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: Frewing: The construction of the draft code results in the
canopy approach not being enforceable. Code relies upon submittal requirements, not
approval criteria. Canopy cover provisions lack certainty as required by Oregon
Revised Statutes and LUBA opinions. Include more specific approval criteria and
move definitions from Title 8 to Title 18. (January 12)
"I ask that staff prepare appropriate changes to include approval criteria in the
development code....[approval criteria] must be clear and objective...both the code and
UFM include standards which are not clear and objective, for example (Vol II):
p. 301 "applicable approval criteria"
p. 303 "any conflicting requirements"
p. 307 "unreasonable risk", "adequate emergency access"
p. 309 "minimum required to achieve the desired effect", "preference"
p. 319 "balancing the considerations"
p. 387 "unless otherwise approved by the city manager or designee" (February 17)
Gertz: "Be sure the tree plan is a submission requirement and not an approval
criteria."
Staff Response: Staff, in conjunction with the City Attorney, has developed code
language to ensure the tree canopy requirements in the draft code are enforceable for
applicable land use permits.
Chapter 18.790 of the code, and Section 10 of the UFM, require tree canopy
requirements to be met for certain Type II and III land use permits (CUP, DDR,
MLP, PD, SLR, SDR, and SUB). This is clearly stated in code Sections 18.790.020 and
18.790.030 (see UFCR Volume II, pages 301 and 303 respectively). The approval
criteria in the chapters, for each of these land use permits, references compliance with
all applicable development requirements, which include the tree canopy requirements
in Chapter 18.790 and Section 10 of the UFM. This continues current administration
of the code regarding the applicability of the requirements in Chapter 18.790.
However, staff realizes the summary heading in Section 18.790.030.A may be
confusing because it uses the term "submittal requirements." While the summary
heading does not supersede the text of the regulation, staff recommends removal of the
word "submittal" from the summary heading for clarification purposes.
13
Staff Recommendation: Revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request. Do not revise proposed municipal code or UFM based on this
amendment request.
LU Amendment 1: (Section 18.790.030.A (Urban Forestry Plan Requirements))
"A. Urban Forestry Plan Submittal Requirements. An urban forestry plan
shall:" ...
[no further changes]
LU11, ODFW,January 20, 2012
Amendment Request: Add intact forest stands along Fanno Creek in the Hall
St/Burnham/Hunziker area. Supply ODFW with process for selection of tree groves
and allow for public review.
Staff Response: Staff met with the Planning Commission, City Council and
Winterbrook Planning to develop the criteria for initial review and selection of
significant tree groves. Based on those meetings, which included consideration of
available budget, the initial review and selection criteria included contiguous groves of
native trees over two acres in canopy area. Metro tree canopy maps, GIS technology
and field visits were used to identify groves that fit the criteria (see Tigard Tree Grove
Assessment Report, UFCR Volume II, page 113). Specific groves that are not included
in the inventory likely did not meet the two-acre size threshold.
The ESEE, which was not yet completed at the time the request for comments, was
sent to affected agencies. As requested, staff has provided ODFW the ESEE. The ESEE
is available for public review as well in UFCR Volume III, page 17.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed significant tree map based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
14
LU12 & NLU5, ODFW,January 20, 2012; and Sue Beilke, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: Add language in the code and UFM to support preservation of
Oregon white oak and appropriate replacement of oak with oak, if removal is
necessary.
Staff Response: The CAC consensus was for flexible standards and incentives to
preserve trees rather than requiring preservation (see Guiding Principles, UFCR
Volume I, page 16). The flexible standards and incentives for preservation include lot
size averaging, setback adjustments, sidewalk adjustments, parking adjustments and
landscaping adjustments (see Section 18.790.050.C). In addition, double credit towards
effective tree canopy requirements in Section 10, Part 3 of the UFM, is intended to
incentivize the preservation of existing trees.
The CAC consensus was also to allow a mix of native and non-native trees to meet
effective tree canopy requirements (see November 10, 2010, pre-meeting survey in the
project record). This allows applicants to select the most appropriate trees for
preservation and planting, based on site conditions. The specific requirement of
replacing oak with oak was not discussed by the CAC.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code, municipal code
or UFM based on this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
15
LU13, ODFW,January 20, 2012
Amendment Request: Strike the base requirement for 10,000 square feet of significant
tree grove canopy not already protected by floodplain, stream corridor and/or
wetland regulations, to qualify for significant tree grove preservation incentives and
replace with more appropriate language or leave out.
Staff Response: The CAC consensus recommendation was to require a base
preservation requirement to utilize the tree grove preservation incentives (see Guiding
Principles, UFCR Volume I, page 17). Their reasoning was, for applicants to benefit
from the tree grove preservation incentives in Section 18.790.050.D (minimum density
reduction, density transfer, additional building height, etc.), there should be
corresponding community benefit. For example, 20 feet additional building height
should not be allowed for preserving one tree that happened to be part of a significant
tree grove. The proposed base preservation requirement is 10,000 square feet, or
roughly 1/4 acre of tree grove canopy, to be eligible for the tree grove preservation
incentives.
In many cases, development is already limited or prohibited in floodplains, stream
corridors and wetlands by other regulations. Therefore, the proposal is not to provide
incentives for preserving tree groves in areas already protected by other regulations.
Instead, the proposal is to provide incentives for preserving at least 10,000 square feet
of at-risk tree groves, not already protected by other regulations.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
16
LU14,John Frewing,January 23, 2012
Amendment Request: Would like some clarification of the canopy standards memo
and how this relates to the draft code.
Staff Response: The canopy standards memo in the UFCR (Vol. III, page 7),
demonstrates why staff believes the tree canopy requirements in the draft code are
achievable.
To simplify the memo, the assumptions are that tree canopy is possible on typical lots,
except within building footprints and 50% of lot area not already occupied by tree
canopy (to account for open space preference and poor growing conditions).
Based on these assumptions, possible tree canopy for each zoning district exceed the
minimum that is required in the draft code. More importantly, the requirements in
the draft code have been tested through the peer review phase, and are shown to be
achievable on a range of actual development projects (see Peer Review, UFCR, Vol. II,
p. 463).
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
17
LU15,John Frewing,January 23, 2012
Amendment Request: The Goal 5 rule requirements should apply to tree canopy
regulations, soil volume regulations, etc., in addition to the tree grove preservation
incentives.
Staff Response: The Goal 5 rule requirements are not applicable to canopy cover
regulations, soil volume regulations or other development code regulations other than
the tree grove preservation incentives in Section 18.790.050.D. The Department of
Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) staff addressed this question directly,
in response to the city's request for clarification on this issue, during the
Comprehensive Plan Amendments incorporating urban forestry goals and policies (see
DLCD correspondence in the project record). DLCD explained that:
"With regard to establishing policies to protect and encourage the growth of trees
within the city, although there may be some shared objectives, there is not necessarily
a direct link between such a policy and Goal 5 . . .the applicability requirement for
OAR 660-023-0250 is very specific...[in relevant part, to actions] that create or amend a
resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan or land use regulation adopted in
order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource."
The proposed tree canopy and soil volume requirements do not create or amend a
resource list or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a Goal 5 resource (see
summary of the city's Goal 5 program in the project record).
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise the proposed approach to the Goal 5 rule
requirements based on this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
18
LU16 & NLU20, Cleon Cox, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: Fees and taxes associated with these code amendments should
not negatively impact property owners.
Staff Response: The proposed code has been designed so it is achievable on the typical
range of development scenarios in Tigard (see Peer Review, UFCR, Vol. II, p. 463).
The proposed tree canopy fee is an option for not providing trees and is a conservative
estimate for the value of tree canopy (UFCR, Vol. III, p. 15).
Specific permit costs are established by the City Council through the Master Fees and
Charges Schedule and allow for partial or full administrative cost recovery. However,
one of the CAC's Guiding Principles is to provide a low- or no-fee administrative
review process for the most common tree permits (UFCR, Vol. I, p. 19).
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code, municipal code
or UFM based on this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
19
LU17 and NLU21, Brian Lewis, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: Agrees with Mr. Fre wing that tree count is better than tree
canopy requirements. There should be a minimum tree count.
Staff Response: When drafting the Development Code revisions, staff studied a tree
density requirements (requiring X number of trees per square feet of development
area, sometimes referred to as "tree count") and compared it with a tree canopy
requirements (requiring X square feet of canopy per square feet of development area).
The tree canopy requirements was selected as the preferred alternative for the
following reasons:
• The tree canopy requirement allows more flexibility for the project designer to
meet code requirements due to the wide variation of canopy shapes by species. A
tree density requirement presents the project designer with more limited options to
meet numerical tree planting requirements.
• The tree canopy requirement is more consistent with urban forest science and the
city's long-term urban forestry goals. The benefits of trees (economic,
environmental and social) are derived primarily from their canopies, rather than
number of trees. The tree canopy requirement encourages large stature,
appropriately spaced trees, which have the highest benefit/cost ratios. A tree
density requirement allows small stature, closely spaced trees to meet numerical
requirements.
• The tree canopy requirements requires the project designer to consider future
canopy growth, which helps ensure that trees are properly placed within a site to
become long-term amenities. The tree canopy requirement encourages appropriate
tree spacing and setbacks from buildings by highlighting mature canopy growth,
whereas a tree density requirement focuses on planting a certain number of trees
and does not take mature growth into account.
• The tree canopy requirement provides more consistency in development
outcomes. For example, a parking lot planted to meet a numerical tree density
requirement can look very different after future growth, depending on whether
small ornamental trees or large shade trees are selected. The tree canopy
requirement helps normalize outcomes.
• Planting trees to meet either a tree canopy requirement or a tree density
requirement both rely upon successful establishment and long-term maintenance
by property owners. However, the tree canopy requirement focuses more on
long-term growth during the initial design phase, so that trees are more likely to
become long-term site amenities.
20
In response to public testimony received on the issue, the Planning Commission
further discussed their preference for a tree density versus a tree canopy requirement
at their March 5, 2012, meeting. The commission indicated support for continuing
with a tree canopy requirement.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code or UFM based on
this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
LU18, Ken Gertz, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: 18.360.090 - The wording "where possible" is vague and opens
the tree plan to appeal. Change to a clear and objective requirement and word to
allow development to maximum allowed.
Staff Response: This phrase "where possible" in Section 18.360.090 is existing
language addressing the relationship of buildings to the natural and physical
environment. Because of its broad application, revising this phrase is out of scope for
the UFCR.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
LU19, Ken Gertz, February 6, 2012; Stonebridge Homes, February 14, 2012; and JT
Smith Companies, February 15, 2012
Amendment Request: 18.530.050.B - Change requirement for street trees from 3"
minimum caliper to 2" minimum caliper.
Staff Response: The requirement for three-inch caliper trees in Section 18.530.050.B is
an existing code provision when increasing lot coverage from 75% to 80% in Industrial
Zoning Districts. Because this existing provision was likely a compromise as part of a
_past code revision project, staff recommends retaining the provision.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
21
LU20 & NLU22, Ken Gertz, February 6, 2012; Opposed by John Frewing, February
17, 2012
Amendment Request: Gertz: 18.790.030.B - Remove 20% minimum canopy
requirement, canopy coverage should be averaged out across the site.
Frewing: "I support this idea, with the provision that if a lot has even a single tree > 6
inches in diameter dbh, one such tree must be saved on each lot."
Staff Response: Early in the process, staff initially proposed the tiered tree canopy
requirements to be met on a lot-by-lot basis, in addition to the overall development.
The CAC recommended allowing averaging of canopy across the overall development
site, while setting a minimum per lot tree canopy requirement. Staff proposed a 20%
per lot minimum requirement at the April 13, 2011, meeting and the committee
approved the proposal by consensus (see minutes in the project record). The rationale
for having a minimum per lot tree canopy requirement is to spread the distribution of
trees, and therefore tree benefits and maintenance responsibilities, more evenly across
a development site.
In response to public testimony received, the Planning Commission expressed
interested at their March 5, 2012, meeting regarding potentially providing more
flexibility on this issue. The Planning Commission considered that reducing the per
lot tree canopy requirement would likely not raise major issues since it was not a
major part of the deliberations when developing the proposal (see summary of
community ideas and concerns, UFCR Volume I, page 36). Also, street tree
requirements in Section 18.745.040 would still apply and support an evening of the
distribution of trees across the development site. Finally, if the per lot tree canopy
requirement were reduced, the effective tree canopy requirement for the overall
development site would be reduced, which may be a desired side effect for the
commission.
In reviewing past development projects that were peer reviewed by AKS Engineering
and Forestry, staff found only four residential lots that, in addition to the required
street trees, had to plant additional trees in backyards to meet the 20% per lot
minimum requirement (UFCR, Volume II, p. 463 and the additional peer review
provided in the March 5, 2012, Planning Commission meeting packet). While the
sample size is small, staff found that if the per lot minimum were reduced to 15% it
could be met by planting one medium stature street tree in two of the lots, thus
eliminating trees in the backyards. The unique configurations of the other two lots
require one backyard tree to meet the 15% per lot minimum requirement. Therefore,
22
staff recommends the commission consider reducing the per lot minimum to 15%.
Staff Recommendation: Revise proposed development code and UFM based on this
amendment request.
LU Amendment 2: (Section 18.790.030.B(Urban Forestry Plan Requirements))
"B. Tree Canopy Fee. If the supplemental arborist report demonstrates that
the applicable standard percent effective tree canopy cover in Section 10, part 3, item
N. will not be provided through any combination of tree planting or preservation for
the overall development site (excluding streets), or that the 20 15 percent 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), then the applicant shall
provide the city a tree canopy fee according to the methodology outlined in Section
10, part 4 of the UFM. ...
[no further changes]
(Section 18.790.050.D.5 (Flexible Incentives and Standards for the
Preservation of Significant Tree Groves))
1. Adjustment to Minimum Effective Canopy Requirement.
The requirement for 20 15 percent effective tree canopy cover per lot is not
required when: ...
[no further changes]
(Section 18.790.050.D.5, Commentary)
The fifth flexible and incentive based standard is an adjustment to the minimum
effective canopy requirement. A standard Urban Forestry Plan requires 20 15 percent
effective tree canopy per lot in addition to the overall development site effective
canopy requirement which is based on zoning (25, 33 or 40 percent). ...
[no further changes]
NLU Amendment 2: (UFM Section 10, Part 3.0(Urban Forestry Plan - Supplemental
Arborist Report Requirements))
0. If the percent of effective tree canopy cover is less than the applicable standard
percent in item n above for the overall development or less than 20 15 percent for any
lot or tract (when the overall development site meets or exceeds the standard percent
effective tree canopy cover in item n), calculate the tree canopy fee required to meet
the applicable standard percent effective tree canopy cover in item n above for the
overall development site or 20 15 percent effective tree canopy cover for each lot or
tract (only if the overall development site meets or exceeds the standard percent
23
effective tree canopy cover in item n but individual lots or tracts do provide 20 15
percent effective tree canopy cover) according to the methodology in Section 10, part
4 of the Urban Forestry Manual.
(UFM Section 10, Part 4.A.2 (Urban Forestry Plan - Tree Canopy
Fee Calculation Requirements))
2. In cases where the overall development site meets the standard
percentage in part 3.N above yet the percentage of effective tree canopy
cover is less than 20 15 percent for any individual lot or tract, find the
difference (in square feet) between the proposed effective tree canopy
cover and 20 15 percent effective tree canopy cover for each deficient lot
or tract and multiply the difference (in square feet) by:" ...
[no further changes]
LU21, Ken Gertz, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: 18.790.030.0 - "you skipped C and went directly to D"
Staff Response: This scrivener's error should be corrected. It is important to note the
city recorder is authorized to correct such errors by Section 1.01.080 of the Tigard
Municipal Code.
Staff Recommendation: Revise proposed code based on this amendment request.
LU Amendment 3: (18.790.030.C(Urban Forestry Plan Requirements))
"D.C. Tree Canopy Fee Use. Tree canopy fees provided to the city shall ... "
[no further changes]
24
LU22, Ken Gertz, February 6, 2012 and February 17, 2012; Opposed by John
Frewing, February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: Gertz: 18.790.050.C.3 - Add language allowing sidewalks in
easements with reduced setbacks for preservation and planting.
Frewing: "I oppose such a change. Such a change is simply a ruse to increase density
by about 10 percent on a given project, allowing 11 lots on a typical site rather than 10
lots. This translates to about a 10 percent increase in profit for the land developer
without any corresponding public benefits, since the already required planter strip will
contain trees."
Staff Response: The city's development engineer is already authorized to approve
sidewalks in easements. It is not necessary to restate the requirement in Section
18.790.050.C.3.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
LU23, Ken Gertz, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: 18.790.070.A&B is confusing and ambiguous. Change
language to add more clarity.
Staff Response: The proposed language in Section 18.790.070 is clear. Modifications
to the Urban Forestry Plan component of an approved land use permit are allowed
through a Type I process. This is documented in the guiding principles for the urban
forestry standards for development (see UFCR Volume I, page 16) and in the
commentary for the proposed code amendments (see UFCR Volume II, page 332).
Certain minor modification such as removing hazard trees, changing tree planting
plans, and modifying tree protection fencing, when approved by the project arborist,
would be allowed outright without a permit by Section 18.790.070.B.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
25
LU24, Ken Gertz, February 6, 2012 and February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: 18.790.070.B - Modification process should allow payment of
fee in lieu as an allowed change to an approved canopy plan.
Staff Response: The proposed modification process in Section 18.790.070.B are for
typical modifications during the development process such as removing hazard trees,
changing tree planting species and locations and modifying tree protection fencing
location. These low level modifications would be allowed administratively by staff
without a permit and fee because they are common occurrences and will usually result
in community expectations being met.
The proposed modification process in Section 18.790.070.0 would allow for more
significant modifications such as paying a fee in lieu of planting or preservation
through a Type I permit process. The Type I process is proposed for these more
significant modifications to formalize the approval of modifications that are less
common and may result in community expectations not being met.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
LU25, Sue Beilke, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: Require all land use modifications affecting trees to be
processed as a Type II procedure in order to provide public notice and input.
Staff Response: One of the core Guiding Principles of the CAC was to allow
modifications of an Urban Forestry Plan during the course of development through a
Type I process so that preservation and planting strategies can be easily adapted (see
UFCR Volume I, page 16). Staff committed to the CAC to preserve their Guiding
Principles through the legislative adoption process unless otherwise directed by the
commission or the council. The commission has not directed staff to remove language
allowing modifications through a Type I process.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
26
LU26, Sue Beilke, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: Remove language allowing alternative technologies such as
green roofs in lieu of tree canopy.
Staff Response: One of the core Guiding Principles of the CAC was to provide
flexibility by allowing alternate development proposals such as green roofs or solar
instead of providing trees (see UFCR Volume I, page 16). Staff committed to the CAC
to preserve their Guiding Principles through the legislative adoption process unless
otherwise directed by the Planning Commission or the council. The Planning
Commission had not directed staff to remove language allowing alternate development
proposals.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
LU27, Sue Beilke, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: Create special status protections for all native trees, tree
groves and areas considered to be declining or rare; require permits for their removal.
Staff Response: The staff proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment would establish
an overlay district for 70 significant tree groves covering 544 acres. The significant tree
groves are comprised primarily of trees native to the Tigard area. As further explained
in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis beginning on UFCR Volume III, page 27, key
evaluation criteria in the inventory and selection of significant tree groves were grove
maturity/tree size, grove size, health/viability, visibility, screening and buffering,
accessibility, rarity, educational/recreational potential, wildlife habitat value and
connectivity and the amount of existing disturbance.
The proposed Development Code Amendments in Section 18.790.050.D include
regulatory incentives and flexible standards for the optional preservation of significant
tree groves. Optional preservation is consistent with the CAC's Guiding Principles for
tree grove preservation incentives (see UFCR Volume I, page 17). Staff committed to
the CAC to preserve their Guiding Principles through the legislative adoption process
unless otherwise directed by the Planning Commission or City Council. The Planning
Commission had not directed staff to create additional special status protections for
significant tree groves.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
27
LU28, Sue Beilke, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: Amend UFCR to comply with and implement Goal 5 and the
Tigard Comprehensive Plan Natural Resources chapter.
Staff Response: As further explained in the staff report for CPA 2011-00004/DCA
2011-00002, the proposed UFCR comply with Statewide Planning Goal 5 and the
Tigard Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed approach to the Goal 5 rule
requirements code based on this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
LU29, Sue Beilke, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: Resubmittal of comments provided on March 16, 2009, for
DCA2009-00001.
Staff Response: Since these comments are directed at previous Development Code
Amendments (DCA2009-00001) staff has not responded to them as part of the
proposed UFCR.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
LU30, Robert Ruedy, February 6, 2012 (oral) and February 9, 2012 (written)
Amendment Request: Include solar access standards by establishing height and
setback standards for trees, similar to buildings.
Staff Response: As detailed in the Urban Forestry Code Revisions and Solar Access
memo provided to the Planning Commission at their February 6, 2012 meeting, the
UFCR is not intended to prioritize tree canopy over solar access, nor does it change
the existing rights of neighboring landowners if a tree is shading an adjoining
property. The UFCR does provide flexible and incentive based development
standards to allow long-term solar access on a project site. This flexibility is provided
in an applicant's choice of tree species and planting locations, preservation bonuses, a
discretionary path and a fee in lieu option.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
28
LU31, Robert Ruedy, February 6, 2012 (oral) and February 9, 2012 (written)
Amendment Request: Add clarifying language regarding how Measure 49 waivers
will be negated or impacted by the new development code and how compensation will
be accomplished and measured.
Staff Response: Measure 49 is not applicable within the Urban Growth Boundary
and, more specifically, not within the incorporated boundaries of the City of Tigard.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
LU32 & NLU36, Robert Ruedy, February 6, 2012 (oral) and February 9, 2012
(written)
Amendment Request: Add language specifying maintenance responsibilities that will
be "equitably distributed among ALL COT property owners both public and
private."
Staff Response: Urban Forestry Program Funding is part of the Tigard Tree Board's
ongoing work program and not part of the UFCR project.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code or municipal code
based on this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
LU33, Robert Ruedy, February 9, 2012
Amendment Request: Please hold the record open for an additional two weeks.
Staff Response: The Planning Commission held the record open after the February 6,
2012, meeting until February 17, 2012, at 5pm.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise the project schedule based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
29
LU34, Robert Ruedy, February 9, 2012
Amendment Request: Supports other testimony that limits application of the UFCR
to low density, single-family properties and discretionary "case-by-case"
implementation for all other development.
Staff Response: The UFCR CAC reached consensus to draft the following achievable
canopy standards for development that are tiered based on zoning district:
Tier 1: 40% effective canopy'
Tier 2: 33% effective canopy'
Tier 3: 25% effective canopy'
For added flexibility, a discretionary review option allows other green building or
development methods (e.g. solar panels, green roofs, rain gardens, etc.) in place of
planting or preserving the required amount of trees. Finally, a fee in lieu option
allows applicants to pay a "tree canopy fee" to replace the value of canopy not
provided through tree planting or preservation (see Guiding Principles, UFCR
Volume I, page 15).
The peer review demonstrates that the standards are achievable without payment of
fees in lieu or discretionary reviews (see UFCR Volume II, page 463). However,
applicants would have the option of paying fees or discretionary review in lieu of
providing trees.
Staff committed to the CAC to preserve their Guiding Principles through the
legislative adoption process unless otherwise directed by the Planning Commission or
the City Council. Neither the CAC nor the Planning Commission has recommended
limiting the UFCR to low density residential districts.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
2 R-1,R-2,R-3.5,R-4.5,R-7, and R-12
3 R-25,R-40, C-N, C-C, C-G, C-P, MUE,MUE-1,MUE-2,MUC,MUR, and I-P
4 MU-CBD,MUC-1,I-L,I-H,and schools (18.130.050(J))
30
LU35, Robert Ruedy, February 9, 2012
Amendment Request: "Green Roof" options should be accepted in lieu of trees.
Staff Response: The proposed Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review option in
Section 18.790.040 would allow applicants to propose the use of green roofs in lieu of
trees through a Type III approval process.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
LU36, Gretchen Fehrenbacher, February 10, 2012
Amendment Request: Requests no preservation requirement and no canopy
requirement as her property is served with nearby open space (within 1/2 mile).
Staff Response: Preservation is not required by the proposed code. Tiered canopy
standards are proposed that can be met through any combination of planting new
trees or preserving existing trees.
If trees are not feasible or desirable, a discretionary review option is proposed to allow
other green building or development methods (e.g. solar panels, green roofs, rain
gardens, etc.) in place of providing the required amount of trees. Also, a fee in lieu
option is proposed to allow applicants to pay a "tree canopy fee" to replace the value
of canopy not provided (see Guiding Principles, UFCR Volume I, page 15).
Staff committed to the CAC to preserve their Guiding Principles through the
legislative adoption process unless otherwise directed by Planning Commission or the
City Council. Neither the CAC nor the Planning Commission has recommended
waiving the UFCR when property is served by nearby open space.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
31
LU37 and NLU37, Stone Bridge Homes NW, February 14, 2012
Amendment Request: Revise the code to provide more simplicity and brevity, and
allow homeowners and landscape architects to perform more work rather than
arborists.
Staff Response: The core code sections of the UFCR in Title 8 and Chapter 18.790
are relatively simple and brief. Much of the length in UFCR Volume II comes from
the commentary pages, ensuring consistency between related code chapters and strike-
through of existing text.
Title 8 does not require arborists except for the technical tasks of tree risk assessment
and thinning stands of trees to improve stand health.
Chapter 18.790 continues the current code requirement for arborists to prepare Urban
Forestry Plans for development.
The UFM includes more detailed specifications for implementing the code. However,
the specifications largely document the city's current operating procedures and are
intended to provide more certainly regarding city requirements. If the city were to
provide less detail, disputes over interpretation would likely result after
implementation. Lack of certainty and clear expectations are common complaints
with the existing code, and the UFM is intended to address these issues.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code, municipal code
or UFM based on this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
32
LU38, Harris McMonagle Associates, February 15, 2012
Amendment Request: "The mention of the director having veto power if he/she
does not like what they see in the development pattern, this is way too much
subjective power to be placed in anyone."
Staff Response: Section 18.790.020.A requires urban forestry plans for certain Type II
and Type III land use reviews. Section 18.390.020.B says that Type II reviews contain
some discretionary criteria and Type III reviews contain predominantly discretionary
criteria.
Section 18.790.050 (Flexible Standards for Tree Planting and Preservation) grants the
director authority to deviate from standard code requirements such as lot size,
setbacks, sidewalk location, parking, etc., to facilitate the planting and preservation of
trees. However, if the director makes a finding that deviating from the standard
application of the code presents an unreasonable risk to public health, safety or
welfare the director may deny the request. As stated above, the director has the
authority to exercise such discretion as part of Type II and III land use reviews.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
LU39, Harris McMonagle Associates, February 15, 2012
Amendment Request: Allow adjustments to standards to allow the preservation of
existing trees.
Staff Response: Section 18.790.050 of the proposed code allows adjustments to
standards for the preservation of existing trees.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
33
LU40,John Frewing, February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: The ESEE analysis needs editorial corrections to incorporate
correct references to the Tigard Development Code, and substantive updating to Site
#62 and Grove #71.
Staff Response: In reviewing the ESEE analysis, staff recommends correcting some
scrivener's errors to ensure accurate references to code chapters.
Staff also recommends revising the boundaries of inventoried Tree Groves #38 and #62
in the Significant Tree Grove Map since portions of these groves have been removed
since the original inventory was completed in summer 2010. The Significant Tree
Grove Map may be adjusted because the legislative adoption process is not yet
completed.
Staff does not think the boundaries of Tree Grove #71 in the Significant Tree Grove
Map should be revised because no trees have been removed since the original
inventory was completed in summer 2010.
Finally, the descriptions for Tree Groves #62 and #71 are derived from field notes
provided by the consultant at the time of the inventory and do not affect the
boundaries or preservation incentives for these groves and should not be revised (see
UFCR Volume III, pages 125, 170 and 177).
Staff Recommendation: Revise the proposed ESEE analysis and Significant Tree
Grove Map based on the first part of this amendment request.
LU Amendment 4: (note: the full text from the ESEE analysis associated with these
corrected scrivener's errors is not provided)
Change "18.70" to "18.790" (see UFCR Volume III, page 22)
Change "18.770" to "18.790" (see UFCR Volume III, pages 33 and 83)
Change "18.750" to "18.790" (see UFCR Volume III, page 47)
Change "18.755" to "18.775" (see UFCR Volume III, pages 34 (4 times), 47 and 64)
LU Amendment 5: Adjust boundaries of inventoried Tree Groves #38 and #62 as
shown on the attached Significant Tree Grove Map (note: the amended Significant
Tree Grove Map is on page 76 and provided with the staff report for the April 16,
2012 Planning Commission meeting).
34
LU41,John Frewing, February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: "The ESEE introduction (page 17, Vol III) doesn't reflect
reality in saying that the tree grove preservation program was identified as a "top
priority" of the community....in the statistically valid survey (beginning page 285, Vol
III), among the open ended input by the community, there was not ONE suggestion
that a tree grove program was needed, whereas there were many statements that the
major interest was in preserving existing trees generally...I ask that you request staff to
include text recognizing the greater importance given to tree preservation over tree
groves by Tigard citizens in the legislative basis for this proposal."
Staff Response: The ESEE introduction is an accurate summary of community input
(see UFCR Volume III, page 17). The Urban Forestry Master Plan identified the
development of a tree grove protection program as one of six implementation goals
for the city (see UFCR Volume III, pages 253, 257 and 267-268). An extensive public
process gleaned information from the community that was used to create these
implementation goals, including a statistically valid survey. Survey question REG6
directly asked respondents their preferred focus of potential new tree protection
measures. Focusing on large groves received a 55.25% response rate, while focusing on
individual trees received 28.25% (see UFCR Volume III, page 298).
The ESEE analysis is specific to significant tree groves subject to Statewide Planning
Goal 5 rule requirements. Individual trees are not addressed in the ESEE because
individual trees are not considered goal 5 resources.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise the proposed ESEE analysis based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
35
LU42,John Frewing, February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: "The staff report should [be amended and] explicitly state that
the UFM is not a code amendment and that as I noted in an earlier comment, the city
has "unfettered discretion" in modifying the UFM. Hence, it cannot be relied on by
citizens as enforceable regulation for tree protection and urban forest enhancement."
Staff Response: The staff report explicitly describes the UFM in Section III,
Background Information of the staff report for CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002.
Changes to administrative rules in the UFM require public notice and opportunity for
appeal, as governed by Section 2.04.070 of the Tigard Municipal Code. Therefore, the
city does not have unfettered discretion with regards to the administrative rules in the
UFM.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise the staff report based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
LU43,John Frewing, February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: "[have] the code provide a threshold-based rule applying the
urban forest regulations to major redevelopments."
Staff Response: The proposed code applies the Urban Forestry Plan requirements to
major development projects that reach the thresholds requiring Type II and III land
use permits listed in Section 18.790.020.A.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
36
LU44,John Frewing, February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: "at 18.790.070.B.1.b, B.2.c, and B.3.b...the requirement
regarding urban forest modification is worded such that it is only required that a
modified plan and justification be submitted before changing the site plantings -
review and approval comes later, perhaps too late. I believe better wording would be
"Submitted for review and approval prior to (removal, planting, modification)".
Staff Response: In reviewing the code sections referenced above, staff agrees that
revising the sentence structure for clarification would be beneficial.
Staff Recommendation: Revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
LU Amendment 6: (18.790.070.B.1 (Exemptions[from the Type I Modification to the
Urban Forestry Plan Component of an Approved Land Use Permit]))
"b. A revised tree canopy site plan and supplemental arborist
report are submitted for review and approval prior to removal for review and
approval that reflect the proposed changes to the previously approved Urban Forestry
Plan. and The revised tree canopy site plan and supplemental arborist report shall
demonstrate how either the effective tree canopy cover requirements in Section 10,
part 3 of the UFM will be provided by the proposed combination of tree planting, and
preservation; and/or; payment of a tree canopy fee in lieu of planting or preservation.
cover and the effective tree canopy cover requirements in Section 10, part 3, of the
UFM for the lot or tract where the modification is proposed."
...[no further changes]
(18.790.070.B.2)
"c. A revised tree canopy site plan and supplemental arborist
report are submitted for review and approval prior to planting for review and
approval that reflect the proposed changes to the previously approved Urban Forestry
Plan."...
[no further changes]
(18.790.070.B.3)
"b. A revised tree preservation and removal site plan, tree
canopy site plan and supplemental arborist report are submitted for review and
approval prior to modification of the tree protection fencing for review and approval
that reflect the proposed modifications to the previously approved Urban Forestry
Plan."...
[no further changes]
37
LU45 & NLU42,John Frewing, February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: Change the structure of the code to comply with Oregon land
use law. "I believe, the proposed structure of Tigard's proposal (substantive material
displaced to an administrative rule) violates Oregon's land use law. ORS 197.175(2)(b)
regarding city planning responsibilities requires Tigard to "enact land use regulations
to implement their comprehensive plans"...the law refers to regulations, not
administrative rules. ORS 227.173 regarding the basis for land use decisions states that
"approval or denial" of a discretionary permit application shall be based on standards
and criteria set forth in development ordinances." ORS 197.805 states that the Land
Use Board of Appeals shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review any land use decision.
By structuring its material as proposed, Tigard prejudices/eliminates my substantial
rights to a land use decision under Oregon land use law."
Staff Response: Section 18.790.030 (Urban Forestry Plan Requirements) requires
applicants to demonstrate technical standards in the UFM are met. If someone believes
an Urban Forestry Plan does not meet the technical standards in the UFM, they may
appeal the decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Referencing technical standards
in development codes is a common practice such as when performing wetland
delineations, traffic studies, road and utility construction, etc. The proposed code
complies with Oregon land use laws.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code or UFM based on
this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
38
LU46, Ken Gertz, February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: Add language at the beginning of the code stating "that
regardless of a tree plan requirement, Private Property should be allowed to develop
to its stated potential".
Staff Response: The proposed Urban Forestry Plan requirements can be met through
any combination of planting new trees or preserving existing trees.
If trees are not feasible or desirable, a discretionary review option is proposed to allow
other green building or development methods (e.g. solar panels, green roofs, rain
gardens, etc.) in place of providing the required amount of trees. Also, a fee in lieu
option is proposed to allow applicants to pay a "tree canopy fee" to replace the value
of canopy not provided (see Guiding Principles, UFCR Volume I, page 15).
The Urban Forestry Plan requirements have been designed to provide maximum
flexibility so that property can be developed as otherwise allowed by code. It is not
necessary to add the language recommended in this amendment request.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
LU47 LU, Ken Gertz, February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: Revisit "tree boxes" to "determine when exactly they should
be required."
Staff Response: Soil volume requirements apply to street trees and parking lot trees
per Sections 18.745.040.A.4 and 18.745.050.E.a.4 respectively. The Guiding Principles
states that these tree types should be required to meet soil volume requirements
because they often have limited access to sufficient soil to support their function of
providing canopy over impervious surfaces (see Guiding Principles, UFCR Volume I,
page 15).
Staff committed to the CAC to preserve their Guiding Principles through the
legislative adoption process unless otherwise directed by the Planning Commission or
the C. Planning Commission had not directed staff to revisit soil volume
requirements.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
39
Non-Land Use (NLU) Related Amendment Requests
NLU1, Steve Martin,January 11, 2012
Amendment Request: Allow rooftop tree canopy coverage to count toward required
tree canopy coverage.
Staff Response: Trees planted on rooftops would be granted credit toward effective
canopy requirements provided the project arborist determines the planting design is
viable in the supplemental arborist report (see UFCR, Volume II, page. 390).
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
NLU2 & LU9,John Frewing,January 12, 2012
Amendment Request: The draft code should be revised to allow public input on
future changes.
Staff Response: The public would have input opportunities for changes to the code
and administrative rules in the UFM.
Changes to the development code (Title 18) require public notice and opportunity for
appeal as governed by Section 18.390.060 of the Tigard Development Code.
Changes to the municipal code (non-Title 18) are required by ordinance, which is
noticed publicly through the City Council agenda and packet and governed by
Chapter VIII of The City of Tigard Charter. Council practice is to adopt potentially
contentious municipal code ordinances (e.g. urban forestry), following a public
hearing, to consider any public input prior to voting.
Changes to administrative rules in the UFM require public notice and opportunity for
appeal as governed by Section 2.04.070 of the Tigard Municipal Code.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code, municipal code
or UFM based on this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
40
NLU3 & LU10,John Frewing,January 12, 2012 and February 17, 2012; Opposed by
Ken Gertz, February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: Frewing: The construction of the draft code results in the
canopy approach not being enforceable. Code relies upon submittal requirements, not
approval criteria. Canopy cover provisions lack certainty as required by Oregon
Revised Statutes and LUBA opinions. Include more specific approval criteria and
move definitions from Title 8 to Title 18. (January 12)
"I ask that staff prepare appropriate changes to include approval criteria in the
development code....[approval criteria] must be clear and objective...both the code and
UFM include standards which are not clear and objective, for example (Vol II):
p. 301 "applicable approval criteria"
p. 303 "any conflicting requirements"
p. 307 "unreasonable risk", "adequate emergency access"
p. 309 "minimum required to achieve the desired effect", "preference"
p. 319 "balancing the considerations"
p. 387 "unless otherwise approved by the city manager or designee" (February 17)
Gertz: "Be sure the tree plan is a submission requirement and not an approval
criteria."
Staff Response: Staff, in conjunction with the City Attorney, has developed code
language to ensure the tree canopy requirements in the draft code are enforceable for
applicable land use permits.
Chapter 18.790 of the code, and Section 10 of the UFM, require tree canopy
requirements to be met for certain Type II and III land use permits (CUP, DDR,
MLP, PD, SLR, SDR, and SUB). This is clearly stated in code Sections 18.790.020 and
18.790.030 (see UFCR Volume II, pages 301 and 303 respectively). The approval
criteria in the chapters, for each of these land use permits, references compliance with
all applicable development requirements, which include the tree canopy requirements
in Chapter 18.790 and Section 10 of the UFM. This continues current administration
of the code regarding the applicability of the requirements in Chapter 18.790.
However, staff realizes the summary heading in Section 18.790.030.A may be
confusing because it uses the term "submittal requirements." While the summary
heading does not supersede the text of the regulation, staff recommends removal of the
word "submittal" from the summary heading for clarification purposes.
41
Staff Recommendation: Revise proposed development code based on this
amendment request. Do not revise proposed municipal code or UFM based on this
amendment request.
LU Amendment 1: (Section 18.790.030.A (Urban Forestry Plan Requirements))
"A. Urban Forestry Plan Submittal Requirements. An urban forestry plan
shall:" ...
[no further changes]
NLU4, ODFW,January 20, 2012
Amendment Request: Strike that `existing' trees may be used as replacement trees
throughout the municipal code and UFM.
Staff Response: Section 10, Part 3 of the UFM, specifies that the effective tree canopy
requirements for development can be met through any combination of planting new
trees (based on their mature canopy sizes) or preserving healthy existing trees over 6-
inch DBH (which receive double credit for their existing canopy sizes). However,
there may be healthy existing trees on a development site that are less than 6-inch
DBH that could provide viable future canopy growth.
If existing trees less than 6-inch DBH were not eligible for credit based on their
mature canopy sizes, there could be an incentive to remove them and replant with
new trees. Usually, existing trees have established root systems and higher chances of
survival than newly planted trees.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed municipal code or UFM based on
this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
42
NLU5 & LU12, ODFW,January 20, 2012; and Sue Beilke, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: Add language in the code and UFM to support preservation of
Oregon white oak and appropriate replacement of oak with oak, if removal is
necessary.
Staff Response: The CAC consensus was for flexible standards and incentives to
preserve trees rather than requiring preservation (see Guiding Principles, UFCR
Volume I, page 16). The flexible standards and incentives for preservation include lot
size averaging, setback adjustments, sidewalk adjustments, parking adjustments and
landscaping adjustments (see Section 18.790.050.C). In addition, double credit towards
effective tree canopy requirements in Section 10, Part 3 of the UFM, is intended to
incentivize the preservation of existing trees.
The CAC consensus was also to allow a mix of native and non-native trees to meet
effective tree canopy requirements (see November 10, 2010, pre-meeting survey in the
project record). This allows applicants to select the most appropriate trees for
preservation and planting, based on site conditions. The specific requirement of
replacing oak with oak was not discussed by the CAC.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code, municipal code
or UFM based on this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
NLU6, ODFW,January 20, 2012
Amendment Request: "Add language in the UFM and Code to support leaving 5-20
feet of the trunk of a hazard tree located in designated sensitive lands, natural areas, or
a significant tree grove if hazard tree abatement requires much of the tree to be
removed."
Staff Response: The CAC discussed this concept but the consensus recommendation
was to allow the removal of snags through the same process as for hazard trees, trees
causing damage, etc. (see January 8, 2011, meeting minutes in the project record).
Their reasoning was that people would generally not go out of their way to remove
snags from natural areas, unless there is good reason to do so. The existing code
actually requires the removal of snags. The proposed code would allow the removal of
snags, but not require their removal if they are not hazards to people or property. The
CAC felt this moves the city in right direction.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed municipal code or UFM based on
this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
43
NLU7, ODFW,January 20, 2012
Amendment Request: Add language in the code and UFM that requires 50 percent of
newly planted trees to be native in a development/landscape plan. Consider requiring
only native species be planted in developments. Require street trees be native species.
Staff Response: When surveyed on the issue, the CAC consensus supported the city
allowing the project designer to select a mix of native and non-native trees, depending
on site conditions (see November 10, 2010, pre-meeting survey in the project record).
However, in response to public testimony received on the issue, the Planning
Commission further discussed whether to increase the relative amount of native tree
planting at their March 5, 2012, meeting. The commission indicated support for
providing bonus credits towards effective tree canopy cover requirements for the
planting of native trees. They did not indicate support for requiring planting of a
certain percentage of native trees. Bonus credits for native tree planting would
encourage the planting of natives, while allowing the project designer to select the
most appropriate trees depending on site conditions.
Staff Recommendation: Revise proposed UFM based on this amendment request.
NLU Amendment 1: (Section 10, Part 3.M2 (Urban Forestry Plan - Supplemental
Arborist Report Requirements))
cc
c. The mature canopy area (in square feet) of all open grown trees in the tree
canopy site plan, except for those from the native tree list in the Urban
Forestry Manual, to be planted and maintained within the overall
development site and each lot or tract (or associated right of way, excluding
median trees).
d. 1.25 times the mature canopy area (in square feet) of all open grown trees
from the native tree list in the Urban Forestry Manual 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, excluding median trees).
e. 1.25 times Tthe 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, excluding
median trees). 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).
f. Divide the tree canopy area (calculated per part 3.M.2.a-de above) for the
overall development site and each lot or tract by the total area of the overall
development site and each lot or tract respectively to determine the effective
44
tree canopy cover for the overall development site and each lot or tract." ...
[no further changes]
(note: above lettering is revised due to the insertion of item d)
(note: for consistency the Example Supplemental Arborist Report
Template in Appendix 9 of the UFM is recommended for amendment
per page 77)
NLU8, ODFW,January 20, 2012
Amendment Request: Add language in the code and UFM that requires native trees
removed to be replaced with native trees.
Staff Response: The CAC consensus recommendation was to allow a mix of native
and non-native trees to meet effective tree canopy cover requirements (see November
10, 2010, pre-meeting survey in the project record). A replacement requirement for
native trees was not discussed by the CAC. However, Clean Water Service has
requirements for native tree planting and replacement within vegetated corridors,
which would not be precluded by the proposed code requirements.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed municipal code or UFM based on
this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
45
NLU9, ODFW,January 20, 2012
Amendment Request: Strike criterion B.2 from Section 6, Part 1 of the UFM, which
allows the removal of dead trees from sensitive lands.
Consider implementing a snag removal permitting process, similar to the tree removal
permitting process, encouraging avoidance first, trimming second and requiring
removal mitigation third.
Staff Response: Criterion B.2 in Section 6, Part 1 allows the removal of dead trees
from sensitive lands.
The CAC recognized the importance of dead trees and wildlife snags but
recommended to allow their removal through the same process as hazard trees, trees
causing damage, etc. (see January 8, 2011, meeting minutes in the project record).
Their reasoning was that people would generally not go out of their way to remove
wildlife snags from natural areas unless there is a good reason to do so. The existing
code actually requires the removal of wildlife snags. The draft code would allow the
removal of wildlife snags, but not require their removal if they are not hazards to
people or property. The CAC felt this moves the city in right direction.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
NLU10, ODFW, January 20, 2012
Amendment Request: Strike "In addition to newly planted trees, existing trees less
than 6" DBH can be used as replacement trees...." in the UFM Section 6.
Staff Response: In non-development scenarios, Chapter 8.12 of the proposed code
requires tree removal permits for native trees in sensitive lands that are 6-inch DBH or
greater. Permit approval would be contingent on replacement with native trees on a
1:1 basis by Section 6 of the UFM. If existing trees less than 6-inch DBH were not
eligible for credit, there could be an incentive to remove them and replant with new
trees. Usually, existing trees have established root systems and a higher chance of
survival than newly planted trees.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
46
NLU11, ODFW, January 20, 2012; and Sue Beilke, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: Provide language in the UFM specifically for Oregon white
oaks impacted in Sensitive Lands.
Staff Response: The consensus recommendation of the CAC was to develop
consistent standards for tree removal permits outside the development process,
without regulating additional tree situations (see Guiding Principles, UFCR Volume I,
page 18). Native trees 6-inch DBH or greater in sensitive lands would be permitted for
removal administratively by Section 6 of the UFM, if they are hazardous, dead, in
advanced decline, causing property damage, approved for removal with development,
a fire hazard or thinned for forest health under arborist or forester supervision.
Replacement with native trees would be required on a 1:1 basis by Section 6 of the
UFM. Otherwise, following a public review process and approval through a
discretionary process by a city board or commission, removal may be permitted (see
Section 8.12.040.B, UFCR Volume II, page 91). The board or commission could use
their discretion in conditioning replacement. Elevated preservation and replacement
requirements for Oregon white oak trees were not specifically discussed by the CAC.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
NLU12, ODFW, January 20, 2012; and Sue Beilke, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: Include code specifically supporting Oregon white oak
conservation within the city. Enroll all Oregon white oaks 80 years or older on city
property as Heritage Trees, to raise oak conservation awareness. Identify mature oaks
on private land throughout the city, and notify landowners of the resource they have
on their property and the support services offered from the city if enrolled as a
Heritage Tree.
Staff Response: The CAC consensus recommendation was for voluntary Heritage
and Significant Tree programs, rather than enrolling trees in these programs without
landowner consent (see Chapter 8.18, UFCR Volume II, page 101).
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed municipal code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
47
NLU13, ODFW, January 20, 2012
Amendment Request: Require a minimum of 1 replacement tree if a Heritage tree is
removed in Section 9 of the UFM.
Staff Response: Section 9 of the UFM does not require replacements because Heritage
trees are uniquely designated and highly protected due to their age, size, species,
horticultural quality or historic importance. Replacement trees would not necessarily
replace the unique values for which the original Heritage trees were designated.
Therefore, recognizing and protecting replacement trees as if they were Heritage trees
would not be appropriate.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
NLU14, ODFW, January 20, 2012
Amendment Request: Section 18.790.050.D references Section 10, Part 5, of the
UFM, Significant Tree Grove Preservation Considerations often. Part 5 should be
modified so that dead or dying trees that provide wildlife value, and that do not pose a
threat to humans or structures, do not indirectly affect the rating of the Significant
Tree Grove by the arborist.
Staff Response: The CAC consensus was for the list of considerations to act as general
guide for preserving viable tree groves. Their preference was for flexibility in the
considerations to allow preservation decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis (see
January 8, 2011, meeting minutes in the project record). The considerations do not
preclude dead or dying trees that provide wildlife value, as long as they are not hazards
to people or property.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
48
NLU15, ODFW, January 20, 2012
Amendment Request: Include number of dead/dying trees in tree preservation and
removal site plan in Section 10, Part 1 or Part 3, of the UFM.
Staff Response: Section 10 of the UFM would require all trees within or near the
development impact area to be inventoried and numbered on the tree preservation and
removal site plan. This includes dead and dying trees.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
NLU16, ODFW, January 20, 2012
Amendment Request: Require planting plans from developers that consider spatial
arrangement and vertical structure, as well as species and quantity of trees.
Staff Response: The Urban Forestry Plan requirements in Section 10 of the UFM
address tree planting and preservation requirements. There are standards for spatial
arrangement, species, and quantity of trees based on tree care industry standards.
Vertical structure standards such as requiring shrubs, herbs, and other understory
plants are out of scope for the UFCR. It is important to note that other standards such
as landscaping and screening requirements in Chapter 18.745 and native planting
required by Clean Water Services' Design and Construction Standards would continue
to apply and result in vertical structure.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
49
NLU17, ODFW, January 20, 2012
Amendment Request: Implement a tree removal season: September 1st to February
1S`, with special consideration given to the months of August and March. This is for
purpose of protecting nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Staff Response: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is a federal law, administered by the
US Fish and Wildlife Service, that protects specifically listed species of birds. The
UFCR addresses the preservation, planting and maintenance of trees. It would be out
of scope of the UFCR to implement these federal regulations, through such
restrictions as a tree removal season, aimed at protecting listed species of birds.
When removing trees, it is the sole responsibility of applicants to comply with all
applicable state and federal regulations, such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It is the
city's practice however to highlight the applicants' responsibilities to comply with
applicable regulations when issuing tree removal permits.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed municipal code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
NLU18, ODFW, January 20, 2012
Amendment Request: Require that tree habitat potential be included in tree
inventories.
Staff Response: As further explained in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis beginning on
UFCR Volume III, page 27, wildlife habitat value and connectivity were key
evaluation criteria in the inventory and selection of significant tree groves. The
proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment would establish an overlay district for
significant tree groves, making them eligible for regulatory incentives and flexible
standards for preservation in Section 18.790.050.D.
The Statewide Goal 5 rule requirements require adoption of the inventory and
protection program prior to implementing regulations that protect wildlife habitat
during the development process. The city cannot require additional discovery and
protection of wildlife habitat during the development process without adhering to
Goal 5 rule requirements.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
50
NLU19,John Frewing,January 23, 2012
Amendment Request: Include a provision to the effect that the same soil volume
should not be counted for more than one tree.
Staff Response: The Soil Volume Memo (UFCR, Vol. III, p. 13) explains that the soil
volumes standards in the draft code are based on current tree care industry research. In
reviewing this research, staff could not find any provisions for discounting soil volume
to account for situations when multiple trees share rooting space. In the proposed
code, the soil volume standards are for street and parking lot trees. These tree types
are required to be spaced at distances to minimize canopy and root competition.
Therefore, staff does not believe shared soil volumes calculations should be disallowed.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment reque,
Amendment: N/A
NLU20 & LU16, Cleon Cox, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: Fees and taxes associated with these code amendments should
not negatively impact property owners.
Staff Response: The proposed code has been designed so it is achievable on the typical
range of development scenarios in Tigard (see Peer Review, UFCR, Vol. II, p. 463).
The proposed tree canopy fee is an option for not providing trees and is a conservative
estimate for the value of tree canopy (UFCR, Vol. III, p. 15).
Specific permit costs are established by the City Council through the Master Fees and
Charges Schedule and allow for partial or full administrative cost recovery. However,
one of the CAC's Guiding Principles is to provide a low- or no-fee administrative
review process for the most common tree permits (UFCR, Vol. I, p. 19).
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code, municipal code
or UFM based on this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
51
NLU21 & LU17, Brian Lewis, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: Agrees with Mr. Fre wing that tree count is better than tree
canopy requirements. There should be a minimum tree count.
Staff Response: When drafting the Development Code revisions, staff studied a tree
density requirements (requiring X number of trees per square feet of development
area, sometimes referred to as "tree count") and compared it with a tree canopy
requirements (requiring X square feet of canopy per square feet of development area).
The tree canopy requirements was selected as the preferred alternative for the
following reasons:
• The tree canopy requirement allows more flexibility for the project designer to
meet code requirements due to the wide variation of canopy shapes by species. A
tree density requirement presents the project designer with more limited options to
meet numerical tree planting requirements.
• The tree canopy requirement is more consistent with urban forest science and the
city's long-term urban forestry goals. The benefits of trees (economic,
environmental and social) are derived primarily from their canopies, rather than
number of trees. The tree canopy requirement encourages large stature,
appropriately spaced trees, which have the highest benefit/cost ratios. A tree
density requirement allows small stature, closely spaced trees to meet numerical
requirements.
• The tree canopy requirements requires the project designer to consider future
canopy growth, which helps ensure that trees are properly placed within a site to
become long-term amenities. The tree canopy requirement encourages appropriate
tree spacing and setbacks from buildings by highlighting mature canopy growth,
whereas a tree density requirement focuses on planting a certain number of trees
and does not take mature growth into account.
• The tree canopy requirement provides more consistency in development
outcomes. For example, a parking lot planted to meet a numerical tree density
requirement can look very different after future growth, depending on whether
small ornamental trees or large shade trees are selected. The tree canopy
requirement helps normalize outcomes.
• Planting trees to meet either a tree canopy requirement or a tree density
requirement both rely upon successful establishment and long-term maintenance
by property owners. However, the tree canopy requirement focuses more on
long-term growth during the initial design phase, so that trees are more likely to
become long-term site amenities.
52
In response to public testimony received on the issue, the Planning Commission
further discussed their preference for a tree density versus a tree canopy requirement
at their March 5, 2012, meeting. The commission indicated support for continuing
with a tree canopy requirement.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code or UFM based on
this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
53
NLU22 & LU20, Ken Gertz, February 6, 2012; Opposed by John Frewing,
February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: Gertz: 18.790.030.B - Remove 20% minimum canopy
requirement, canopy coverage should be averaged out across the site.
Frewing: "I support this idea, with the provision that if a lot has even a single tree > 6
inches in diameter dbh, one such tree must be saved on each lot."
Staff Response: Early in the process, staff initially proposed the tiered tree canopy
requirements to be met on a lot-by-lot basis, in addition to the overall development.
The CAC recommended allowing averaging of canopy across the overall development
site, while setting a minimum per lot tree canopy requirement. Staff proposed a 20%
per lot minimum requirement at the April 13, 2011, meeting and the committee
approved the proposal by consensus (see minutes in the project record). The rationale
for having a minimum per lot tree canopy requirement is to spread the distribution of
trees, and therefore tree benefits and maintenance responsibilities, more evenly across
a development site.
In response to public testimony received, the Planning Commission expressed
interested at their March 5, 2012, meeting regarding potentially providing more
flexibility on this issue. The Planning Commission considered that reducing the per
lot tree canopy requirement would likely not raise major issues since it was not a
major part of the deliberations when developing the proposal (see summary of
community ideas and concerns, UFCR Volume I, page 36). Also, street tree
requirements in Section 18.745.040 would still apply and support an evening of the
distribution of trees across the development site. Finally, if the per lot tree canopy
requirement were reduced, the effective tree canopy requirement for the overall
development site would be reduced, which may be a desired side effect for the
commission.
In reviewing past development projects that were peer reviewed by AKS Engineering
and Forestry, staff found only four residential lots that, in addition to the required
street trees, had to plant additional trees in backyards to meet the 20% per lot
minimum requirement (UFCR, Volume II, p. 463 and the additional peer review
provided in the March 5, 2012, Planning Commission meeting packet). While the
sample size is small, staff found that if the per lot minimum were reduced to 15% it
could be met by planting one medium stature street tree in two of the lots, thus
eliminating trees in the backyards. The unique configurations of the other two lots
require one backyard tree to meet the 15% per lot minimum requirement. Therefore,
54
staff recommends the commission consider reducing the per lot minimum to 15%.
Staff Recommendation: Revise proposed development code and UFM based on this
amendment request.
LU Amendment 2: (Section 18.790.030.B(Urban Forestry Plan Requirements))
"B. Tree Canopy Fee. If the supplemental arborist report demonstrates that
the applicable standard percent effective tree canopy cover in Section 10, part 3, item
N. will not be provided through any combination of tree planting or preservation for
the overall development site (excluding streets), or that the 20 15 percent 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), then the applicant shall
provide the city a tree canopy fee according to the methodology outlined in Section
10, part 4 of the UFM.
(Section 18.790.050.D.5 (Flexible Incentives and Standards for the
Preservation of Significant Tree Groves))
1. Adjustment to Minimum Effective Canopy Requirement. The requirement
for 20 15 percent effective tree canopy cover per lot is not required when: ...
[no further changes]
(Section 18.790.050.D.5, Commentary)
The fifth flexible and incentive based standard is an adjustment to the minimum
effective canopy requirement. A standard Urban Forestry Plan requires 20 15 percent
effective tree canopy per lot in addition to the overall development site effective
canopy requirement which is based on zoning (25, 33 or 40 percent). ...
[no further changes]
NLU Amendment 2: (UFM Section 10, Part 3.0(Urban Forestry Plan - Supplemental
Arborist Report Requirements))
0. If the percent of effective tree canopy cover is less than the applicable standard
percent in item n above for the overall development or less than 20 15 percent for any
lot or tract (when the overall development site meets or exceeds the standard percent
effective tree canopy cover in item n), calculate the tree canopy fee required to meet
the applicable standard percent effective tree canopy cover in item n above for the
overall development site or 20 15 percent effective tree canopy cover for each lot or
tract (only if the overall development site meets or exceeds the standard percent
effective tree canopy cover in item n but individual lots or tracts do provide 20 15
percent effective tree canopy cover) according to the methodology in Section 10, part
55
4 of the Urban Forestry Manual. ...
[no further changes]
(UFM Section 10, Part 4.A.2 (Urban Forestry Plan - Tree Canopy
Fee Calculation Requirements))
2. In cases where the overall development site meets the standard
percentage in part 3.N above yet the percentage of effective tree canopy
cover is less than 20 15 percent for any individual lot or tract, find the
difference (in square feet) between the proposed effective tree canopy
cover and 20 15 percent effective tree canopy cover for each deficient lot
or tract and multiply the difference (in square feet) by:" ...
[no further changes]
56
NLU23, Ken Gertz, February 6, 2012 and February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: 6-1.A.6 [section not found, possibly referencing B.6] - Change
approval criterion to trees not listed in the native tree list for clarity.
"Section 6 part 1 C" Don't include weed trees for replacement/permits
Staff Response: Chapter 8.12 of the proposed code requires permits for the removal
of native trees over 6 -inch trunk diameter in sensitive lands. This would be a revision
from current existing code that requires permits for the removal for all trees over 6-
inch trunk diameter in sensitive lands.
The approval criteria for removal are listed in Section 6, Part 1 of the UFM. Criterion
B.6, in Section 6, Part 1, says "the tree is listed on the nuisance tree list." This criterion
is unnecessary because trees on the nuisance tree list are not native, and therefore not
subject to permit requirements by Chapter 8.12. This criterion could be struck.
The replacement criteria in Section 6, Part 2 of the UFM specify that "replacement
trees shall be selected from the native tree list in the UFM." Therefore, nuisance
(weed) trees would not be allowed as replacements.
Staff Recommendation: Revise proposed UFM based on part one of this amendment
request.
NLU Amendment 3: (Section 6, Part 1.B.6(Sensitive Lands Tree Removal Standards))
6, "The tree is listed on the nuisance trcc list. ...
[no further changes]
(note: numbering of the section is revised and the cross reference to the
Nuisance Tree List in the sidebar is struck due to the deletion of item 6)
(Section 6, Part 1.C(Sensitive Lands Tree Removal Standards))
C. Unless removed for thinning purposes (part 1.B.4 10 above) the city
manager or designee shall condition the removal of each tree in sensitive
lands upon the planting of a replacement tree in accordance with the
Sensitive Lands Tree Replacement Standards in Section 6, part 2 of the
UFM." ...
[no further changes]
57
NLU24, Ken Gertz, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: Section 10, Part 2 of the UFM - Requests Tree Canopy Site
Plan requirements be amended to allow a more general delineation of trees to be
planted to allow an applicant to not locate every tree on the tree plan, and allow
movement of trees during building permit review.
Staff Response: Section 18.790.070.B.2 allows modification of the quantity, location,
or species of trees to be planted in the tree canopy site plan after land use approval
administratively without an additional permit. This provides flexibility for necessary
changes during the building permit approval process.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
NLU25, Ken Gertz, February 6, 2012 and February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: Section 10, Part 2 - Medium size street trees should be allowed
in a standard planter strip to allow more canopy over streets.
Staff Response: Table 18.810.1 in the Tigard Development Code lists the minimum
landscape width for standard street cross sections as five feet (excluding curbs). Section
10, Part 2.L.6, of the UFM specifies that medium stature street trees shall not be
planted with the center of their trunks closer than 21/2 feet from any hard surface
paving. The specifications in the UFM were designed to allow medium stature street
trees to be planted in standard landscape strips.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
NLU26, Ken Gertz, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: Page 393,J.6, - Correct typo " ; and" at the end of the
sentence.
Staff Response: The word "and" is correct because list is inclusive. However, the
proposed UFM will be further reviewed to ensure the format of lists conform to AP
standards. It is important to note the city recorder is authorized to correct such errors
by Section 1.01.080 of the Tigard Municipal Code.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM at this time based on this
amendment request. Consult AP standards to ensure standardized format for lists.
Amendment: N/A
58
NLU27, Ken Gertz, February 6, 2012 and February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: Section 10, Part 3.M.1 - Subtract "problematic terrain" from
area calculations from each lot and tract, including: wetlands, water quality areas, rock
outcrop areas, steep slopes, walkways, private drives, flags of flag lots, soil conditions
and other situations where the planting of trees would not be viable as represented by
the project arborist.
Staff Response: The UFCR CAC reached consensus to draft achievable effective
canopy standards for development that are tiered based on zoning district (see Guiding
Principles, UFCR Volume I, page 15).
Staff and outside consultants tested the tiered standards on a wide range of
development projects to ensure the draft effective canopy standards are achievable,
result in a reasonable balance between trees and development and do not force
payment of fees in lieu or discretionary review for typical projects. The test projects
included "problematic terrain" such as wetlands, water quality areas, steep slopes,
walkways, private drives, flags of flag lots, poor soil conditions and other challenges.
The peer review results demonstrate that the standards are achievable without
payment of fees in lieu or discretionary reviews even with these challenges (see UFCR
Volume II, page 463).
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
59
NLU28, Ken Gertz, February 6, 2012; Stone Bridge Homes NW, February 14, 2012;
JT Smith Companies, February 15, 2012
Amendment Request: Reduce minimum canopy cover standards for residential
projects.
Gertz [verbal comments of February 6]: The canopy requirements are too high for an
urban area and should be reduced to:
No minimum requirement < 5,000 square feet (lot size)
20% requirement = 5,000 square feet
25% requirement > 5,000 square feet
Special category: single story residence
Gertz [written comments of February 6]: Section 10, Part 3 N. - HBA believes that
40% is too high, the majority of developable land has no trees, and find 40%
unachievable without mitigation. "We find a more reasonable number would be 25-
30% for R4.5 and above and 20% on R-7 and No requirement other than street trees
for smaller than R7 lots, because the street trees are the only option."
Stone Bridge Homes NW &JT Smith Companies: Reduce minimum canopy
requirements for low and medium density residential projects down to 25% coverage,
and medium-high and high density residential projects down to 20% coverage.
60
Staff Response: While staff does not recommend revising the proposed code based on
this amendment request, other recommended revisions would have the effect of
reducing the effective tree canopy requirements towards the requested amounts.
The UFCR CAC reached consensus to draft achievable and balanced canopy
requirements for development that are tiered based on zoning district. For example,
the requirements require development in low density residential areas to have more
trees than are required in areas of dense zoning, such as Downtown Tigard (see
Guiding Principles, UFCR Volume I, page 15).
To implement the consensus of the CAC, staff analyzed possible percent canopy for
each zoning district using the same methodology developed to set canopy goals for the
Urban Forestry Master Plan and also in an updated methodology using Light
Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) technology (see UFCR Volume III, page 9).
The results of the analyses were then used in conjunction with the minimum percent
landscaping requirements in the Tigard Development Code to place the various
zoning districts within one of three tiers. The exception is school sites, which were
placed in the "dense zoning" tier 3 to ensure sufficient room for sports fields (see
UFCR Volume III, page 11):
Tier 1: 40% effective canopy'
Tier 2: 33% effective canopy6
Tier 3: 25% effective canopy'
It is important to note that effective canopy is very different from actual canopy
within the lot lines of a particular development. To meet the proposed effective tree
canopy cover requirements, the preservation of existing trees is granted double canopy
credit, and planting of street trees is granted full canopy credit, even though half of
their canopies overhang streets, the area of which are not part of the lot or site area
calculations.
When considering these factors, the actual canopy required for a particular
development would fall into the following ranges:
5 R-1,R-2,R-3.5,R-4.5,R-7, and R-12
6R-25,R-40, C-N, C-C, C-G, C-P, MUE,MUE-1,MUE-2,MUC,MUR, and I-P
MU-CBD,MUC-1,I-L,I-H,and schools (18.130.050(J))
61
Tier 1: 16-40% actual canopy
Tier 2: 13-33% actual canopy
Tier 3: 10-25% actual canopy
The low end of each range represents sites with many existing trees that are preserved
and maximization of street tree canopy. The high end of each range represents sites
with no existing trees and no street tree canopy (i.e. all trees planted so the mature
canopy stays within the lot lines). The staff analysis found that the possible percent
canopy for each zoning district falls within the actual canopy range for their
corresponding tiers above (see UFCR Volume III, page 11).
The double canopy credit for preservation provides a viable option for meeting
canopy requirements in the draft code, while incentivizing preservation. This is
because buildable lands have significant existing tree resources from which to draw.
Staff performed a GIS analysis of the city's buildable lands inventory and determined
that buildable lands have an average of 41% existing canopy cover (see April 13, 2011
CAC meeting packet, pages 45 to 46 in the project record).
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 12.5% 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 would achieve an average of 25%
effective canopy through the preservation of trees that are already required to be
preserved (see April 13, 2011 CAC meeting packet, pages 45 to 46 in the project
record). Note that 700 sq. ft. of canopy was the minimum detected in the analysis
which accounts for trees over 6 inch diameter that are eligible for double credit.
Staff and outside consultants tested the tiered requirements on a wide range of
development projects to ensure the draft effective canopy requirements are achievable,
result in a reasonable balance between trees and development, and do not force
payment of fees in lieu or discretionary review for typical projects.
The peer review demonstrates that the requirements are achievable without payment
of fees in lieu or discretionary reviews (see UFCR Volume II, page 463).
62
In response to public testimony received on the issue, the Planning Commission
further discussed whether to modify the draft effective canopy requirements at their
March 5, 2012, meeting. While the commission indicated their support for retaining
the draft requirements, they also indicated support for granting bonus credits for
planting native trees. If the staff recommendation of 1.25x credit for planting natives is
approved (see NLU Amendment 1 at Amendment Request NLU7 above) the canopy
ranges would be reduced to the following amounts for projects that rely on native
trees to meet the requirements:
Tier 1: 16-32% actual canopy
Tier 2: 13-26% actual canopy
Tier 3: 10-20% actual canopy
In addition, if the staff recommendation of reducing the per lot effective canopy
requirement from 20 percent down to 15 percent is approved, that would further
reduce the amount of trees as explained in the staff response to Amendment Request
LU20 above.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
63
NLU29, Ken Gertz, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: Section 10, Part 4A.1 & 2 - Fee in lieu for not meeting
minimum requirements is too high. It should be based upon actual cost to plant those
trees right now, rather than on the future canopy of the tree. Viewed as a "back door
way to legally replace the current tree fund with what we feel is an SDC."
Staff Response: (Much of this staff response is from the Tree Canopy Fee memo,
UFCR Volume III, page 15)
The draft code includes canopy standards for development based on zoning. For
example, development in low density residential areas will be required to have more
trees than in areas of dense zoning, such as Downtown Tigard.
The draft canopy standards have been carefully crafted and have undergone a peer
review to ensure that they are achievable on the typical range of development
scenarios in Tigard. For added flexibility, a discretionary review option is proposed to
allow other green building or development methods (e.g. solar panels, green roofs, rain
gardens, etc.) in place of planting or preserving the required amount of trees. Finally,
a fee-in-lieu option is proposed to allow applicants to pay a "tree canopy fee" to
replace the value of canopy not provided through tree planting or preservation.
The tree canopy fee was developed by converting the wholesale median tree cost in
the Willamette Valley developed by the PNWISA8 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 Krajicek, et al9 for open grown, broad spreading
trees (maximum crown width (feet) = 3.183+1.829*DBH (inches)) was then utilized
to convert tree diameter to canopy diameter. According to the Krajicek 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) and the crown
area of a 3-inch diameter tree (59 square feet), the unit canopy cost or tree canopy fee
is proposed to be $2.95 per square foot.
This methodology is a reasonable approach for three main reasons. First, tree benefits
8 Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. 2007. Species Ratings for Landscape
Tree Appraisal,2'Edition, Silverton,OR: Pacific Northwest ISA.
9 Krajicek,J. E.,K. E.Brinkman, S. F. Gingrich. 1961. Crown Competition-A Measure of Density. Forest
Science
7:35-42.
64
(aesthetic, stormwater management, air quality, etc.) are derived primarily from 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 Krajicek formula and field samples by staff are based on the
maximum crown width-to-trunk diameter ratio. A typical tree does not have such a
high ratio. If the typical ratio were used, the unit canopy cost would increase.
In addition, staff provided the planning commission a regional comparison of fees in a
Comparative Fee-In-Lieu Rates memo for their February 6, 2012 hearing
demonstrating the proposed tree canopy fee is on the low end of the range.
Finally, the proposed tree canopy fee is not an SDC because it does not meet the
definition of an SDC in ORS 223.299(4)(a), which states that an SDC "means a
reimbursement fee, an improvement fee or a combination thereof assessed or collected
at the time of increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of a development
permit, building permit or connection to the capital improvement."
The tree canopy fee is not an "improvement fee," which is defined in ORS 223.299(2)
as a "fee for costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed". The tree
canopy fee is a fee for choosing not to preserve and/or plant trees to meet established
tree canopy requirements.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
65
NLU30, Ken Gertz, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: Appendix 9, page 4-5 UFP - Confused by headings, please
clarify.
Staff Response: Appendix 9 is a Supplemental Arborist Report Template that may be
used by project arborists when creating urban forestry plans. It converts the text from
the Section 10 of the UFM into a more user friendly summary form. The consultants
used the template during the peer review phase of the project and found it easy to use.
The consultants did not raise any issues regarding its clarity nor did they recommend
any changes to it in their peer review report (see peer review, UFCR Volume II, page
463).
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
NLU31, Eric Schultheis, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: The code should require that trees planted are the right species
for the area and spacing is adequate to ensure the future health of planted and
preserved trees.
Staff Response: Section 10 of the UFM contains tree preservation and planting
specifications to ensure healthy and sustainable trees after the development process is
complete. Appendices 2 through 5 of the UFM include recommended tree lists to
ensure appropriate species for a variety of planting situations.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
66
NLU32, Dennis Wilson, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: The code should not inhibit future development of a property,
nor prohibit property owners from removing trees due to personal choice or
necessity.
Staff Response: (The first paragraph of this staff response is from the Tree Canopy
Fee memo, UFCR Volume III, page 15)
The draft canopy requirements have been carefully crafted and have undergone a peer
review to ensure that they are achievable on the typical range of development
scenarios in Tigard. For added flexibility, a discretionary review option is proposed to
allow other green building or development methods (e.g. solar panels, green roofs, rain
gardens, etc.) in place of planting or preserving the required amount of trees. Finally,
a fee-in-lieu option is proposed to allow applicants to pay a "tree canopy fee" to
replace the value of canopy not provided through tree planting or preservation.
While not part of the proposed development code amendments, it is important to note
that proposed Chapter 8.14 (Trees that were Required with Development) of the
Tigard Municipal Code would create a separate process for removing trees after the
development process is complete. The existing code requires future owners to amend
the original land use permit for removing trees that were required with development.
Chapter 8.14 would create a less costly and less time-consuming process for future
owners to remove trees due to personal choice or necessity.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed municipal code or UFM based on
this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
NLU33, Robert Ruedy, February 6, 2012
Amendment Request: Publish public hearing notices in "Cityscape".
Staff Response: Public hearing dates, times, and locations will be published in the
Cityscape newsletter as space permits and when publication deadlines allow.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed approach to Cityscape notice based
on this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
67
NLU34, Robert Ruedy, February 6, 2012 (oral) and February 9, 2012 (written); Ken
Gertz, February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: Ruedy: Include standards for "adjacent property line tree
preservation, hazard mitigation, [and] canopy/drip-line/root-infringements."
Gertz: "How do you propose to deal with tree canopy overlapping lot lines?"
Staff Response: Section 10, Part 1.J of the UFM, requires trees within 25 feet of the
development impact area to be included on tree preservation and removal site plan. If
development impacts occur near the property line, impacted trees on adjacent
property would be required to be protected by Section 10, Part 1.M and N.
Section 10, Part 3.M.2, assigns canopy credit for open grown and stand grown trees
differently. Open grown trees are considered distinct features, and the lot with the
trunk is assigned full credit for the tree canopy area. Stands grown trees are considered
cohesive units (stands) and the canopy is apportioned based on the tree canopy area
directly above the corresponding lot. The main purpose for treating open grown and
stand grown trees differently is for ease of calculation. Open grown tree canopy can be
calculated without overreliance on computer software, while stand grown tree canopy
can be calculated without requiring project arborists to measure the canopies of
individual trees within stands.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
NLU35, Robert Ruedy, February 9, 2012
Amendment Request: All property owners should share the costs of citywide tree
enhancement regulation by adding an additional fee to existing road and sanitary
sewer and surface water management fee structures and billing processes.
Staff Response: Urban Forestry Program Funding is part of the Tigard Tree Board's
ongoing work program and not part of the UFCR project.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise Urban Forestry Program Funding based on
this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
68
NLU36 & LU32, Robert Ruedy, February 6, 2012 (oral) and February 9, 2012
(written)
Amendment Request: Add language specifying maintenance responsibilities that will
be "equitably distributed among ALL COT property owners both public and
private."
Staff Response: Urban Forestry Program Funding is part of the Tigard Tree Board's
ongoing work program and not part of the UFCR project.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code or municipal code
based on this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
NLU37 & LU37, Stone Bridge Homes NW, February 14, 2012
Amendment Request: Revise the code to provide more simplicity and brevity, and
allow homeowners and landscape architects to perform more work rather than
arborists.
Staff Response: The core code sections of the UFCR in Title 8 and Chapter 18.790
are relatively simple and brief. Much of the length in UFCR Volume II comes from
the commentary pages, ensuring consistency between related code chapters and strike-
through of existing text.
Title 8 does not require arborists except for the technical tasks of tree risk assessment
and thinning stands of trees to improve stand health.
Chapter 18.790 continues the current code requirement for arborists to prepare Urban
Forestry Plans for development.
The UFM includes more detailed specifications for implementing the code. However,
the specifications largely document the city's current operating procedures and are
intended to provide more certainly regarding city requirements. If the city were to
provide less detail, disputes over interpretation would likely result after
implementation. Lack of certainty and clear expectations are common complaints
with the existing code, and the UFM is intended to address these issues.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code, municipal code
or UFM based on this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
69
NLU38, Harris McMonagle Associates, February 15, 2012
Amendment Request: Revise the canopy calculation formula to one based on front
and back yard area, rather than the entire lot.
Staff Response: The formula for calculating effective tree canopy in Section 10, Part
3.M of the UFM, is designed for the overall development site with a separate
minimum per lot requirement. The calculations were tested during the peer review
phase of the project and were found to be achievable resulting in a reasonable balance
between trees and open space (see UFCR Volume II, page 463).
If the formula for calculating effective canopy were revised, the revised formula should
be peer reviewed as well. However, since the proposed formula has already been
supported through the peer reviewed, staff does not recommending expending
additional time and resources testing a new methodology.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
NLU39,JT Smith Companies, February 15, 2012
Amendment Request: Develop a case study and in-depth review of the feasibility of
proposed canopy goals.
Staff Response: A case study and in-depth review of the feasibility of the proposed
tree canopy requirements was completed through the peer review phase of the project
(see UFCR Volume II, page 463).
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise peer review based on this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
70
NLU40,John Frewing, February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: "The tree values memo (Urban Forestry Annotated
Bibliography) at page 1 of Volume 3 is significantly deficient in not containing any
papers which show the vital relationship between trees and wildlife...I ask that you
request staff to prepare an amendment to the present proposal which would add
appropriate bibliography to the legislative basis for Tigard's proposal."
Staff Response: The tree values memo is based on the annotated bibliography for
the findings for adoption of the Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan
(CPA2008-00002). As reflected in the tree values memo, the primary reasons for
adopting the Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan and the resulting
Urban Forestry Standards for Development (see UFCR Volume II, pages 135 to 341)
are stormwater, shading, property value, public health and safety, air quality, carbon
sequestration, social and other non-wildlife benefits of trees.
The exception are the Tree Grove Preservation Incentives in Section 18.790.050.D (see
UFCR Volume II, page 317), which are being adopted specifically because of the
wildlife benefits provided by trees groves. The Tree Grove ESEE Analysis (see UFCR
Volume III, page 17) details the reasons for adopting flexible standards and incentives
and highlights wildlife benefits.
It is not necessary to include wildlife benefits of trees in the tree values memo because
the UFCR is being adopted primarily for other reasons. The ESEE analysis highlights
the wildlife benefits provided by trees for that portion of the UFCR that is being
adopted specifically for that purpose.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise the tree values memo based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
71
NLU41,John Frewing, February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: Effective canopy area should be calculated for the
Development Impact Area, and not the overall site.
Staff Response: The formula for calculating effective tree canopy in Section 10, Part
3.M of the UFM, are designed for the overall development site with a separate
minimum per lot requirement. The calculations were tested during the peer review
phase of the project and were found to be achievable, resulting in a reasonable balance
between trees and open space (see UFCR Volume II, page 463).
If the formula for calculating effective canopy were revised, the revised formula should
be peer reviewed as well. However, since the proposed formula has already been
supported through the peer review, staff does not recommend expending additional
time and resources testing a new methodology.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
72
NLU42 & LU45,John Frewing, February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: Change the structure of the code to comply with Oregon land
use law. "I believe, the proposed structure of Tigard's proposal (substantive material
displaced to an administrative rule) violates Oregon's land use law. ORS 197.175(2)(b)
regarding city planning responsibilities requires Tigard to "enact land use regulations
to implement their comprehensive plans"...the law refers to regulations, not
administrative rules. ORS 227.173 regarding the basis for land use decisions states that
"approval or denial" of a discretionary permit application shall be based on standards
and criteria set forth in development ordinances." ORS 197.805 states that the Land
Use Board of Appeals shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review any land use decision.
By structuring its material as proposed, Tigard prejudices/eliminates my substantial
rights to a land use decision under Oregon land use law."
Staff Response: Section 18.790.030 (Urban Forestry Plan Requirements) requires
applicants to demonstrate technical standards in the UFM are met. If someone believes
an Urban Forestry Plan does not meet the technical standards in the UFM, they may
appeal the decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Referencing technical standards
in development codes is a common practice such as when performing wetland
delineations, traffic studies, road and utility construction, etc. The proposed code
complies with Oregon land use laws.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed development code or UFM based on
this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
NLU43,John Frewing, February 17, 2012; Mike McElevey, February 21, 2012
Amendment Request: Frewing: Raise the equivalent Tigard fee from $87 per caliper
inch to $150 per caliper inch for mitigation and fee-in-lieu trees.
McElevey: Request the fee-in-lieu be maximized "to a point where developers actually
make a few decisions in favor of saving large trees."
Staff Response: The proposed methodology for the tree canopy fee is based on the
wholesale median tree cost in the Willamette Valley developed by the PNWISA (see
UFCR Volume III, page 15). The requested increased in the fee would not be based on
the proposed methodology.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
73
NLU44, Ken Gertz, February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: State in the code that canopy area is to be based on mature
canopy.
Staff Response: Section 10, Part 3.M.c and d specify that planted trees receive credit
based on their mature canopy area when calculating effective tree canopy.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
NLU45, Ken Gertz, February 17, 2012
Amendment Request: Include language specifying that mitigation funds be returned
on a lot/tract by lot/tract basis, rather than a lump sum.
Staff Response: Section 11 Part 2.D of the UFM specifies that the tree establishment
bond amount will be correspondingly reduced on a lot/tract by lot/tract basis.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed UFM based on this amendment
request.
Amendment: N/A
NLU46, Mike McElevey, February 21, 2012
Amendment Request: Provide leeway for homeowners to maintain and remove trees
where unsafe conditions exist.
Staff Response: Chapter 8.04 (Tree Permit Procedures) of the proposed code would
establish a permit process that is separate from the land use process for future owners
to remove trees where unsafe conditions exist. The existing code requires future
owners to revise the original land use permit to remove trees that were required with
development, while the proposed code would create a more cost and time efficient
process for removing trees after the land use process is complete.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise proposed municipal code based on this
amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
74
NLU47, Mike McElevey, February 21, 2012
Amendment Request: "If property owners are expected to undergo expense and
inconvenience for the enjoyment of the general public, they should be compensated."
Staff Response: Urban Forestry Program Funding is part of the Tigard Tree Board's
ongoing work program and not part of the UFCR project.
Staff Recommendation: Do not revise Urban Forestry Program Funding based on
this amendment request.
Amendment: N/A
75
.�::_ G':►:.n,.n ;F.EI'..r.,r-�� �.., _....-rte :v;; --- -- -.. ii-*4-v.".
- :_------ : FS.]
---- -
m■ Cnl..y..,., ,,....r5.•
. _tea.��.�. _ .-�: :Ale li.: -::��1:::.% I�i� .n.d. -;1 '..1 I""1.-:-.1
,.F•,,.�....... �, ,�al �,l
�P••.� i_`,'::- C-:`.ro od= .-■: ' - •iu_ - - ;.�.. .'nn•' - `� /3..P.:'..77.v'":'r'.,. ��:♦ •�►i I�P.�.
O• _•♦p` -q ;- .,- 4:•:•• -J "i■• ':• _ - :�:. vo:Is:*Pa= n■ I: �,,,......._.....L...JI �!•:......................
►�1'��\\\II+
ilz
� �L :ei ne_:.`,r.�. .:.�'I Ir=9:i\ :.atei��! .�•i...;01.:F:i.l e.f. :i.: = 4:= . 1 -. :4tim '7 ..x 1� r•I r, ..ipir 11 ,4�•0""1 ■�1
1•r .. I C, ' ; 4.'= i:iiii iill il:l iliiiiiIIMI INM
�, F.,144.::"::,".-11,;;BR.00KMAN ',GREENN/AY•�:;Vii: "� °-,,��'��\�;•^.:: I :all;::,�llllc'�e911e111:"�'"Ile?:I Ills i:iuiia■Ilil
:::,•:� Significant Tree Groves ill'
_��; r �_ . . _
+-� IlaimillM
\ °\ � Iu1:r..a IiE-Ir !a : l'nr_n
F27:431
� - ::� �:.:uo-S:•61u'� ' � t� :`•''�'._••11f 111■••71 1 I� ,i :71=ia.11lll:alalll:::llCi of Ti and _ ,r.r,_.,. _ a.l 1__. . 111'•
�T •7n■'.i:: :un,:o...._-G_ r `'kb Y ♦ ' -.��■:IIII�..LJ ' 111 �:��.11-::
,�e ❑
.1 ? ,�..;--_nn.., ..:! _. -' .111Ia-!: • . L ❑ ' - " py=,'_: pa! i�:1171111.,�•Zj :m,■r.
U'-'." :G..C ;.. \ 1 \„!., a.:_ III.: "Il:: FA;:...17.4..!.•- , N3ElF4r
70 roves �;. -_ r■111IN II _r=.
■ 1 _ i• ® :-: ''.��7pi1•. ►•.- uuu.�' 'VS Q (9 I.■!-111. 41211:Nil
NIVOM'.. .11111a r: ®A ..
527 acres ��', ."-:: =,411.4.1$
uN *VI 1••.I 1■���illw■1■::n1i F'=111IJ`i ®'•rl \�Ii11ieJJ pu.n.••ills i�C
71.11
iii
T I GARD N 1 '7 :r,.% un::ann■ci ■ nun nn as..
1 . ��� .uuuuniv:
:y i= "i'' ii:. ,..:u. J::,.Ind i:m:::anni ■i. 1111■GY MIDI x:l...._. n...z. 4,;7
:..•,,,,. ::9:n: __ '� . IIC.r ... J .011,,CI,_C . y r _ ,B♦.,,L...0 0.25 0.51 C� '..d::■... .•:.....::,..:i . -`IK. MI Ar • .1■P:kis himi•i. :mac ai5 -In- �� •i....•,,,,,,Ittrt. ••i I , . . I , r . 1 _ :I,fr ii. •7..: V. • A ✓ ' :.1■`. :1 :IIIILJ/ - ■ n4�r_.-_ :�.14.::-':.:�i�::Iiii .gid ig.. _.1. ::::!! IttI' ., �r ' ,.IN WI!:11:11::ME;111m;AI!! tai7.-‘1.1- H' LE
- Miles eL'.e_... ;:: :qi...'........ �1:n.„= ..%g"L `_- a 0, ,1�7 16T*-■ .=09 1 ifT1:1111::::1■■IJS 1 r ry 1, Cn •■I■
March 20 2012 -� Ll.a.-:''%. - .��T - ®� _ :1.1■ A =a
_ - _gni •,1, ..... - .i ��e. .^•II1.-.:nn: nal:_1:u :1 m1: u.r, __ •'•'
-�__ -wr�� Le.;•:moi :':. 1 '■ :'. a l 1 =$■1. ��9 :.% ' ■1,-,JI erii i■I:: 1e c:1e u1:•e cum':: !WAN-'J _ - co .,I
_-L�j� IIIII"�1• '• ,;: =_nwn 1.=:•••�: .nmmnn�- � .•.'�i9i..rlre- . �' '�rrr.11��I�}...: 1:111:1h:-:1•.::11::::11111;71.111111.5:40F
--'Iw..1.�:� :
- �' �w f'�p 2-qz,: _-_ -' 'i Icon- :7 F'"•b�; r J.r ,:m...=; ' -
�� \, w I� •,.�, b`�., L°iii✓' e::, ____.�� �,.:°•r•• a, -ml i ■gool=E.-ud=dm::.I.. :ur'RCL C (�.G.- ' i
mow :�y�.. II� r,• •`�\- ,9 '_' 'k'.0.-'‘:. '�n Ma a _ �� ^ r5� � _� ^':,•gm• � _ „"■r�_cr �1 ���j�"::
_---. �. " .� :,f+ E = " .,•s , taw _ ■im:'i_..-114.:.:al: 1. I. lit ,
��� i.;➢e.: r� F ;�, - IS!3� ; c;.; X111 ■■■ - _,........41....:L- �"/! ",1 ..
Hi In
.►.. LS -- 'i.: I` Ii .. `iii: -.1■ J _� � _ t__,
SII■I■"�.....�` .; �l"Ilr�'1: � =,N' ,I�r:: �F.0■�, iii1=-- r 1•. ..,._
1i T rlin iI ■ L•
niiiiu•
r - •• le•• _ JJ
1■-��■, '` titzm tr.t ►,a1*--- Ir r,.i' _anwnlS'c 1 -.'i!I 1 I I A'91 E1 .r_. ■ G• '1 . II ,� i IG
`' gisir:L1 '• ��1'ul.-, '1� ,1 Jn;:' '_:1_11 i ��I 11, ���,�t1�._: ��
■`��iitomm•�n.•- l\� ��iir � _ =,�7-.,,,:,•_ i? ■liar-= -0.4 ‘ift4,,_71-1441rii
•- t- :\ - lo_,u Il u■-l_r 11nu•" �nw.gllll� -
� i� �„���I■ E`er ',.-'r_ _ ���+i�-:,�� m •': i''����iil� ��� - R_ •��. p►' �j�����1� � la■c��-�
.��.��' DIY: "� - _ _ :. ?..n.:. .1 � ' , 1111•.11 . �f . `1Y • I _„', i. __ di... n �.mi3:.:''.•...�:_::::= I.. ���Oil. - -�°" ". I "V311,11111;111/14�� ®® ilal'i• :o■■_�.
I '" _11111:: . =�J`ill'.ct•'`:,ri__ '�.�. _ \ �_ _ '„I _: . ., p■ �� ■'•�■Mira011r. if4i., _ - _ _ --
11
,,irill:Faiii:f .Tv:,
l _ :o::,;,11i=,5_S,s. ..� ,■�r:.,.-.,: ..►\ I,QpY . I •/,, - 'I � ee X4:-,4,c� u� IIIIL_•.� �R_�yr�r •zti4 ��•,� _ �..:_;. :1.71:Eiw%TwAli:1,211:::::,.,!app7i� r'■:::II�� • c•:' ���'' ' ��J� �•+UTN rn .•. a�'.��. .•,i W.._ ,1N": ' 1�0 :1 ;:...!1 � �P . /i0� „�1;I ■ v .,�'rii '!� c:•:C• ..a.;_,1 _ _�.. ,_r�■p •u:_. :111111 111(►�ql �:,•i1.IN:4> ®<9..;\
�••• ::� .� -, u
lam. I ', -� .w'! " 4 �.ei: 1111■WIII:•:'��',:�;'�;"��','',� \�'`�y kJ/.
�•ti / u.��. p
■1 l' •= :,3/0 ;,` ./�• `I���r::e¢E I�t�ingaan. .� �6 y" G ��♦�, �N / 1�::`'�®� 5 r...� r,.... c:,r_ ... QO� .:111■_ -%i ..1 .:■I nl'•.(-�ialiii 1.' 1 111 i:p"V.N.4;.,.S `,�.,'S�` // "1 e/ 6n 11 :1. 411; b.�- .o;{ o ,i. iti:I=1.1,I'11�1`I lii$ -'• ::� ■■i1 r-�q'�o�/ 1�, Y��... raj\ �` 7,,i[ 11
1' x.....11• _. ...... I i► ��r.
li - �r IIIIIIII►/ �I '': trielit'''Y'7;11.r.L
- ':nullll:lam a:.1.��'�:�p.. a-:Illllll::i�.�,�....�ao'o , ` . 1 ..°_ -- 1 • 4 ty �•0��."%:Wy .11111111:'.:1n•��.w .i'.•'b: ..1 , ...: �cS � �':lim!: ''111 �0..`: A• ..- '.■■- /. ... , .:,.;:nuu.��-see ` ��`: _ ;.�'..,': .- p+i ;�.v�i sp•::'.'+'p-- :S.n._= I"ii��-a �,� �� -_I. 7JI :I ..,.•• :5 �.:�? _ - �., .,. ♦p. :i�:�� � I �:::: G ���:nrr_•'?a.� eGnmul„_.,,c • ��:::.,. 1-171 ,w" :O�II i.i� ..,r.4• - 11r::•�•• � .�\11P`% ?�`� •'1.ice.■O,\ ;G�IPF.F.AtfliI3�.•• �._ �. �','.'•jA " .� r ,0. :_ :��:���,.: _ ■■u .�A:%�� ���.u1Ya�cu1 �` i-_..1■ i_! \e _i;=•: f... /o:•• •'1` ;:: _ '- '�11iff-d ,f' �: a �•0 11 11 ��1 ■1 �I�.: r ,ae � � ' =._ : _ _ {-.�: : •'\��•,�I�1 III:1■__-^w , ► •111._�f11 � :_ '- 7:1111 ■ •I�'••:AV��O�. •''f/:'' `� I, _ �„i. •,U/::.:" "i4.nnu\ '; %•:n• `\�in.111i�11111 --� '.'� III11 I ■� � ��.. • _. _I �, . 144.1■►�••`.%i eci0::_ C .)-/' :anu Igd tP I'." A,A11..�..• -I „i'i'��,,,I�� _► -111�• �Un,..:��p.�•., �-:.J��-�:aI� �..`��v Ellu�.�, �, � ■■�>1 ••
:eI/':�:..�ij�! --i' 1 in
C ...:/.r11�3'._1.1 .."�.....r.dui%i:GAARDE. �r'ili� .. 111 11.1_ �������,��r`■r kRU �•.
if
. , ' � ■■■�. .+/ / . � nl � :�Ur -.• ..,.L�(c•-,j1`_�J,°•� :�::.•.. �,qa:' ::_ -=a I.� ,®7.,.`■. ■.:I:�" �Iri� ■_,L: ?:i::@Ipc 1: ,..--``: w■u.p Q 1.� c.�. ■�.0_.:,,..... _ ,✓: 1 �..�- -`�.:i ■: 1 141ie" ..✓•° ��w� ♦ ■. !1■ -■1 ■ ■. •�. :��� -__ - ;- iC �-`I': ..1.- ,t41� 4- 3 II-'.-•'I u_■ aBULLMO;;;et. :6 ■i■IIII=111■= ■auI� ,.: `C'=sce_ --6P■ � .eltig •7 1'•i:� rd Ali;:i:..::? •�`_ =:"3� ._ �1} _ „111111.:a1■r11�■:� ■elI 1■■■u■I .c9•:.�°1■ en�\■lwiilin►q�ii� ��� l ml. o {I:Ir�O- .i' : v , 2 i�1`o = e•'�I�:o„� L_;.; :1■�p.....:■:;M 1111 1 iM" ..._� k ■■ /� ,.11., 11111 . - - :t„; •� .. a . 1'■ . ■1 __ I ■ ■. .p. . 11:
r,•,p -iiir 1 ,'s :.: �' BONITA BONITA ■ '� � ��' �.i�:i ji�I■�=� 1,��:.::■■:,►i��,t'.`r�`��.:�r1a�■1111.■ 11♦J ■ �1• ►�-■��:■1■�,�• . Fi s[1.�:�'.� 1■�.LIIII -_ • : .... .. _ _..:.� m 1,.11
.►"111:� tea"_ n' -SCC■' ?:�r__ I■. �r a' Mki-,ifwoo •• :,ee:a :„::;:;5::-- 'a �+� 'sI ..4,-tell
.._�n
` ■u :uor ._.JI
ill
:•I•.'1 .n �u.., I •,1,:-�-_:I■�►�:.:1�� - _...1 a�, /�1`��: .�v_li■ _� ........ ,��. _-Jl,,r�1 ����� _�_ -�
11_SEII .......�iJw.l■d■•n1.Pnmi:� � ��■iffi��S' ��� ,.�. 1�■��p
�, :glucal. ►.0 _ _ _' ii:a. ..inr:.! ^�'��■,1 � ,' -•:•:?�ei-i..•...�':
;,1:i_r.fi E-ii .:.1:.•.'ME :f1,6" tu:::: :70..E.r.:: ��1,f!.e:�c� _ ®rliN 14.LI,c::I:IHu' :rt iiit:� -C■; -i• g.: 11i Cr■.I1�I- nln i,, ifi ■n :.-I`_ aeN MI, N1y <1- .i ISD,,, i�.•.�it �� 7-P■ ::_'���•bii.i.li.� ■_ 1■ e\ri
���■�/',•i�,/'::ai� i��ii '■■ - :i�? ' `°• - ' �-iii: Ei.l 'ii'�F. _c:.- .- `.I. =I,N - _a��.-
:\ ��I��.`yJ:' ..iu.. _ '�/1=®' el■- ZIII' - I = ► ■ :0 1i 2 G�P� di-Int-
.-
Eiji
■■ ,, _,, or .1111;io +;j,i r ,,,r�..;.• ,���\��2,I '�'��"_-11 r, _ ..... . _ _ -r E :.- e l ,,1-_:
n.. �'__ \�' .�!�.: P.
:lirrte= i1"� , w \l�rn:%' ... - �1 _ _ •7a : GPS'"."Y Fj..
.•` .• ,o a ,Cdnu _n....._ _ m.. I-4 mi
al -, 1:..
1111111•i,•i1 _ `.�'a"an ��`ir� /\�.,�.� j:J.� �r.. ��� ": : '�,' C. '� ' ��' X741 :1 .„4.. -_
-��_■■111,. •' : ► twC �'I.� _,: - ':,, IM • _. , ••:_® nu .��r__�T �]_.. :III'1 tr�,
_� _e - �' 11.� .1..--- irtl„ 1=, ' •DURHAM....•:';_ 1 1= = .__,,,,,k,4
-=� _■i
■ I " -®=11,,' -
-:!e�, �r�li', 1 ==-`- - - •S oii::,'±�ulil,� .inn:a,...._�����,,; --= - ::` Q' D _.I�,,o,.
° 111111111, 21Niiiimm.• I ., =_� �i�` _ _`�::,'_ 11 `��''���5 1■ �: Vie.:_I ,,,.
7BEEF BEND 1I I�1 _ . € �.�= n :''' % ,' _III r '�.�_ �� _ _ _ -1,,11, _ 1- °° 111. ' ;::
IF m -11� �= J'-����'•� -�__ _� ii�I�iiiliiiiii:ilii' Ll'."�0% .�1 i"'•:�•• 1111'■ �`,/ y ■ iii111111I�_/�.,
Significant Tree Grove L.� p irmid- •, __ ;•: - •,%-� „II?, 1111?;''>I �c /11�
:,1� =_ '„ii;__.._I I r �■I ____:_•-.7.....q!....i..4:, ,g -�� ..VIII
Habitat `� .1 1 '�1- �Ip �1 1
1 ��/III�II 1ww I: - ® ��■� D''���,_ �I ■ `:�1111 I! ■mire, �m o
I-
Significant
Tigard City Boundary I I��� r „1J _ ��II �� !� ���, z ~i
I■uum J r
Taxlot Boundary :\ -==__ �I11IiIn :-� '�■ �cQ�� ��j ,,,-----p.Y
lig ;!I, „11,,,. Pe„„LIIII�I� 1 ���i..plivii =�'"s./: (�� _ _1 iillllrt��■IiI _ ' : .,_
:11_-•:iuiL•� •�•.:': \� CS /�illllli: d
gull
•twill :.1351!iiii I- • • !III..:11111.111,.�D`•i Q ����-II....111..1111:
......._____ _ ___,..
uuul X61111 'I���-ii:`i.:■:io / ,� ' ,� 11w l.u..
Appendix 9
Urban Forestry Plan -Supplemental Arborist Report Example Template
Effective Tree Canopy Cover Summary
Lot or Lot or Tract 2x Canopy 2x Canopy 1.25x Mature 1.25x Total Effective %
Tract # Area (ft2) Area (ft2) of Area (ft2) of Mature Canopy Mature Canopy Area Canopy
(exclude Preserved Preserved Canopy Area (ft2) of Canopy (ft2) per lot (Canopy Area
streets) Trees Stands Area(ftp) of Non-Native Area (ft2) of or tract
(w/ cond. and (w/ cond. and Native Planted Planted Lot or Tract
pres.>_2) 1 pres.>_2) Planted Trees Stands Area)
Trees
Total
77
Draft Planning Commission Motion 1
I move that the Planning Commission approve the following land use related
amendments to CPA 2011-00004 and DCA 2011-00002 which are more fully described
in the Amendment Requests Document prepared by staff:
1. LU Amendment 1: Minor text amendment to the summary heading of section
18.790.030.A (see page 14 of the Amendment Requests Document)
2. LU Amendment 2: Reduce the per lot effective tree canopy cover requirement to
15% in Chapter 18.790 (see page 23 of the Amendment Requests Document)
3. LU Amendment 3: Correct scrivener's error in section 18.790.030.0 (see page 24 of
the Amendment Requests Document)
4. LU Amendment 4: Correct scrivener's errors in ESEE (see page 34 of the
Amendment Requests Document of the Amendment Requests Document)
5. LU Amendment 5: Correct boundaries of significant tree groves #38 and #62 to
reflect changes due to recent tree removal (see page 34 of the Amendment Requests
Document)
6. LU Amendment 6: Minor text amendment to clarify the review and approval
process in sections 18.790.070.B.1-3 (see page 37 of the Amendment Requests
Document)
Draft Planning Commission Motion 2
I move that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of CPA
2011-00004 and DCA 2011-00002 as amended by the prior motion.
Planning Commission authorizes staff to make non-substantive text amendments to
correct scrivener's errors and for consistency with the text amendments for other
projects such as the code compliance amendments.
Draft Planning Commission Motion 3
I move that the Planning Commission advise City Council that the non-land use
elements of the Urban Forestry Code Revisions, which include Tigard Municipal Code
titles other than Title 18 and the Urban Forestry Manual, are consistent with and
supportive of CPA 2011-00004 and DCA 2011-00002 subject to the following non-land
use related amendments which are more fully described in the Amendment Requests
Document prepared by staff:
78
1. NLU Amendment 1: Grant 1.25x bonus credit for planting native trees (see page 44
of the Amendment Requests Document)
2. NLU Amendment 2: Reduce the per lot effective tree canopy cover requirement to
15% in the Urban Forestry Manual (see page 55 of the Amendment Requests
Document)
3. NLU Amendment 3: Minor text amendment to remove a repetitive approval
criterion for tree removal permit requirements in sensitive lands (see page 57 of the
Amendment Requests Document)
79
(UFCRP, Volume I) Agenda Item: 5.1
Hearing Date: April 16,2012 Time: 7:00 PM
STAFF REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD,
OREGON
120 DAYS = N/A
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT
CASE NOS: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) CPA 2011-00004
Development Code Amendment (DCA) DCA 2011-00002
APPLICANT: City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
PROPOSAL: To implement the city's Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the
Urban Forestry Master Plan, the City of' Tigard is proposing a
ComFrehensive Plan Amendment adopting the "Significant Tree Groves
Map' (Exhibit A) and Tigard Development Code (Title 18) Amendments to
Chapters 18.115, 18.120, B.310, 18.330, 18.350, 18.360, 18.370 18.390, 18.530,
18.610, 18.620, 18.630 18.640, 18.715,18.745, 18.775, 18.790, and 18.798.
LOCATION: Citywide
ZONING: All zoning classifications
COMP PLAN: All Comprehensive Plan Designations
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive
Plan Goals 1, Environmental Quality; 7, Hazards; 8, Parks Recreation, Trails
and Open Space; 9, Economic Development; 10, Housing; 11, Public Facilities
and Services; 12, Transportation; 13 Energy Conservation; and 14
Urbanization; Downtown; METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional
Plan Titles 1, 3, 12 and 13; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 5 through 14.
SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that this request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Development Code Amendments meets the necessary approval criteria according
to the findings found in Section IV of this report. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning
Commission recommend to the Tigard City Council APPROVAL of the CPA 2011-00004 and
DCA 2011-00002.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 1 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 80
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Project History
The City of Tigard has a proud history of commitment to preserving, enhancing and maintaining
its urban forest. The city's trees provide an important backdrop for life in Tigard. Unlike natural
forests or managed timberland, Tigard's urban forest is a mosaic of native forest remnants and
planted landscapes interspersed with buildings, roads and other elements of the urban environment.
On June 3, 2008, Tigard City Council adopted an Urban Forest section as part of its
Comprehensive Plan in order to establish broad goals and policies to guide the long-term
management and enhancement of the urban forest. During this process, the public voiced concern
over existing Development Code provisions, particularly with regard to tree mitigation standards.
Development interests felt the standards were overly punitive and served as impediments to
development. Environmental interests felt the standards were ineffective at achieving the goal of a
healthy and sustainable urban forest.
Soon after adoption, the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland filed a notice of
intent to appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals. The Urban Forest section of Comprehensive
Plan was voluntarily remanded as a result. While the city was unable to fully understand the
specific concerns of the Home Builders Association, they did take the opportunity to provide more
detailed findings to further support and explain the rationale for the city's urban forest goals and
policies. These additional findings can be found in the Tree Values Memo beginning on page 1 of
Volume III of the Proposed Draft Adoption Volumes, which are more fully described on page 4 of
this staff report. On August 10, 2010, Tigard City Council readopted the Urban Forest section of
the Comprehensive Plan with the additional findings. For reference, the Urban Forest section of
the Comprehensive Plan is included beginning on page 330 in Volume III.
To create a roadmap that implements the urban forest goals and policies in the Comprehensive
Plan, Tigard City Council directed staff to develop an Urban Forestry Master Plan, which is
included in its entirety beginning on page 247 of Volume III. The Urban Forestry Master Plan was
developed through a public process, which included specific outreach and involvement of
development and environmental interests, as well as the community at large. On November 10,
2009, the Urban Forestry Master Plan was accepted by Council. It outlines issues with the
management and regulation of the urban forest and detailed recommendations for addressing those
issues. Among the recommendations are suggested code revisions to support the implementation of
the urban forest goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
The main issues and recommendations in the Urban Forestry Master Plan include:
Issues:
1. The code does not promote the preservation of high quality trees.
2. The mitigation structure encourages overplanting and the preservation of large diameter
trees that are often less likely to survive development impacts.
3. The fees for tree removal are excessive.
4. The code unfairly penalizes those property owners with existing trees more than those
owners without trees.
5. The code is administratively difficult to implement because it is challenging to track
protected and replacement trees in the years and decades following development.
6. The code lacks specificity and has conflicts between various provisions, which present
administrative challenges for the city.
7. The code does not require sustainable installation and maintenance methods for trees.
8. The code does not provide flexible standards and incentives for preserving native tree
groves.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 2 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 81
Recommendations:
1. Update Tigard's urban forestry standards for development.
2. Ensure urban forestry standards promote sustainable design and maintenance of the
urban forest.
3. Establish an incentive-based program to preserve Tigard's remaining groves of native
trees.
4. Develop an equitable and efficient hazard tree identification and abatement program.
5. Improve management of the urban forest by ensuring information is readily available for
both the city and the public when making decisions.
6. Promote community-wide participation in urban forest stewardship.
To implement the Comprehensive Plan, as recommended by the Urban Forestry Master Plan, City
Council directed staff to undertake a major update of Tigard's urban forestry related code
provisions. Developed over two years from February 2010 to the spring of 2012, the Urban
Forestry Code Revisions Project reflects Tigard City Council's direction for a comprehensive
update of the city's urban forestry related code provisions with enhanced public involvement.
The Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project has involved ongoing, extensive collaboration with
city residents and stakeholders, internal city departments and outside agencies. In February 2010, a
Citizen Advisory Committee was appointed by Council to ensure representation of a broad set of
viewpoints during the update process. This committee included two planning commissioners, two
Tree Board members, two Parks Board members, two developers (including a representative for the
Home Builders Association), one certified arborist, one natural resource advocate and one at-large
citizen. In January 2011, the Citizen Advisory Committee timeline was extended to ensure ample
time for the committee to discuss code topics. In finalization, the committee reached consensus on
a set of guiding principles for each of the code topics.
A Technical Advisory Committee was formed at the same time as the Citizen Advisory
Committee. The Technical Advisory Committee included city staff and representatives from
outside agencies to advise the project management team on the technical aspects of the code during
the update process.
A public involvement plan was developed specifically for the project, to provide enhanced
opportunities for participation for the overall community throughout the process. This plan
included outreach at city events such as the Balloon Festival and Farmers Market, an email
newsletter specific to the Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project, three open houses and a variety
of other methods for community feedback.
The draft urban forestry code was peer reviewed by outside development and urban forestry
experts in October 2011, to provide additional assurance of technical soundness.
From this collaborative process emerged the staff proposed draft code amendments (Vol. II, pp. 1-
349). The proposed Development Code Amendments (DCA) to Title 18 are the subject of this
application and staff report (Vol. II, pp. 135-341). The significant tree groves map (Exhibit A) is the
subject of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA). The proposed CPA allows the
significant tree grove preservation incentives (Vol. II, pp. 317-325), as required by Statewide
Planning Goal 5 rule requirements.
Amendments are proposed to the Tigard Municipal Code Chapters 1.16, 6.01, 6.02, 7.40, 8.02 -
8.20, 9.06, and 9.08, to address the management of trees when land use regulations are not
applicable. For example, these non-land use amendments would address trees that are hazards to
people or property outside the land use process. While they are not part of the CPA or DCA in
this application, they are included for reference (Vol. II, pp. 9-133).
In addition, proposed administrative rules in the form of an Urban Forestry Manual are provided
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 3 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 82
for reference (Vol. II, pp. 349-462). The proposed Urban Forestry Manual contains detailed
specifications and procedures to support implementation of the proposed code. The Urban
Forestry Manual is provided for reference only; it does not contain land use regulations and is not
part of the CPA or DCA in this application.
Volumes I, II, and III of the Urban Forestry Code Revisions
The Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project, is presented in three volumes, which are
incorporated by reference in this staff report: Volume I is the Project Description, which tells the
story of the Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project; Volume II is the Staff Proposed Draft Code
Amendments, which contains the proposed draft code and Urban Forestry Manual; and Volume
III contains technical reports and research that contributed to the proposed code amendments. The
materials in these volumes are not necessarily land use regulations unless specifically identified as
such in this staff report. Below is a more detailed description of the content of each of the volumes.
Volume I: Project Description
Guiding Principles includes the consensus views of the Citizens Advisory Committee
developed to help guide the adoption process (Vol. I, p. 15).
Existing Conditions summarizes the history and existing conditions of Tigard's urban
forest (Vol. I, p. 22).
Policy Framework describes the major federal, state and regional agencies and programs
that influence or benefit from urban forest management in Tigard (Vol. I., p. 25).
Process Summary describes the planning process and public involvement efforts during the
Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project (Vol. I., p. 31).
Summary of Community Ideas and Concerns includes a general description of ideas and
concerns raised by community members, a description of the Planning Commission's and
City Council's deliberations and decisions (Vol. I., p. 34).
Appendix A is this staff report to the Planning Commission, which will be incorporated at
a later date (Vol. I., p. 41).
Volume II: Staff Proposed Draft Code Amendments
These amendments will change based on Planning Commission and Council decisions during the
adoption process.
Staff Proposed Draft Code Amendments is the staff's draft proposed changes to land use
regulations in Title 18 and non-land use regulations in other titles of the Tigard Municipal
Code. This section includes commentary on the amendments (Vol. II., p. 1).
Urban Forestry Manual consists of administrative rules that implement the details of the
urban forestry related code provisions in Title 8, Title 18 and other applicable titles in the
Tigard Municipal Code (Vol. II., p. 349).
Appendix B is the -neer review, which demonstrates how the draft code and Urban Forestry
Manual would won( in application (Vol. II., p. 463).
Volume III: Technical Reports
Tree Values includes information and current research on the environmental, economic,
social and aesthetic benefits of trees. This information was used as additional findings to
support the readoption of the Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan (Vol. III., p.
1).
Canopy Standards explains the reasons for adopting canopy cover standards, as well as the
methods used to arrive at the proposed standards (Vol. III., p. 7).
Soil Volume details research about the soil volume required to support mature tree canopy.
Tree Canopy Fee discusses research used to develop a square foot value for tree canopy
(Vol. III., p. 15).
Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy Analysis (ESEE). This report addresses
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 4 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 83
Statewide Planning Goal 5 - Natural Resources requirements for protection of Significant
Tree Groves (Vol. III., p. 17).
Regulatory Comparison is a report prepared by Metro and the Audubon Society that
summarizes regional urban forestry programs and regulations (Vol. III., p. 217).
Urban Forestry Master Plan is the City of Tigard's recommended plan for achieving the
urban forestry foals in the Comprehensive Plan (Vol. III., p. 247).
Log of Input lists the input received and any changes from the last meeting of the CAC to
the staff proposed draft Urban Forestry Code Revisions (Vol. III., p. 357).
Goal 5 Applicability
The proposed CPA would incorporate the significant tree grove map (Exhibit A) into the city's
Comprehensive Plan Resource Document (Volume 1) as a new Goal 5 natural resource inventory.
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D includes regulatory incentives and flexible standards to
protect significant tree groves listed in the inventory. Oregon Administrative Rule (ORS) 660-23-
0250(3) requires local governments to address Goal 5 requirements when a post acknowledgement
plan amendment "...creates...a resource list...or a land use regulation adopted in order to protect a
significant Goal 5 resource." Therefore, the significant tree grove map and regulatory incentives
and flexible standards are subject to Goal 5 requirements (further described in the Tree Grove
ESEE Analysis (Vol. III, p. 17)).
However, Goal 5 requirements are not applicable to proposed code amendments that support
general urban forest enhancement activities, such as tree planting and preservation, when not
associated with significant tree groves. These activities do not create or amend a resource list or
land use regulation adopted in order to protect a Goal 5 resource.
Procedural Note
For the purposes of review and adoption, the proposed urban forestry code revisions are comprised
of four basic elements:
1) The significant tree groves map, which is the subject of the proposed CPA;
2) Amendments to the land use regulations in Title 18, which are the subject of the proposed
DCA;
3) Amendments to the non-land use regulations in all other titles except Title 18, which are not
part of this application; and
4) Administrative rules in the Urban Forestry Manual, which are also non-land use regulations
and not part of this application.
Because of Oregon land use law, the land use elements (proposed CPA and DCA) will be adopted
by separate ordinance from the proposed non-land use amendments (Tigard Municipal Code titles
other than Title 18). The Urban Forestry Manual will be adopted as an administrative rule through
a separate rule making process in TMC 2.04, so that future amendments to these technical
specifications can be made using the same process.
In order to provide for a comprehensive view, the Planning Commission may review, take
testimony, deliberate and comment on both the land use elements and non-land use elements
referenced in this application. However, the Planning Commission recommendation to council is
limited to the land use elements of the proposal, which are the CPA incorporating the significant
tree groves map and the DCA incorporating the proposed development code amendments into
Title 18.
SECTION IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
APPLICABLE CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18)
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 5 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 84
Chapter 18.380. ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS
"18.380.020 Legislative Amendments to this Title and Map
A. Legislative amendments. Legislative zoning map and text amendments shall be
undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060G."
The proposed CPA and DCA would establish rules and regulations to be applied generally to all
similarly affected properties throughout the City of Tigard. Therefore, the application is being
processed as a Type IV procedure, which is a legislative amendment, as governed by Section
18.390.060.G.
Chapter 18.390. DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES
"18.390.B.4. Types defined. There are four types of decision-making procedures, as follows: ...
4. Type IV Procedure. Type IV procedures apply to legislative matters. Legislative
matters involve the creation, revision, or large-scale implementation of public policy.
Type IV matters are considered initially by the Planning Commission with final
decisions made by the City Council."
The proposed CPA and DCA would result in the creation, revision and large-scale implementation
of the city's urban forestry goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the
application will be reviewed under the Type IV procedure as detailed in the Section 18.390.060.G.
In accordance with this section, the CPA and DCA will initially be considered by the Planning
Commission with City Council making the final decision.
"18.390.060.G. Decision-making considerations. The recommendation by the Commission
and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors:
1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised
Statutes Chapter 197;
2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable;
3. Any applicable METRO regulations;
4. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and
5. Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances."
The applicable decision-making considerations include the following:
Applicable Statewide Planning Goals - Goals 1, 2, and 5 through 14.
Applicable federal and state of Oregon statutes - ORS197
Applicable METRO regulations - Titles 1, 3, 12 and 13.
Applicable Comprehensive Plan policies - Goals 1, Citizen Involvement; 2, Land Use
Planning; 5, Natural Resources; 6, Environmental Quality; 7, Hazards; 8, Parks
Recreation, Trails and Open Space; 9, Economic Development; 10, Housing; 11, Public
Facilities and Services; 12, Transportation; 13, Energy Conservation; and 14,
Urbanization; 15, Downtown.
Applicable city ordinances - TMC Chapters 18.380 and 18.390.
CONCLUSION: The review criteria listed above are applicable to the proposed CPA and DCA in
Volume II. The proposed CPA and DCA will be reviewed through the Type IV legislative
procedure. The Planning Commission and Council are basing their decisions on applicable federal,
state, METRO, and local policies and regulations, which are enumerated and addressed in this staff
report. Therefore, the applicable Tigard Development Code provisions are met.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 6 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 85
APPLICABLE CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
INTRODUCTION
(Excerpt from p. I-3 of the Comprehensive Plan):
"As the comprehensive plan is "comprehensive" in nature, there are no parts that can be
considered separately from others. Plan goals and policies are intended to be supportive of one
another. However, if conflicts arise between goals and policies when using the Plan, the City
has an obligation to make findings that indicate why the goal or policy being supported takes
precedence. This involves a decision-making process on the part of the city that balances and
weighs the applicability and merits of the goals and policies that are in contention."
As described in the Project History section of this report, the Urban Forestry Code Revisions
Project reflects Tigard City Council's direction for a comprehensive update of the city's urban
forestry related code provisions with enhanced public involvement.
The Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project has involved ongoing, extensive collaboration with
city residents and stakeholders, internal city departments and outside agencies (Vol. I, p. 31).
From this collaborative process emerged the staff proposed CPA and DCA described in this report
which represent a balance between the range of interests involved in the process, as well as balance
between the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
The primary balancing efforts have focused on developing tree canopy requirements that balance
the community's desire for trees, development, and open space. The Citizen Advisory Committee
reached consensus to draft achievable and balanced tree canopy requirements for development that
are tiered based on zoning district. For example, development in low density residential areas
would be required to have more trees than in areas of dense zoning, such as Downtown Tigard
(Vol. I, p. 15).
To implement the consensus of the Citizen Advisory Committee, staff analyzed possible percent
tree canopy for each zoning district using the same methodology developed to set tree canopy goals
for the Urban Forestry Master Plan as well as an updated methodology using Light Detection and
Ranging (LiDAR) technology (Vol. III, p. 9).
The results of these analyses were then used in conjunction with the minimum percent landscaping
requirements in the Tigard Development Code to place the various zoning districts within one of
three tiers. The exception is school sites, which were placed in the "dense zoning" tier 3 to ensure
sufficient room for sports fields (Vol. III, p. 11).
Staff and outside consultants then tested the tiered requirements on a wide range of development
projects to ensure the requirements are in fact achievable, result in a reasonable balance between
trees, development and open space, and do not force payment of fees in lieu or discretionary review
for typical projects.
The peer review results demonstrate that the requirements are achievable without payment of fees
in lieu or discretionary reviews (Vol. II, p. 463).
Based on these analyses, staff is confident that the proposed tree canopy requirements balance the
community's desire for trees, development and open space, and the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan as articulated in the Introduction.
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
"GOAL:
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 7 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 86
1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity
to participate in all phases of the planning process."
As described in the Process Summary (Vol. I, p. 31), the city has provided Tigard citizens, affected
agencies and other jurisdictions multiple and varied opportunities to participate in all phases of the
urban forestry planning process. This included 11 Citizen Advisory Committee meetings where
people representing diverse interests and viewpoints discussed and reviewed code concepts and
language at 11 meetings, hosted by an independent facilitator. In addition, a Technical Advisory
Committee, which included representatives from multiple city departments such as Public Works
and Community Development and outside agencies such as the Oregon Department of
Transportation and Clean Water Service met 14 times to discuss and review code concepts and
language resulting from the Citizen Advisory Committee process. 14,225 public hearing notices,
consistent with Measure 56 requirements, were sent to all Tigard property owners on January 13,
2012. Public hearing notices were also provided to interested parties on January 17, 2012, to
affected agencies on January 20, 2012 and published in the Tigard Times on January 19, 2012.
The proposed CPA and DCA will be further considered through the public hearing process at the
Planning Commission and City Council prior to adoption. The Planning Commission held its first
public hearing on February 6, 2012 and a follow-up workshop on March 5, 2012. A final hearing at
the commission is scheduled for April 16, 2012, followed by review and adoption by City Council
later into the fall and summer of 2012. Therefore, citizens, affected agencies and other jurisdictions
will have been provided the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process
consistent with this policy.
"GOAL:
1.2 Ensure all citizens have access to:
A. opportunities to communicate directly to the City; and
B. information on issues in an understandable form."
"POLICIES:
5. The City shall seek citizen participation and input through collaboration
with community organizations, interest groups, and individuals in
addition to City sponsored boards and committees."
As described in the Process Summary (Vol. I, p. 31), the Citizen Advisory Committee included
representatives from city boards such as the Tree Board, Parks Boards, and Planning Commission,
representatives from community organizations and interests groups such as the Tualatin
Riverkeepers and HBA and citizens at large. These and other public involvement opportunities
demonstrate that the city has sought citizen participation and input through collaboration with
community organizations, interestroups and individuals in addition to city sponsored boards and
committees consistent with this policy.
"6. The City shall provide opportunities for citizens to communicate to
Council, boards and commissions, and staff regarding issues that
concern them."
The community had opportunities to participate in the Citizen Advisory Committee process by
providing written, electronic and verbal communication at each Citizen Advisory Committee
meeting. Staff provided three open house opportunties to provide opportunities for additional
community feedback. Two open houses allowed opportunties for property owners with significant
tree groves to provide input to the city during the inventory phase and development of regulatory
incentives and flexible standards. An additional open house provided opportunties for the overall
community to provide feedback on additional urban forestry code amendments, which are not
subject to the Goal 5 rule requirements. Therefore, the city has provided Tigard citizens the
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 8 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 87
opportunity to communicate to Council, boards and commissions, and staff regarding urban
forestry issues that concern them, consistent with this policy.
LAND USE PLANNING
"GOAL:
2.1 Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations
and action plans as the legislative foundation of Tigard's land use
planning program."
"POLICIES:
1. The City's land use program shall establish a clear policy direction, comply with state
and regional requirements, and serve its citizens' own interests."
In 2008 the city completed its periodic review and update of its Comprehensive Plan, which has
been acknowledged by Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development DLCD as
consistent with Statewide Planning Goals. Included within the Comprehensive Plan is an Urban
Forest section, which was initially adopted on June 3, 2008, and readopted on August 10, 2010,
with additional findings that further support the goals and policies in the Urban Forest section. The
Urban Forest section (Vol. III, p. 330) and the additional findings can be found in the Tree Values
Memo (Vol. III, p. 1). On November 10, 2009, City Council accepted the Urban Forestry Master
Plan as consistent with, and supportive of, the urban forestry goals and policies in the
Comprehensive Plan. The Urban Forestry Master Plan set realistic timelines and provides a
balanced framework for implementing updates to the city's urban forestry code provisions, policies
and programs (Vol. III, p. 247). The proposed CPA and DCA have been guided by these past
planning processes, which have established clear policy direction in compliance with state and
regional requirements and serve citizen's interests, consistent with this policy.
"2. The City's land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be
consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan."
The Urban Forestry Master Plan provides a roadmap in the form of a matrix for implementing
urban forestry goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan (Implementation Matrix,Vol. III, p.
255). The proposed CPA and DCA implement the recommendations in the Urban Forestry Master
Plan matrix. Therefore, they are consistent with related plans and implement the Comprehensive
Plan, as required by this policy.
"3. The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation of its land
use program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies."
Request for comments on the proposed CPA and DCA were sent to Metro - Land Use and
Planning, Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Oregon Department of State Lands, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J, and the cities of
Tualatin, Lake Oswego, Beaverton, King City and Durham. Representatives of the Oregon
Department of Transportation and Clean Water Services were also members of the Technical
Advisory Committee. DLCD was provided the opportunity to comment and coordinate the
application for the Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment process per ORS 197.610. Therefore,
the city has coordinated the adoption, amendment and implementation of the proposed CPA and
DCA with potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies consistent with this policy.
"4. The City's land use program shall promote the efficient use of land through the
creation of incentives and redevelopment programs."
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 9 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 88
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.0 (Vol. II, p. 313) include incentives and flexible
standards for the preservation and planting of individual trees, while accommodating development.
These incentives and flexible standards include lot size averaging, setback adjustments and parking
adjustments.
In addition, incentives and flexible standards for the preservation of significant tree groves are
proposed in Section 18.790.050.D (Volume II, p.317). These incentives and flexible standards
include density transfer, setback adjustments and additional building height to preserve significant
tree groves, while accomodating development. Therefore, the city has promoted the efficient use of
land through incentives and flexible standards that accommodate the preservation and planting of
individual trees and the preservation of significant tree groves, consistent with this policy.
"7. The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement the
Comprehensive Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including: ...
E) Overlay districts where natural resource protections or special planning and
regulatory tools are warranted."
The proposed CPA establishes an overlay district for 70 significant tree groves covering 527 acres.
As further described in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis (Vol. III, . 17), Goal 5 rule requirements
allow significant tree groves within the overlay to be eligible for the proposed incentives and
flexible standards for tae preservation in Section 18.790.050.D. Therefore, the proposed CPA and
DCA implement the Comprehensive Plan by creating an overlay district where natural resource
protections and special planning and regulatory tools are warranted consistent with this policy.
"12. The City shall provide a wide range of tools, such as planned development, design
standards, and conservation easements that encourage results such as: ...
C) Protection of natural resources;
D) Preservation of open space; and
E) Regulatory flexibility necessary for projects to adapt to site conditions."
Incentives and flexible standards for the preservation of significant tree groves are proposed in
Section 18.790.050.D, such as reduction of minimum density, density transfer, setback adjustments
and additional building height to preserve significant tree groves while allowing development to
adapt to site conditions. Significant tree groves are a Goal 5 natural resource and the proposed
amendments would facilitate the protection of these resources, consistent with this policy.
"15. In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable,
amendments to Tiard's Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map shall be subject to the
following specific criteria:
G) Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the City's
natural systems."
The proposed CPA creates a significant tree grove overlay, which overlaps with sensitive lands
defined in Chapter 18.775, which together represent the city's natural systems. The proposed
flexible standards and incentives for preserving significant trees groves would enhance, rather than
detract from the viability of the city's natural systems, consistent with this policy.
"18. The Council may at any time, upon finding it is in the overall public interest, initiate
legislative amendments to change the Comprehensive Plan text, Plan/Zoning Map(s)
and/or the Community Development Code."
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 10 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 89
To implement the Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Urban Forestry Master Plan, in
February 2010 City Council directed staff to undertake a comprehensive update of Tigard's urban
forestry related code provisions. The proposed CPA and DCA reflect City Council direction for a
comprehensive update of the city's urban forestry related code provisions, which they have found
to be in the overall public interest consistent with this policy.
"20. The City shall periodically review and, if necessary, update its Comprehensive Plan and
regulatory maps and implementing measures to ensure they are current and responsive
to community needs, provide reliable information, and conform to applicable state law,
administrative rules, and regional requirements."
The proposed CPA and DCA amendments were developed in response to community needs
identified through the Urban Forestry Master Plan and Urban Forestry Code Revisions Projects.
Both of these projects involved a Citizen Advisory Committee to ensure community needs were
well represented during the planning process. The proposed CPA and DCA are current and
responsive to the community'sneeds, as evidenced by the Citizen Advisory Committee's
unanimously approved guiding principles (Vol. I, p. 15).
In addition, the proposed CPA creates a significant tree grove map (Exhibit A), which provides
reliable information. Each significant tree grove was inventoried and assessed using Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) and site visits. The inventory and assessment process is further described
in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis (Vol. III, p. 17). The proposed CPA and DCA conform to
applicable state, administrative rules, and regional requirements as identified in the findings for this
staff report and the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis. Therefore, the proposed CPA and DCA are
consistent with this policy.
"21. The City shall require all development to conform to site design/development
regulations."
The Urban Forestry Plan requirements in Chapter 18.790 (Vol. II, p. 299) would continue to
require an Urban Forestry Plan for land use projects that were previously required to conform to
the chapter requirements. Two additional review types (Downtown Design Review and Sensitive
Lands Review) would also be required to conform to the chapter requirements. Therefore, the
proposed DCA would continue to require all land use projects, as well as two additional review
types, to conform to urban forestry site design and development regulations, consistent with this
policy.
"22. The City shall identify, designate, and protect natural resources as part of its land use
program."
The proposed CPA creates a significant tree grove overlay for 70 inventoried significant tree groves
covering 527 acres. The Tree Grove ESEE Analysis (Vol. III, p. 17) provides greater context for the
proposed overlay, which has been designated consistent with Goal 5 rule requirements. The
proposed flexible standards and incentives in Section 18.790.050.D (Vol. II, p. 317) are designed to
facilitate the protection of significant tree roves consistent with this policy. It is important to note
that Goal 5 rule requirements are not applicable to the preservation and planting of individual trees
because individual trees are planted and preserved primarily for their aesthetic, air and water
quality benefits, as further described in the Tree Values Memo (Vol. III, p. 1).
"24. The City shall establish design standards to promote quality urban development and to
enhance the community's value, livability, and attractiveness."
The proposed DCA in Chapters 18.610 - 18.640, 18.745 and 18.790 in Volume II, include design
standards for the plantingand preservation of individual trees, which are recognized for their
aesthetic benefits as more ully described in the Tree Values Memo (Vol. III, p. 1). The Tree Values
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 11 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 90
memo explains that individual trees are proven to enhance property values and thereby promote
quality urban development and enhance the community's value, livability and attractiveness,
consistent with this policy.
"GOAL:
2.2 To enlarge, improve, and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the economic,
ecological, and social benefits of trees."
"POLICIES:
1. The City shall maintain and periodically update policies, regulations, and standards to
inventory, manage, preserve, mitigate the loss of, and enhance the community's tree
and vegetation resources to promote their environmental, aesthetic and economic
benefits."
The Urban Forestry Standards for Development require an inventory and plan to manage, preserve
and mitigate the loss of the trees as part of the development process (Vol. II, p. 135-341). Incentives
in Chapter 18.790, such as the Urban Forestry Plan requirements in Section 18.790.030 encourage
the preservation andlanting of trees, however a fee-in-lieu of planting or preservation is allowed
to mitigate the loss of-trees.
In addition, the proposed CPA would create a significant tree grove overlay for 70 inventoried
significant tree groves covering 527 acres. The Tree Grove ESEE Analysis (Vol. III, p. 17) provides
greater context for the proposed overlay, which has been designated consistent with Goal 5 rule
requirements. Flexible standards and incentives are proposed in Section 18.790.050.D to facilitate
preservation of significant tree groves (Vol. II, p. 317).
Through these CPA and DCA , the city is maintaining and updating its policies, regulations and
standards to inventory, manage, preserve, mitigate the loss of and enhance the community's tree
and vegetation resources to promote their environmental, aesthetic and economic benefits
consistent with this policy.
"2. The City's various codes, regulations, standards, and programs relating to landscaping,
site development, mitigation, and tree management shall be consistent with, and
supportive of, one another; administration and enforcement shall be regulated and
coordinated by the variously impacted departments."
Tigard City Council directed staff to pursue a comprehensive update of the city's urban forestry
code provisions to ensure the various code, regulations, standards and programs relatingto
landscaping, site development, mitigation and tree management are consistent with an supportive
of, one another. Staff has paid particular attention to ensure consistency between the proposed land
use regulations in Title 18 and the non-land use regulations in other titles so adminstration and
enforcement is coordinated before, during and after the development process. In addition, staff
from variously impacted departments and outside agencies that have a role in urban forestry served
on the Technical Advisory Committee to coordinate developing the urban forestry code
provisions. Adminstration and enforcement of the urban forestry code provisions will be assigned
to the Community Development Department. The city's comprehensive approach to developing
the proposed CPA and DCA, and planned adminstration and enforcement by a single department
is consistent with this policy.
"3. The City shall continue to regulate the removal of trees within environmentally
sensitive lands and on lands subject to natural hazards."
Trees within environmentally sensistive lands and lands subject to natural hazards, as defined in
Chapter 18.775, would continue to be subject to the proposed Urban Forestry Plan requirements in
Chapter 18.790.030, as part of the development process. When development is not proposed, trees
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 12 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 91
within environmentally sensistive lands would still be regulated by the provision of Chapter 8.12,
which are non-land use regulations and not part of this application. The proposed DCA in Chapter
18.790.030 would continue to regulate the removal of trees within environmentally sensitive lands
and on lands subject to natural hazards, consistent with this policy.
"4. The City shall ensure that street design and land use standards provide ample room for
the planting of trees and other vegetation, including the use of flexible and incentive
based development standards.
The proposed design standards in Chapters 18.610 - 18.640, Chapter 18.745 and Section 18.790.050,
require ample room and allow flexible standards and incentives for the planting of trees. Included
are increased dimensions for tree planting spaces, reduction in parking for planting parking lot
trees, flexible sidewalk locations for planting street trees and minimum soil volume standards for
parking lot and street trees. Through the proposed DCA, the city will ensure that street design and
land use standards provide ample room for the planting of trees, including the use of flexible and
incentive based development standards, consistent with this policy.
"5. The City shall require the replacement and/or installation of new street trees, unless
demonstrated infeasible, on all new roads or road enhancement projects. Trees should
be planted within planter strips, or at the back of sidewalks if planter strips are not
feasible or would prohibit the preservation of existing trees."
Through the proposed DCA in Chapter 18.745.040 (Vol. II, p. 263), the city will require the
replacement and/or installation of new street trees, unless demonstrated infeasible, on all new roads
or road enhancement projects that are part of the listed land use permits. New roads or road
enhancement projects that do not require a land use permit are not part of this application. The
existing street design standards in Chapter 18.810 require street trees within planter strips but allow
planting in the back of sidewalk if planter strips are not feasible or would prohibit the preservation
of existing trees. Chapter 18.810 is not proposed for revision as part of this application. Therefore,
the proposed DCA in Chapter 18.745.040 that require new street trees and the existing street design
standards in Chapter 18.810 that require street trees in planter strips are consistent with this policy.
"6. The City shall establish and enforce regulations to protect the public's investment in
trees and vegetation located in parks, within right-of-ways, and on other public lands
and easements."
The proposed DCA Vol. II, pp. 135-341) are applicable to trees located in parks, within right of
ways and on other public lands and easements as part of the land use permitting process for certain
development activities in those locations. Additional provisions protect the public's investment in
trees located in parks, within right of ways and on other public lands and easements outside the
developmentrocess (Vol. II, pp. 9-133), but are not land use regulations and not part of this
application. The proposed applicability of land use regulations protect the public's investment in
trees located in parks, within rights of ways and on other public lands and easements consistent
with this policy.
"7. The City shall conduct an ongoing tree and urban forest enhancement program to
improve the aesthetic experience, environmental quality, and economic value of
Tigard's streets and neighborhoods."
The Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project is part of the city's ongoing tree and urban forest
enhancement program. The proposed DCA (Vol. II, p . 135-341) require development to improve
the aesthetic experience, environmental quality and economic value of Tigard's streets and
neighborhoods through tree planting and preservation requirements as part of the land use process,
consistent with this policy.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 13 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 92
"8. The City shall continue to maintain and periodically update approved tree lists for
specific applications and site conditions, such as street trees, parking lot trees, and trees
for wetland and riparian areas."
The proposed DCA in Chapters 18.610 through 18.640, Chapter 18.745 and Section 18.790.050,
reference the Urban Forestry Manual for a list of recommended trees for specific applications and
site conditions such as street trees, parking lot trees and trees for wetland and riparian areas when
planting is required as part of the land use process. While the Urban Forestry Manual itself not part
of this application, referencing the recommending trees lists within it during the land use process is
consistent with this policy.
"9. The City shall discourage the use or retention of invasive trees and other plants
through the development review process."
The lists of recommended trees referenced in Goal 2.2 Policy 8 do not inlcude invasive trees. In
addtion, a nuisance (i.e. invasive) tree list is included in the Urban Forestry Manual and nuisance
trees are not eligible for credit when planted to meet the Urban Forestry Plan requirements in
Section 18.790.030. While the Urban Forestry Manual itself not part of this application, not
allowing nuisance trees to meet the tree planting standards that are part of the development review
process dicourages their use and retention and is consistent with this policy.
"10. The City shall require the appropriate use of trees and other vegetation as buffering
and screening between incompatible uses."
The proposed DCA retain the existing buffering and screening requirements for incompatible uses
in Section 18.745.050 (Vol. II, p. 269). The spacing requirements and names of the specific tree
types have been amended slightly for consistency with the spacing requirements and names of trees
in other sections in Title 18. The slightly modified DCA would continue to require appropriate use
of trees and other vegetation as buffering and screening between incompatible uses andisconsistent
with this policy.
"11. The City shall develop and implement a citywide Urban Forestry Management Master
Plan."
Council accepted the Urban Forestry Master Plan (Vol. III, p. 247) on November 10, 2009,
consistent with this policy. The Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project implements the
Comprehensive Plan as recommendationed by the Urban Forestry Master Plan. While the Urban
Forestry Master Plan is not part of this application, is not a land use regulation and does not
contain relevant approval criteria for this application, its development and implementation has
helped shape the Urban Forestry Code Revisions and is consistent with this policy.
"GOAL:
2.3 To balance the diverse and changing needs of the city through well designed urban
development that minimizes the loss of existing trees to create a living legacy for
future generations."
"POLICIES:
1. The City shall develop and implement standards and procedures designed to minimize
the reduction of existing tree cover, with priority given to native trees and non-native
varietals that are long lived and/or provide a broad canopy spread."
The proposed DCA are designed to minimize the reduction of existing tree cover through the
Urban Forestry Plan requirements in Section 18.790.030 (Vol. II, p. 299). Section 18.790.030
requires tree canopy cover standards to be met as part of the land use process. The standards for
meeting tree canopy cover requirements are within the Urban Forestry Manual and are designed to
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 14 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 93
minimize the reduction of existing tree cover by granting bonus credits for preserving existing
trees. In addition, standards are designed to give priority to long-lived and broad spreading trees
because these tree types will most facilitate acheivement of canopy cover standards.
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.0 include incentives and flexible standards for the
preservation of individual trees (Vol. II, p. 313). The amendments are designed to minimize the
reduction of existing tree cover by allowing lot size averaging, setback adjustments and parking
adjustments.
In addition, incentives and flexible standards for significant tree groves are proposed in Section
18.790.050.D, such as density transfer, setback adjustments and additional building height to
preserve significant tree groves. These incentives and flexible standards for significant tree groves
are designed to minimize the reduction of existing tree cover while prioritizing native trees that are
long-lived and provide a broad canopy spread. Flexible standards and incentives for the
preservation of signficant tree groves were developed through the Goal 5 rule requirements as
required by state law. Goal 5 rule requirements are not applicable to the preservation and planting
of individual trees because individual trees are planted and preserved primarily for their aestheitic,
air and water quality benefits.
Therefore, the Urban Forestry Plan requirements in Section 18.790.030 and the incentives and
flexible standards for preservation in Section 18.790.050 have the effect of minimizing the reduction
of existing tree cover, with priority given to native trees and non-native varietals that are long-lived
and/or provide a broad canopy spread consistent with this policy.
"2. In prescribing the mitigation of the impacts of development, the City shall give
priority to the protection of existing trees, taking into consideration the related
financial impact of mitigation."
The proposed DCA prescribe the mitigation of the impacts of development through Urban
Forestry Plan requirements in Section 18.790.030 (Vol. II, p. 299). Section 18.790.030 requires tree
canopy cover standards to be met by planting new trees, preserving existing trees or paying a fee in
lieu of planting or preservation. The standards are designed to minimize the reduction of existing
tree cover by granting bonus credits for preserving existing trees.
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.0 include flexible standards to facilitate the preservation
of individual trees (Vol. II, p. 313). The flexible standards include lot size averaging, setback
adjustments and parking adjustments.
In addition, incentives and flexible standards in Section 18.790.050.D would facilitate the
preservation of significant tree groves. These incentives and flexible standards inlcude density
transfer, setback adjustments and additional building height to accomodate the preservation of
significant tree groves.
A fee in lieu of planting or preservation is proposed and takes into consideration the financial
impacts of mitigation. As further described in the Tree Canopy Fee Memo (Vol. III, p. 15), the tree
canopy fee was established using a conservative estimated value of tree canopy based on appraisal
standards developed by the International Society of Arboriculture.
The peer review results demonstrate that the proposed canopy requirements are likely acheivable
throughlanting and preservation for most development projects (Vol. II, p. 463). This further
informedthecity's consideration of related financial impacts of mitigation when developing the
proposed fee in lieu of planting or preservation.
Finally, a discretionary Urban Forestry Plan review option (Vol. II, p 307) is proposed to be
allowed in lieu of meeting the Urban Forestry Plan requirements in Section 18.790.030. The
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 15 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 94
discretionary Urban Forestry Plan review option would allow an applicant to mitigate the lack of
canopy cover by incorporating innovative, alternate development proposals that provide equivalent
environmental benefits as trees.
The range of options for meeting the proposed Urban Forestry Plan requirements in Section
18.790.030 prioritize the protection of existing trees. However, applicants would be allowed to
mitigate through acheivable planting requirements, a fee in lieu of planting or preservation or a
discretionary reviewoption. These proposed alternatives to preservation were developed with
consideration of the financial impacts of mitigation consistent with this policy.
"3. The City shall develop policies and procedures designed to protect trees, including root
systems, selected for preservation during land development."
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.030 would require a tree preservation and removal site plan
by a certified arborist (Vol. II, p. 303). The specifications for the tree preservation and removal site
plan are in the Urban Forestry Manual and would require the certified arborist to identify methods
for protecting trees, including root systems, selected for preservation during land development. The
required methods would include, but are not limited to, displaying the type, size and location of
tree protection fencing to scale on the tree preservation and removal site plan.
In addition, Section 18.790.060 would require the certified arborist to perform regular inspections
of the tree protection fencing and other tree protection methods throughout the land development
process (Vol. II, p. 327). The proposed Development Code requirements for a tree preservation and
removal site plan along with regular inspections and reporting on that plan during the development
process are designed to protect trees, including their root systems, consistent with this policy.
"4. The City shall address public safety concerns by ensuring ways to prevent and resolve
verified tree related hazards in a timely manner."
The proposed DCA allow tree removal if the certified arborist determines a tree has become a
hazard during the development process (Vol. II, p. 333). The rating system for determining tree
hazards is within the Urban Forestry Manual and cross-referenced by the proposed code
amendments (Vol. II, p. 333). Therefore, the proposed DCA ensure the prevention and resolution
of verified tree related hazards during the land development process, consistent with this policy.
Additional provisions (Vol. II, p. 79-81) would prohibit verified tree related hazards and allow for
their emergency abatement, however these provisions are not land use regulations and not part of
this application.
"5. The City shall develop and enforce site design and landscape requirements to reduce
the aesthetic and environmental impacts of impervious surfaces through the use of
trees and other vegetation."
The proposed DCA in Chapter 18.745 (Vol. II, p. 259) would require the planting of street trees
and parking lot trees as part of the land use process. Street trees would be required based on the
amount of street frontage of the development and parking lot trees would be required to provide
30% minimum tree canopy cover at maturity over the parking area. These proposed site design and
landscape requirements were developed and would be enforced to reduce to the aesthetic and
environmental impacts of impervious surfaces, consistent with this policy.
"6. The City shall, in order to preserve existing trees and ensure new trees will thrive,
allow and encourage flexibility in site design through all aspects of development
review."
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.0 (Vol. II, p. 313) would allow and encourage flexibility
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 16 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 95
in site design for the preservation and planting of individual trees. These flexible site design
standards include lot size averaging, setback adjustments and parking adjustments.
In addition, flexibility in site design standards are allowed and encouraged for the preservation
significant tree groves by the proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D. These flexible site design
standards include density transfer, setback adjustments and additional building height.
Therefore, the proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.0 and 18.790.050.D include flexible site design
standards that would allow and encourage flexibility to preserve existing trees and ensure new trees
will thrive consistent with this policy.
"7. The City shall require all development, including City projects, to prepare and
implement a tree preservation and landscaping plan, with the chosen trees and other
plant materials appropriate for site conditions."
The proposed DCA in Chapters 18.745 (Vol. II, p. 259) and 18.790 (Vol. II, p. 299), would require
tree preservation and landscaping plans that are appropriate to site conditions. These requirements
are applicable to city projects.
The term "development" is so broad that any material change to a property, such as installing a
shed, could fall within the definition. Staff and the Citizen Advisory Committee discussed the scale
of development that should be required to implement tree preservation and landscaping plans. It
was determined that those land use permit types listed in Chapters 18.745 and 18.790 are of
appropriate scale that requiring tree preservation and landscaping plans would be roughly
proportional to the impacts of development. After evaluating smaller scale projects, such as shed
installations or residential additions, it was determined they are usually designed in ways that have
minimal impacts on trees and surrounding neighborhoods.
Therefore, the proposed DCAwould require appropriate tree preservation and landscaping plans
for all development with significant impacts, including city projects, consistent with this policy.
"8. The City shall continue to cooperate with property owners, businesses, other
jurisdictions, agencies, utilities, and non-governmental entities to manage and preserve
street trees, wetlands, stream corridors, riparian areas, tree groves, specimen and
heritage trees, and other vegetation."
As described in the Process Summary (Vol. I, p. 31), the city cooperated with property owners,
businesses, other jurisdictions, agencies, utilities and non-governmental entities in developing code
amendments as part of the Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project. The proposed DCA in
Chapter 18.745.040 (Vol. II, p. 263) contribute to the management and preservation of street trees
during the land use process.
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D (Vol. II, p. 317) contribute to the preservation
significant tree groves during the land use process. Flexible site design standards for the
preservation of signficant tree groves were developed through the Goal 5 rule requirements, as
required by state law.
Individual specimen and heritage trees would be required to be included as part of the Urban
Forestry Plan through the proposed amendments in Section 18.790.030 (Vol. II, p. 303). Including
specimen and heritage trees in the Urban Forestry Plan will contribute to their preservation and
management because they could be considered and utilized to meet plan requirements.
The proposed DCA do not affect the preservation and management of wetlands, stream corridors
and riparian areas except to the extent that trees preservation and planting activities may overlap
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 17 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 96
with these areas. However, the proposed DCA are intended to support the preservation and
management of trees and significant trees groves, not wetlands, stream corridors and riparian areas.
The proposed DCA were developed in cooperation with property owners, businesses, other
jurisdictions, agencies, utilities and non-governmental entities. The proposed DCA support the
management and preservation of street trees, significant tree groves, specimen and heritage trees
during the development process. The proposed DCA were not specifically designed to affect the
management or preservation of wetlands, stream corridors or riparian areas. Therefore, the
proposed DCA are consistent with this policy.
"9. The City shall require, as appropriate, tree preservation strategies that prioritize the
retention of trees in cohesive and viable stands and groves instead of isolated
specimens."
The proposed CPA establishes an overlay district for 70 significant tree groves covering 527 acres.
The proposed flexible standards and incentives in Section 18.790.050.D (Vol. II, p. 317) include
allowed reduction in minimum density, density transfer, increased building height, reduced
setbacks, adjustments to Urban Forestry Plan requirements and adjustments to street and utility
standards. The proposed flexible standards and incentives would facilitate the preservation of the
significant tree groves in cohesive and viable stands instead of isolated specimens consistent with
this policy.
"10. Applications for tree removal and tree management plans shall be reviewed by a
certified arborist employed or under contract to the City."
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.030 would require urban forestry plans to be coordinated,
reviewed and approved by a certified arborist (Vol. II, p. 303). The city currently employs a
certified arborist to review land use permit applications to determine whether urban forestry
related requirements are met. The requirement for urban forestry plans to be coordinated, reviewed
and approved by a certified arborist and the city's current practice for land use applications to be
reviewed by a certifed arborist employed by the city, is consistent with this policy.
"11. The City shall recognize the rights of individuals to manage their residential
landscapes."
The proposed DCA in Chapter 18.790 (Vol. II, p. 299) would allow applicants to meet Urban
Forestry Plan requirements through any combination of preserving existing trees, planting new
trees or paying a fee in lieu of planting or preservation. In addition, a discretionary review process
in Section 18.790.040 (Vol. II, p. 307) is available as an alternative to providing the required trees.
Finally, Section 18.790.070 would allow individuals to modify their Urban Forestry Plan after the
land use approval process to provide additional flexibility to adapt to changing site conditions or
personal preferences. Therefore, the proposed DCA in Chapter 18.790 recognize the rights of
individuals to manage their residential landscapes, consistent with this policy.
Title 8 amendments include tree permit procedures that allow for increased flexibility for tree
management activities outside the land use process (Vol. II, p. 59). However, amendments to Title 8
are not land use regulations and are not part of this application.
NATURAL RESOURCES
"GOAL:
5.1: Protect natural resources and the environmental and ecological functions they provide
and, to the extent feasible, restore natural resources to create naturally functioning
systems and high levels of biodiversity."
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 18 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 97
"POLICIES:
1. The City shall protect and, to the extent feasible, restore natural resources in a variety
of methods to:
A. contribute to the City's scenic quality and its unique sense of place;
B. provide educational opportunities, recreational amenities, and buffering
between differential land uses;
C. maximize natural resource functions and services including fish and
wildlife habitat and water quality; and
D. result in healthy and naturally functioning systems containing a high
level of biodiversity."
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment establishes an overlay district for 70 significant tree
groves covering 527 acres. As further explained in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis (Vol. III, p. 27),
ey evaluation criteria in the inventory and selection of significant tree groves were grove
maturity/tree size, grove size, health/viability, visibility, screening and buffering, accessibility,
rarity, educational/recreational potential, wildlife habitat value and connectivity and the amount of
existing disturbance.
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D (Vol. II, . 317) include regulatory incentives and
flexible standards that allow for the preservation of significant tree groves.
The evaluation criteria used for the inventory and selection of significant tree groves and the
proposed regulatory incentives and flexible standards support this policy by allowing for the
maximum preservation of the functions and values of significant tree groves with the attributes
identified in this policy.
"4. The City shall actively coordinate and consult with landowners, local stakeholders, and
governmental jurisdictions and agencies regarding the inventory, protection, and
restoration of natural resources."
As more fully described in the Tree Grove ESEE analysis (Vol. III, p. 17), the city actively
coordinated and consulted with landowners, local stakeholders, governmental jurisdictions and
agencies throughout the development of the proposed CPA and DCA.
During the inventory phase, all property owners with an inventoried tree grove on their property
were provided notice, compliant with Goal 5 rule requirements. As part of the notice, property
owners were invited to a tree grove open house, which was held on October 6, 2010, to learn more
and provide feedback about the process.
After developing draft regulatory incentives and flexible standards based on community input,
property owners and the community were invited to a second tree grove open house on February
17, 2011, to learn more and provide feedback on the proposed regulatory incentives and flexible
standards.
In addition, the city coordinated with local stakeholders and governmental jurisdictions and
agencies as part of the Citizen Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee processes,
which are more fully described in the Process Summary (Vol. I, p. 31). Both the Citizen Advisory
Committee and Technical Advisory Committee reviewed and approved the proposed regulatory
incentives program for significant tree groves. The Citizen Advisory Committee approval is
documented in their guiding principles for the Tree Grove Preservation Incentives (Vol. I, p. 17).
Therefore, the city coordinated and consulted with landowners, local stakeholders, governmental
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 19 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 98
jurisdiction and agencies during the inventory and development of regulatory incentives and
flexible standards for preserving significant tree groves, consistent with this policy.
"5. The City shall utilize periodic assessments of the effectiveness of the City's programs
and regulatory structures to guide future decisions regarding natural resource
protection, management, and restoration."
The city utilized periodic canopy assessments as part of the Urban Forestry Master Plan process.
The periodic canopy assessments demonstrated a 24% decline in canopy clusters of over 5 acres in
size from 1996 to 2007. These and other findings were used to develop recommendations in the
Urban Forestry Master Plan (Vol. III, p. 257) that helped guide the proposed CPA and DCA.
Therefore, periodic assessments of the effectiveness of the city's programs and regulatory structures
were used to guide the proposed CPA and DCA aimed at the protection, management and
restoration of significant tree groves, consistent with this policy.
"6. The City shall utilize incentives or disincentives, to the extent feasible, to discourage
property owners from removing or degrading natural resources prior to application for
development or annexation."
The proposed development code amendments in Section 18.790.050.D (Vol. II, p. 317) include
regulatory incentives and flexible standards to facilitate the preservation of significant tree groves.
Regulatory incentives and flexible standards include allowed reduction in minimum density,
density transfer, increased building height, reduced setbacks, adjustments to Urban Forestry Plan
requirements and adjustments to street and utility standards. The regulatory incentives and flexible
standards are voluntary, and thus there is no incentive for property owners to remove or degrade
significant trees groves prior to application for development or annexation. Therefore, the
proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D are consistent with this policy.
"7. The City shall protect and restore riparian and upland habitats to the maximum extent
feasible on public and private lands."
The proposed CPA and DCA facilitate the preservation of significant tree groves located in both
riparian and upland habitats and on public and private lands. The city also has non-regulatory
programs to protect and restore riparian and upland habitats, but these are not land use regulations
and not part of this application. Therefore, the proposed CPA and DCA facilitate the preservation
of significant tree groves in both riparian and upland habitats on both public and private property,
which allows for their further protection and restoration through non-regulatory programs
consistent with this policy.
"10. The City shall complete a baseline inventory of significant natural resources and
update or improve it as necessary, such as at the time of Comprehensive Plan Periodic
Review, changes to Metro or State programs, or to reflect changed conditions,
circumstances, and community values."
The city completed a baseline inventory of 70 significant tree groves in compliance with Statewide
Planning Goal 5 rule requirements as further detailed in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis (Vol. III, p.
17). The significant tree grove map (Exhibit A) represents the baseline inventory, which will be
adopted through the proposed CPA and updated and improved as necessary consistent with this
policy.
"11. The City shall assist landowners in the protection of natural resources through diverse
methods including, but not limited to: education, incentives, planned development
standards and regulations, and conservation easements."
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 20 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 99
assist landowners in the preservation of significant tree groves (Vol. II, p. 317). Regulatory
incentives and flexible standards include allowed reduction in minimum density, density transfer,
increased building height, reduced setbacks, adjustments to Urban Forestry Plan requirements and
adjustments to street and utility standards. Permanent protection of significant tree groves through
instruments such as conservation easements would be required to utilize the incentives and flexible
standards. These incentives and flexible standards would assist landowners in the protection of
natural resources consistent with this policy.
"12. The City shall develop and implement standards and procedures that mitigate the loss
of natural resource functions and services, with priority given to protection over
mitigation."
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to
prioritize the preservation of significant tree groves over mitigation. In utilizing these regulatory
incentives and flexible standards, applicants would be required to preserve at least 10,000 square feet
of significant tree grove canopy and to maximize the connectivity and viability of the remaining
portion of the significant tree grove under the direction of a certified arborist (Vol. II, p. 317).
Considerations in the Urban Forestry Manual are cross-referenced in Section 18.790.050.D to
provide additional guidance for the certified arborist in the preservation of a connected and viable
significant tree grove. Therefore, the proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D create standards and
procedures that mitigate the loss of natural resource functions and services, with priority given to
protection of significant tree groves over mitigation, consistent with this policy.
13. "The City shall identify, preserve, and create linkages between wildlife habitat areas, to
the extent feasible, as a key component of parks, open space, and surface water
management plans."
As further explained in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis (Vol. III, p. 28), the city identified 70
significant tree groves using wildlife habitat functions, connectivity and diversity as key criteria.
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to
preserve significant tree groves (Vol II, p. 317). In utilizing these regulatory incentives and flexible
standards applicants would be required to maximize the connectivity of the remaining portion of
the significant tree grove under the direction of a certified arborist. Considerations in the Urban
Forestry Manual are cross-referenced in Section 18.790.050.D to provide additional guidance for the
certified arborist in the preservation of a connected significant tree grove. Identified significant tree
groves overlap parks, open spaces and surface water management plan areas. Significant tree groves
may be preserved to create linkages between wildlife habitats areas when plans are updated for these
areas, consistent with this policy. However, this application is not intended as an update to any
parks, open space or surface water management plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
"GOAL:
6.1 Reduce air pollution and improve air quality in the community and region."
"POLICIES:
6. The City shall encourage the maintenance and improvement of open spaces, natural
resources, and the City's tree canopy to sustain their positive contribution to air
quality."
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to
encourage the maintenance and improvement of significant tree groves (Vol. II, p. 317). In addition,
the proposed DCA in Section 18.790.030 require the achievement of tree canopy through planting,
preservation or a fee in lieu to support the city's urban forestry program (Vol. II, p. 303). One
benefit of these DCA is that they encourage the maintenance and improvement of tree canopy
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 21 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 100
citywide, as further detailed in the Tree Values Memo (Vol. III, p. 1), which is well documented to
have a positive contribution to air quality, consistent with this policy.
"GOAL:
6.2 Ensure land use activities protect and enhance the community's water quality."
"POLICIES:
3. The City shall encourage the use of low impact development practices that reduce
stormwater impacts from new and existing development."
The discretionary Urban Forestry Plan review (Vol. II, p. 307) allows the use of techniques that
minimize hydrological impacts such as those detailed in Clean Water Services Low Impact
Development Approached (LIDA) Handbook as an alternative to meeting the clear and objective
Urban Forestry Plan requirements in Section 18.790.030 (Vol. II, p. 297). Therefore, the
discretionary Urban Forestry Plan review option encourages the use of low impact development
practices that reduce stormwater impacts from new and existing development, consistent with this
policy.
"4. The City shall protect, restore, and enhance, to the extent practical, the natural
functions of stream corridors, trees, and water resources for their positive contribution
to water quality."
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D (Vol. II, p. 317) include regulatory incentives and
flexible standards to encourage the maintenance and improvement of significant tree groves. In
addition, the proposed DCA in Section 18.790.030 require the achievement of tree canopy through
planting, preservation or a fee in lieu to support the city's urban forestry program (Vol. II, p. 303).
These proposed DCA protect, restore and enhance the natural functions of trees, which have a
positive contribution to water quality, as evidenced by the Tree Values Memo (Vol. III, p. 1),
consistent with this policy.
HAZARDS
"GOAL:
7.1 Protect people and property from flood, landslide, earthquake, wildfire, and severe
weather hazards."
"POLICIES:
10. The City shall work with Clean Water Services to protect natural drainageways and
wetlands as valuable water retention areas and, where possible, find ways to restore and
enhance these areas."
As described it the Process Summary (Vol. I, p. 31), the city included Clean Water Services as a
member of the Technical Advisory Committee for the Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project.
The main purpose of Clean Water Services participation was to ensure the CPA and DCA in this
application do not conflict with other standards that protect natural drainage ways and wetlands.
The city and Clean Water Services determined that the standards are not in conflict. Therefore, the
proposed CPA and DCA are consistent with this policy.
"13. The City shall retain and restore existing vegetation with non-invasive species in areas
with landslide potential to the greatest extent possible."
As further explained in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis, the city identified 70 significant tree groves
using the presence of non-invasive species as a key criterion (Vol. III, p. 27). The significant tree
grove map (Exhibit A) identifies the location of these 70 significant tree groves, many of which
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 22 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 101
overlap areas with landslide potential. The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050. include regulatory
incentives and flexible standards to retain significant tree groves (Vol. II, p. 317).
In addition, the proposed DCA in Section 18.790.030 require the achievement of tree canopy
through planting, preservation or a fee in lieu to support the city's urban forestry program (Vol. II,
p. 303). In meeting tree canopy standards, nuisance (i.e. invasive) trees are prohibited from planting
by the Urban Forestry Manual. These standards support this policy by encouraging the
preservation of significant tree groves with non-invasive species and prohibiting the planting of
invasive tree species including within areas with landslide potential.
PARKS, RECREATION, TRAILS, AND OPEN SPACE
"GOAL:
8.1 Provide a wide variety of high quality park and open spaces for all residents,
including both:
A. developed areas with facilities for active recreation; and
B. undeveloped areas for nature-oriented recreation and the protection
and enhancement of valuable natural resources within the parks and
open space system."
"POLICIES: ...
2. The City shall preserve and, where appropriate, acquire and improve natural areas
located within a half mile of every Tigard resident to provide passive recreational
opportunities."
As further explained in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis, the city identified 70 significant tree groves
using visibility, accessibility and educational/recreational potential as key criteria (Vol. III, p. 27).
The significant tree grove map (Exhibit A) identifies the location of these 70 significant tree groves,
which are distributed citywide. The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D include regulatory
incentives and flexible standards to retain significant tree groves (Vol. II, p. 317). These proposed
CPA and DCA support this policy by contributing to the preservation of visible, accessible and
potentially educational/recreational natural areas located within a half mile of every Tigard resident
to provide passive recreational opportunities.
"16. The City shall continue to encourage and recognize the important role of volunteers
and community groups in meeting City park, trail, open space, and recreation needs,
and in building stewardship and promoting community pride."
The Process Summary details the Citizen Advisory Committee's role in providing
recommendations to staff during the development of the proposed CPA and DCA (Vol. I, p. 31).
The Citizen Advisory Committee included representation from the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board to allow community interests relating to parks, trails, open spaces, and recreational needs to
be well represented throughout the process. The proposed CPA creating a significant tree grove
map (Exhibit A) and the proposed DCA in Title 18 are applicable to certain development actions
within parks, trails, open spaces and recreational areas. Inclusion of a Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board member on the Citizen Advisory Committee is supportive of this policy in that
encouraged and recognized the important role of volunteers and community groups in meeting city
park, trail, open space and recreational needs, and in building stewardship and promoting
community pride.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 23 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 102
"17. The City shall maintain and manage its parks and open space resources in ways that
preserve, protect, and restore Tigard's natural resources, including rare, or state and
federally listed species, and provide "Nature in the City" opportunities."
As further explained in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis, the city identified 70 significant tree groves
using wildlife habitat value and connectivity as a key criterion (Vol. III, p. 28). The significant tree
grove map (Exhibit A) identifies the location of these 70 significant tree groves, many of which
overlap with city's park and open space resources. The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D
include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to preserve significant tree groves (Vol. II, p.
317). In utilizing these regulatory incentives and flexible standards, applicants are required to
maximize the connectivity of the remaining portion of the significant tree grove under the
direction of a certified arborist. While rare, state and federally listed species were not specifically
inventoried as part this process, the preservation of significant tree groves is supportive of their
preservation. Therefore, this policy of maintaining and managing park and open space resources in
ways that preserve, protect and restore Tigard's natural resources (including rare or state and
federally listed species) and providing "Nature in the City" opportunities, is supported by the
proposed CPA and DCA aimed at the preservation of significant tree groves.
"19. The City shall seek to establish and manage a fully functional urban forest."
The Urban Forestry Master Plan (Vol. III, p. 247) provides recommendations for establishing and
managing a fully functional urban forest. The recommendations require CPA and DCA to
implement the goals and policies in the Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed CPA and DCA are consistent with the recommendations in the Urban Forestry Master
Plan. Therefore, the city is seeking to contribute to the establishment and management of a fully
functional urban forest with this application, consistent with this policy.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
"GOAL:
9.1 Develop and maintain a strong, diversified, and sustainable local economy."
"POLICIES:
3. The City's land use and other regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to
promote economic development opportunities, provided that required infrastructure is
made available."
The proposed CPA and DCA in Section 18.790.050.D include regulatory incentives and flexible
standards to retain significant tree groves (Vol. II, p. 317). In addition, the proposed DCA in
Section 18.790.030 require the achievement of tree canopy through planting, preservation or a fee
in lieu to support the city's urban forestry program (Vol. II, p. 303). Therefore, the proposed CPA
and DCA have been designed to be flexible and adaptive to promote economic development
opportunities and allow the provision of required infrastructure, consistent with this policy, while
concurrently supporting the city's urban forestry goals and policies.
"GOAL:
9.3 Make Tigard a prosperous and desirable place to live and do business."
"POLICIES:
2. The City shall adopt land use regulations and standards to ensure a well-designed and
attractive urban environment that supports/protects public and private sector
investments."
During the Urban Forestry Master Plan process the community identified the urban forest as a key-
component
eycomponent of a well-designed and attractive urban environment (Vol. III, p. 247). The proposed
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 24 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 103
CPA and DCA would create land use regulations and standards that incorporate trees and
significant tree groves within the urban environment to support and protect public and private
sector investments consistent with this policy.
"3. The City shall commit to improving and maintaining the duality of community life
(public safety, education, transportation, community design, housing, parks and
recreation, etc.) to promote a vibrant and sustainable economy."
During the Urban Forestry Master Plan process, the community identified the urban forest as a key
component to improving and maintaining quality of community life (Vol. III, p. 247). In addition,
the Tree Values Memo describes the ability of trees to promote a vibrant and sustainable economy
(Vol. III, p. 1). The proposed CPA and DCA would create land use regulations and standards that
incorporate trees and significant tree groves within the urban environment to improve and
maintain the quality of community life and to promote a vibrant and sustainable economy
consistent with this policy.
HOUSING
"GOAL:
10.1: Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs
of current and future City residents."
"POLICIES:
1. The City shall adopt and maintain land use policies, codes, and standards that provide
opportunities to develop a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences,
and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents."
Tigard's current policies, codes and standards provide opportunities for a variety of housing types,
including single-family and multi-family housing on land zoned R-1 to R-40 as well as mixed use
and variations through the planned development overlay. As further explained in the Tree Grove
ESEE Analysis (Vol. III, p. 17), the city identified 70 significant tree groves through the statewide
Goal 5 planning process. The significant tree grove map (Exhibit A) identifies the location of these
70 significant tree groves, many of which exist within lands zoned for residential uses. The
proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D include regulatory incentives and flexible standards that
allow variation in housing types such as attached units to retain significant tree groves (Vol. II, p.
317).
In addition, the proposed DCA in Section 18.790.030 would require the achievement of tree
canopy through planting, preservation or a fee in lieu to support the city's urban forestry program
(Vol. II. P. 303).
These proposed CPA and DCA have been designed to be flexible and adaptive to continue to allow
a variety of housing types, while concurrently supporting the city's urban forestry goals and
policies. The proposed DCA (pp. 135-341) continue to allow opportunities to develop a variety of
housing types that meet the needs, preferences and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and
future residents consistent with this policy.
"GOAL:
10.2 Maintain a high level of residential livability."
"POLICIES:
1. The City shall adopt measures to protect and enhance the quality and integrity of its
residential neighborhoods."
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 25 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 104
During the Urban Forestry Master Plan process, the community identified the urban forest as a key
component of the quality and integrity of the city's residential neighborhoods (Vol. III, p. 247). In
addition, the Tree Values Memo describes the aesthetic, economic and social contribution of trees
to residential neighborhoods (Vol. III, p. 1). The proposed CPA and DCA would create measures
to protect and enhance the quality and integrity of the city's residential neighborhoods, consistent
with this policy, by incorporating trees and significant tree groves.
"3. The City shall commit to improving and maintaining the quality of community life
public safety, education, transportation, community design; a strong economy, parks
and recreation, etc.) as the basis for sustaining a high-quality residential environment."
During the Urban Forestry Master Plan process the community identified the urban forest as a key
component of a high-quality residential environment (Vol. III, p. 247). In addition, the Tree Values
Memo describes the positive contribution of trees to community life, public safety, education,
transportation, community design, a strong economy, parks and recreation (Vol. III, p. .1). The
proposed CPA and DCA would incorporate trees and significant tree groves into resid.ential,
commercial, industrial and institutional environments, as well as the transportation system to
maximize the benefits they provide. Therefore, the proposed CPA and DCA will have the effect of
improving and maintaining the quality of community life and thereby sustaining a high quality
residential environment, consistent with this policy.
"5. The City shall encourage housing that supports sustainable development patterns by
promoting the efficient use of land, conservation of natural resources, easy access to
public transit and other efficient modes of transportation, easy access to services and
parks, resource efficient design and construction, and the use of renewable energy
resources."
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D encourage sustainable development patterns that
conserve natural resources through regulatory incentives and flexible standards that allow the
preservation of significant tree groves (Vol. II, p. 317). These regulatory incentives and flexible
standards would promote the efficient use of land by allowing reduction in minimum density,
density transfer, increased building height, reduced setbacks, adjustments to Urban Forestry Plan
requirements and adjustments to street and utility standards.
In addition, the discretionary Urban Forestry Plan review option (Vol. II, p. 307) promotes the use
of renewable energy sources by allowing onsite energy production such as solar technologies as an
alternative to meeting the clear and objective Urban Forestry Plan requirements in Section
18.790.030 (Vol. II, p. 297).
These proposed DCA would support sustainable development patterns by promoting the efficient
use of land, conservation of natural resources and the use of renewable energy sources, consistent
with this policy.
"7. The City shall ensure that residential densities are appropriately related to locational
characteristics and site conditions such as the presence of natural hazards and natural
resources, availability of public facilities and services, and existing land use patterns."
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 26 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 105
As further explained in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis, the city identified 70 significant tree groves
through the statewide Goal 5 planning process (Vol. III, p. 17). The significant tree grove map
(Exhibit A) identifies the location of these 70 significant tree groves, many of which exist within
lands zoned for residential uses. The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D would allow
reduction in minimum density as one of the methods to preserve significant tree groves in
residential areas (Vol. II, p. 317). Therefore, the proposed CPA and DCA support this policy by
ensuring residential densities are appropriately related to locational characteristics and site
conditions such as the presence of natural resources.
"8. The City shall require measures to mitigate the adverse impacts from differing, or
more intense, land uses on residential living environments, such as: A) orderly
transitions from one residential density to another and B) protection of existing
vegetation, natural resources and provision of open space areas."
As further explained in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis , the city identified 70 significant tree groves
using screening/buffering ability as a key criterion Vol. III, p. 27). The significant tree grove map
(Exhibit A) identifies the location of these 70 significant tree groves, many of which exist within
lands zones for residential uses. The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D include regulatory
incentives and flexible standards to retain significant tree groves (Vol. II, p. 317). Regulatory
incentives and flexible standards include allowed reduction in minimum density, density transfer,
increased building height, reduced setbacks, adjustments to Urban Forestry Plan requirements and
adjustments to street and utility standards. In the density transfer option, compatibility with
adjacent development with the same or lower density zoning would be ensured by restricting lot
size reductions to 75 percent or greater of the base residential zoning district. Also, when additional
building height is allowed, applicable buffering and screening requirements would still apply
In addition, the proposed DCA in Section 18.745.050 (Vol. II, p. 269) continue to require buffering
and screening with only slight adjustments to tree spacing requirements to ensure consistency with
tree spacing requirements in other chapters.
Therefore, the proposed CPA and DCA would require measures to mitigate the adverse impacts
from differing, or more intense, land uses on residential living environments by ensuring orderly
transitions from one residential density to another and protecting existing vegetation, natural
resources and open space areas consistent with this policy.
"9. The City shall require infill development to be designed to address compatibility with
existing neighborhoods."
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D include regulatory incentives and flexible standards
such as residential density transfer to retain significant tree groves (Vol. II, p. 317). In the density
transfer option, compatibility with adjacent development with the same or lower density zoning
would be ensured by restricting lot size reductions to 75 percent or greater of the base residential
zoning district. This would ensure compatibility with existing neighborhoods when designing infill
development.
In addition, the proposed DCA in Section 18.790.030 would require the achievement of tree
canopy through planting, preservation or a fee in lieu to support the city's urban forestry program
(Vol. II, p. 303). The requirements would apply to Minor Land Partitions, which are a primary
contributor to infill development. As demonstrated by applying the code to infill development as
part of the peer review (Vol. II, 463) and further describedd in the Canopy Standards memo (Vol. III,
p. 7), the amount of tree canopy resulting from the proposed Development Code is estimated to be
compatible with existing neighborhoods.
Therefore, the proposed CPA and DCA are designed to require infill development to be
compatible with existing neighborhoods, consistent with this policy.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 27 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 106
PUBLIC FACILITIES
"GOAL:
11.1 Develop and maintain a stormwater system that protects development, water
resources, and wildlife habitat."
"POLICIES: ...
7. The City shall encourage low impact development practices and other measures that
reduce the amount of, and/or treat, stormwater runoff at the source."
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D (Vol. II, p. 317) include regulatory incentives and
flexible standards to retain significant tree groves. In addition, the proposed DCA in Section
18.790.030 would require the achievement of tree canopy through planting, preservation or a fee in
lieu to support the city's urban forestry program (Vol. II, p. 303).
In addition, the discretionary Urban Forestry Plan review option (Vol. II, p. 307) would allow the
use of techniques that minimize hydrological impacts, such as those detailed in Clean Water
Services LIDA Handbook, as an alternative to meeting the clear and objective Urban Forestry Plan
requirements.
The Tree Values Memo Vol. III, p. 1) documents the ability of trees to reduce and treat
stormwater at the source. The Clean Water Services LIDA Handbook also documents the ability of
the constructed systems detailed, within the handbook, to reduce and treat stormwater at the
source. Therefore, the proposed CPA and DCA encourage low impact development practices and
other measures that reduce the amount of and/or treat stormwater at the source, consistent with
this policy.
TRANSPORTATION
"GOAL:
12.1: Develop mutually supportive land use and transportation plans to enhance the
livability of the community."
"POLICIES: ...
6. The City shall support land use patterns that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
preserve the function of the transportation system."
The proposed DCA incorporate trees, and significant tree groves, within existing land uses and the
transportation system (Vol. II, pp. 135-341). The Tree Values Memo details the ability of trees to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions through sequestration and shading, which reduces fossil fuel
consumption (Vol. III, p. 1). Therefore, the proposed CPA and DCA support land use patterns that
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and preserve the function of the transportation system, consistent
with this policy.
ENERGY
"GOAL:
13.1: Reduce energy consumption."
"POLICIES: ...
3. The City shall require future development to consider topography, vegetation, and
solar access during the design phase to reduce demands for artificial heating, cooling,
and lighting."
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 28 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 107
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D (Vol. II, p. 317) include regulatory incentives and
flexible standards that would allow future development to consider retaining significant tree groves
during the design phase. In addition, the proposed DCA in Section 18.790.030 would require the
achievement of tree canopy through planting, preservation or a fee in lieu to support the city's
urban forestry program (Vol. II, p. 303). These proposed CPA and DCA have been designed to be
flexible and adaptive to allow future development to consider topography, trees and solar access
during the design phase.
In addition, the discretionary Urban Forestry Plan review option (Vol. II, p. 307) would allow
techniques such as solar to reduce the use of fossil fuels for heating, cooling, and lighting as an
alternative to meeting the clear and objective Urban Forestry Plan requirements.
The Tree Values Memo documents the ability of trees reduce demands for heating and cooling
through strategic placement and shading (Vol. III, p. 1). Therefore, the flexibility in placement of
trees afforded by the proposed DCA, and the allowance of alternative techniques that minimize use
of fossil fuels, is consistent with this policy, which requires future development to be designed in
ways that reduce demands for artificial heating, cooling and lighting.
"6. The City shall support energy conservation by: ...
D) providing flexibility in the land use process to take advantage of solar radiation."
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.030 require the achievement of tree canopy through planting,
preservation or a fee in lieu to support the city's urban forestry program (Vol. II, p. 303). These
proposed DCA have been designed to provide flexibility in tree preservation and planting to take
advantage of solar radiation.
In addition, the discretionary Urban Forestry Plan review option (Vol. II, p. 307) would allow the
use of onsite energy production such as solar power as an alternative to meeting the clear and
objective Urban Forestry Plan requirements in Section 18.790.030 (Vol. II, p. 297).
Therefore, the proposed DCA support energy conservation by providing flexibility in the land use
process to take advantage of solar radiation, consistent with this policy.
URBANIZATION
"GOAL:
14.3. Promote Tigard citizens' interests in urban growth boundary expansion
and other regional and state growth management decision."
"POLICIES: ...
3. The city shall maintain the low-density residential character of its existing single family
residential neighborhoods and accommodate more intense urban land uses in its regional and
town centers and within major transportation corridors to be consistent with Statewide
Planning Goals and the Metro Framework Plan."
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D include regulatory incentives and flexible standards
such as reduction of minimum density and residential density transfer to retain significant tree
groves (Vol. II, p. 317). Reduction of minimum residential density would be allowed based on the
area of significant tree grove preserved. In the density transfer option, compatibility with adjacent
development with the same or lower density zoning would be ensured by restricting lot size
reductions to 75 percent or greater of the base residential zoning district. This measure allows for
the maintenance of the low-density residential character of existing single-family residential
neighborhoods, consistent with this policy
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 29 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 108
SPECIAL PLANNING AREAS: DOWNTOWN
"GOAL: ...
15.3 Develop and Improve the Open Space System and Integrate Natural Features into
downtown."
"POLICIES:
1. Natural resource functions and values shall be integrated into downtown urban
design."
There are no significant tree groves in downtown Tigard, so this policy is not applicable.
"GOAL: ...
15.4 Develop comprehensive street and circulation improvements for pedestrians,
automobiles, bicycles, and transit."
"POLICIES: ...
5. Streetscape and public area design shall focus on creating a pedestrian friendly
environment without the visual dominance by automobile-oriented uses."
The proposed DCA to Chapter 18.745.040 would continue to require street trees in downtown
Tigard. Street trees enhance the pedestrian environment as further explained by the Tree Values
Memo Vol. III, p. 1). Therefore, the proposed DCA contribute to streetscape and public area
design that create a pedestrian friendly environment, consistent with this policy.
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed CPA and DCA in
Volume II are consistent with the applicable goals and policies contained in the City of Tigard
Comprehensive Plan.
APPLICABLE METRO URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN
TITLES
Metro Functional Plan Title 1 - "The Regional Framework Plan calls for a compact urban
form and a "fair-share" approach to meeting regional housing needs. It is the purpose of Title
1 to accomplish these policies by requiring each city and county to maintain or increase its
housing capacity except as provided in section 3.07.120."
To meet Title 1, each jurisdiction was required to determine its housing capacity and adopt
minimum density requirements. Tigard adopted an 80% of minimum density requirement for
development in 1998, which means that a development must build 80% of the maximum units
allowed by the zoning designation. As provided in Section 3.07.120, a city or county may reduce
the minimum-zoned capacity to protect natural resources.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would establish an overlay district for 70
significant tree groves covering 527 acres. As further described in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis
(Vol. III, p. 17), Goal 5 rule requirements would allow significant tree groves within the overlay to
be eligible for the proposed incentives and flexible standards for preservation in Section
18.790.050.D. The proposed incentives and flexible standards would allow for the full development
of propertyunder current zoning. Alternatively, the significant tree grove portion of a site may be
removed fom the minimum density calculation, reducing the density of the site, as allowed in
Section 3.07.120 of Title 1.
In addition, the proposed DCA in Section 18.790.030 require the achievement of tree canopy
through planting, preservation or a fee in lieu to support the city's urban forestry program (Vol. II,
p. 303). These proposed DCA have been designed to be flexible and adaptive to continue to allow
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 30 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 109
for a compact urban form and a fair-shared approach to meeting regional housing needs, consistent
with Metro Title 1.
Metro Functional Plan Title 3 - "To protect the beneficial water uses and functions and values
of resources within the Water Quality and Flood Management Areas by limiting or
mitigating the impact on these areas from development activities and protecting life and
property from dangers associated with flooding."
In 2002, the City of Tigard adopted comprehensive plan and development code amendments to
comply with Title 3 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Title 3 protects the
region's health and public safety by reducing flood and landslide hazards, controlling soil erosion
and reducing pollution of the region's waterways. Title 3 implements Statewide Planning Goals 5,
6 and 7 by protecting streams, rivers, wetlands and floodplains by avoiding, limiting or mitigating
development impacts on these areas. The areas subject to these requirements have been mapped
and adopted by the Metro Council, specifically, the FEMA 100-year floodplain and the area of
inundation for the February 1996 flood. Title 3 also protects rivers and streams with buffers that
are typically 50 feet wide, requires erosion and sediment control, planting of native vegetation on
stream banks when new development occurs and prohibits the storage of new uses of uncontained
hazardous material in water quality areas. Title 3 results in significant protection and enhancement
of that portion of the urban forest in streams and floodways.
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D (Vol. II, p. 317) regulatory incentives and flexible
standards to encourage the preservation of significant tree groves. In addition, the proposed DCA
in Section 18.790.030 would require the achievement of tree canopy through planting, preservation
or a fee in lieu to support the city's urban forestry program (Vol. II, p. 303). While these CPA and
DCA are not required to meet Title 3, they would result in the planting, preservation and
maintenance of trees, which support water quality, flood management and fish and wildlife
conservation, as evidenced by the Tree Values Memo (Vol. III, p. 1), consistent with Metro Title 3.
Metro Functional Plan Title 12 -- "The purpose of Title 12 is to help implement the policy of
the Regional Framework Plan to protect existing residential neighborhoods from air and
water pollution, noise and crime and to provide adequate levels of public services."
Title 12 protects residential neighborhoods by prohibiting cities from increasing density in certain
areas, providing access to commercial services within neighborhoods while not creating excessive
traffic, noise or air pollution. It also requires safe and convenient walking/biking access to schools,
parks and greenspaces for city residents.
During the Urban Forestry Master Plan process, the community identified the urban forest as a key
component of residential neighborhoods (Vol. III, p. 247). In addition, the Tree Values Memo
describes theositive contribution of trees to preventing air and water pollution, noise and crime
(Vol. III, p. 1). The proposed CPA and DCA would incorporate trees and significant tree groves
into residential neighborhoods while allowing for the provision of adequate levels of public
services, consistent with Metro Title 12.
Metro Functional Plan Title 13 - "The purposes of this program are to (1) conserve, protect,
and restore a continuous ecologically viable streamside corridor system, from the streams'
headwaters to their confluence with other streams and rivers, and with their floodplains in a
manner that is integrated with upland wildlife habitat and with the surrounding urban
landscape; and (2) to control and prevent water pollution for the protection of the public
health and safety, and to maintain and improve water quality throughout the region."
One of the results of Title 13 was the creation, in the City of Tigard, of 588 acres of habitat
designated as "highest" value (i.e. Metro inventoried Class I and II riparian resources within the
Clean Water Services Vegetated Corridor). An estimated 370 acres of Class I and II riparian habitat
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 31 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 110
situated outside the Clean Water Services' vegetated corridor are designated as "moderate" value. In
addition, 422 acres of non-Class I and II riparian resources within the city are designated as "lowest"
value, including both upland forests and lower-value riparian habitat areas. The highest and
moderate value habitats are currently protected through other regulatory processes and agencies
such as Clean Water Services. The lowest value habitat consists of primarily upland forests and is
currently vulnerable to development. Approximately 22% or 118 acres of the significant tree groves
are located on buildable lands outside of-Title 3 sensitive lands and overlap with the lowest value
habitat described above.
The proposed CPA would establish an overlay district for 70 significant tree groves covering 527
acres. As further described in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis (Vol. III, p. 17), Goal 5 rule
requirements would allow significant tree groves within the overlay to be eligible for the proposed
incentives and flexible standards for preservation in Section 18.790.050.D.. Regulatory incentives
and flexible standards include allowed reduction in minimum density, density transfer, increased
building height, reduced setbacks, adjustments to Urban Forestry Plan requirements and
adjustments to street and utility standards.
Although the city is in compliance with Title 13, the regulatory incentives and flexible standards
that facilitate the preservation of significant tree groves are consistent with and supportive of Metro
Title 13, particularly with regards to preserving vulnerable upland habitat designated through Title
13.
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed CPA and DCA in
Volume II are consistent with the applicable Metro regulations.
FEDERAL OR STATE STATUTES OR REGULATIONS
Federal Endangered Species Act
In 1973, the Federal Government passed the Endangered Species Act to protect and recover
imperiled species and the ecosystems on which they depend. Under Statewide PlanningGoal 5,
local governments are required to obtain current habitat inventory information for wildlie habitat
inventories. Tigard previously adopted the significant habitat areas map, based on the inventory of
regionally significant riparian corridors and wildlife habitat completed by Metro in 2002.
The city identified 70 significant tree groves using wildlife habitat value and connectivity as a key
criterion as further explained in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis (Vol. III, p. 28). The significant tree
grove map (Exhibit A) identifiesthe location of these 70 significant tree groves.
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to
preserve significant tree groves (Vol. II, p. 317). In utilizing these regulatory incentives and flexible
standards, applicants are required to maximize the connectivity of the remaining portion of the
significant tree grove under the direction of a certified arborist. While endangered species were not
specifically inventoried as part this process, the preservation of significant tree groves is supportive
of their preservation to the extent that they depend on these habitats. Therefore, the proposed
CPA and DCA, for the preservation of significant tree groves, contribute to the protection of
wildlife habitat in support of the Endangered Species Act.
Federal Clean Water Act
The Federal Clean Water Act regulates impacts to wetlands and other navigable waters of the
United States. The State Department of Environmental Quality is also charged with establishing
standards, regulating and monitoring Oregon's waters for compliance wit a the Federal Clean
Water Act and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Within Tigard, runoff from
impervious surfaces, pet waste and erosion/ sedimentation are the most problematic sources of
water pollution.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 32 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 111
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to
facilitate the preservation of significant tree groves (Vol. II, p. 317). In addition, the proposed DCA
in Section 18.790.030 require the achievement of tree canopy through planting, preservation or a
fee in lieu to support the city's urban forestry program (Vol. II, p. 303). These proposed DCA
would result in the preservation and planting of trees, which have a positive contribution to water
quality, as evidenced by the Tree Values Memo (Vol. III, p. 1). While the proposed CPA and DCA
in this application are not required for compliance, they are supportive of Federal Clean Water Act
requirements.
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is a federal law administered by US Fish and Wildlife that protects
specifically listed species of birds. The proposed CPA and DCA address the preservation, planting,
and maintenance of trees. When removing trees, it is the sole responsibility of applicants to comply
with all applicable state and federal regulations such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Implementing federal regulations to protect listed species of birds is out of scope for this
application, and therefore the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act is not applicable.
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) ODOT manages approximately 283 acres of
right of way in the City of Tigard, including Hall Boulevard, Highways 217 and 99-W and
Interstate 5. State Bulletin RD06-03(B) provides specifications for street tree placement and
maintenance in ODOT rights of way. `hese specifications are intended to balance the need for
safety along state roadways with the planting and maintenance of street trees.
ODOT served on the Technical Advisory Committee for the Urban Forestry Code Revisions
Project. One of the purposes of ODOT's participation was to meet a project goal of clarifying
jurisdictional requirements. The city and ODOT met this foal by defining street and median trees
as trees within right of way under City of Tigard jurisdiction in Chapter 18.120 (Vol. II, p. 149).
This proposed development code amendment would clarify that trees within ODOT right of way
are under ODOT jurisdiction. Since the city and ODOT have differing standards for street tree
planting, the proposed DCA would ensure consistency with ODOT requirements by allowing each
jurisdiction to apply its regulations separately in right of ways under its jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed CPA and DCA in
Volume II support (or do not conflict) with state or federal regulations. All affected agencies have
been notified of the proposed amendments and have been given the opportunity to comment.
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS
Statewide Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, outlines the citizen involvement requirements
for adoption of, and changes to the Comprehensive Plans and implementing documents.
As described in the Process Summary, the city has provided Tigard citizens, affected agencies and
other jurisdictions multiple and varied opportunities to participate in all phases of the urban
forestry planning process (Vol. I, p. 31). This included 11 Citizen Advisory Committee meetings
where people representing diverse interests and viewpoints discussed and reviewed code concepts
and code language at 11 meetings hosted by an independent facilitator. In addition, the Technical
Advisory Committee, which included representatives from multiple city departments such as
Public Works and Community Development, and outside agencies such as the ODOT and Clean
Water Services, met 14 times to discuss and review code concepts and language resulting from the
Citizen Advisory Committee process.
In additon, 14,225 public hearing notices consistent with Measure 56 were sent to all Tigard
property owners on January 13, 2012. Public hearing notices were also provided to interested
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 33 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 112
parties on January 17, 2012, to affected agencies on January 20, 2012, and published in the Tigard
Times on January 19, 2012.
The proposed amendments will be further considered through the public hearing process at the
Planning Commission and City Council prior to adoption. Citizen involvement opportunities
utilized to create the proposed CPA and DCA have been consistent with Statewide Planning Goal
1.
Statewide Planning Goal 2, Land Use Planning, establishes a land use planning process and
policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an
adequate factual base for such decisions and actions.
The proposed CPA and DCA are being processed as a Type IV procedure, which requires any
applicable Statewide Planning Goals, federal or state statutes or regulations, METRO regulations,
Comprehensive Plan policies and city's implementing ordinances, be addressed as part of the
decision-making process. All applicable review criteria have been addressed within this staff report.
Therefore, the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 2 have been met.
Statewide Planning Goal 5, Natural Resources, requires the inventory and protection of natural
resources, open spaces, historic areas and sites suitable for removal and processing of mineral and
aggregate resources.
The proposed CPA would establish an overlay district for 70 significant tree groves covering 527
acres in compliance with Goal 5 rule requirements. As further explained in the Tree Grove ESEE
Analysis, key evaluation criteria in the inventory and selection of significant tree groves were grove
maturity/tree size, grove size, health/viability, visibility, screening and buffering, accessibility,
rarity, educational/recreational potential, wildlife habitat value and connectivity and the amount of
existing disturbance (Vol. III, p. 27).
During the inventory phase, all property owners with an inventoried tree grove on their property
were provided notice, compliant with Goal 5 rule requirements. As part of the notice, property
owners were invited to a tree grove open house, which was held on October 6, 2010, to learn more
and provide feedback about the process.
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D (Vol. II, . 317) include regulatory incentives and
flexible standards that allow for the preservation of significant tree groves.
Therefore, the proposed CPA and DCA for significant tree groves would result in a limited
protection program in compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 5.
Goal 5 requirements are not applicable to proposed code amendments that support general urban
forest enhancement activities, such as tree planting and preservation, when not associated with
significant tree groves. These activities do not create or amend a resource list or land use regulation
adopted in order to protect a Goal 5 resource.
Statewide Planning Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resource Quality, requires the maintenance
and improvement of the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to
encourage the maintenance and improvement of significant tree groves (Vol. II, p. 317).
In addition, the proposed DCA in Section 18.790.030 require the achievement of tree canopy
through planting, preservation or a fee in lieu to support the city's urban forestry program (Vol. II,
p. 303). One benefit of these DCA is they encourage the maintenance and improvement of tree
canopy citywide, which as further detailed in the Tree Values Memo (Vol. III, p. 1), is well
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 34 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 113
documented to have a positive contribution to air quality. Therefore, the proposed CPA and DCA
are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 6.
Statewide Planning Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Hazards, requires the protection of life
and property from natural disasters and hazards.
The proposed CPA would establish an overlay district for 70 significant tree groves covering 527
acres. The significant tree grove map (Exhibit A) identifies the location of these 70 significant tree
groves, many of which overlap areas subject to natural hazards.
In addition, the proposed DCA in Section 18.790.030 require the achievement of tree canopy
through planting, preservation or a fee in lieu to support the city's urban forestry program (Vol. II,
p. 303). In meeting tree canopy standards, trees may be planted or preserved in lands subject to
natural hazards.
One benefit of these CPA and DCA is that tree roots, canopies and leaf litter have the ability to
prevent erosion and thereby protect areas subject to natural hazards. This is more fully described in
the Tree Values Memo (Vol. III, p. 1). Therefore, the proposed CPA and DCA are consistent with,
and supportive of Statewide Planning Goal 7.
Statewide Planning Goal 8, Recreational Opportunities, requires satisfaction of the recreational
needs of the citizens of the state and visitors.
The city identified 70 significant tree groves using visibility, accessibility and
educational/recreational potential as key criteria as further explained in the Tree Grove ESEE
Analysis (Vol. III, p. 27). The significant tree grove map (Exhibit A) identifies the location of these
70 significant tree groves, many of which overlap with the city's parks and open space resources.
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D (Vol. II, p. 317) include regulatory incentives and
flexible standards to preserve significant tree groves. In utilizing these regulatory incentives and
flexible standards, applicants are required to maximize the connectivity and viability of the
remaining portion ofpthe significant tree grove under the direction of a certified arborist.
Significant tree groves provide opportunities for passive and active recreational opportunities for
citizens of the state. Therefore, the proposed CPA and DCA are consistent with Statewide
Planning Goal 8.
Statewide Planning Goal 9, Economic Development, requires provision of adequate
opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to public health, welfare
and prosperity.
The city identified 70 significant tree groves through the statewide Goal 5 planning process as
further explained in the Tree Grove ESEE Analysis (Vol. III, p. 17). The significant tree grove map
(Exhibit A) identifies the location of these 70 significant tree groves. The proposed DCA in Section
18.790.050.D include regulatory incentives and flexible standards to preserve significant tree groves
(Vol. II, p. 317).
In addition, the proposed DCA in Section 18.790.030 require the achievement of tree canopy
through planting, preservation or a fee in lieu to support the city's urban forestry program (Vol. II,
p. 303).
These proposed CPA and DCA have been designed to be flexible and adaptive to promote
economic development opportunities and allow the provision of required infrastructure, consistent
with Statewide Planning Goal 9.
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 35 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 114
Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing, requires balancing the needs of tree and forest planting
and preservation with the need for housing and efficient use of urban land.
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D include regulatory incentives and flexible standards
that allow for the preservation of significant tree groves (Vol . II, p. 317). Regulatory incentives and
flexible standards also provide for needed housing and promote the efficient use of land by allowing
density transfer, increased building height, reduced setbacks, adjustments to Urban Forestry Plan
requirements and adjustments to street and utility standards.
In addition, the proposed DCA in Section 18.790.030 provide flexibility for meeting tree canopy
requirements through planting, preservation or a fee in lieu to support the city's urban forestry
program (Vol. II, P. 303). This would allow applicants to design sites efficiently while providing
needed housing and incorporating trees.
Therefore, the proposed CPA and DCA are consistent with and supportive of Statewide Planning
Goal 10 while meeting the city's urban forestry goals.
Statewide Planning Goal 11, Public Facilities/Services, requires planning and development of a
timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework
for urban and rural development.
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D include regulatory incentives and flexible standards
that allow for the preservation of significant tree groves (Vol. II, p. 317). Regulatory incentives and
flexible standards would allow adjustments to street and utility standards.
In addition, the proposed DCA in Section 18.790.030 provide flexibility for meeting tree canopy
requirements through planting, preservation or a fee in lieu to support the city's urban forestry
program (Vol. II, p. 303).
Therefore, the proposed CPA and DCA are consistent with and supportive of Statewide Planning
Goal 11 because they allow maximum flexibility for the efficient arrangement of public facilities
while incorporating trees.
Statewide Planning Goal 12, Transportation, requires provision of a safe, convenient and
economic transportation system.
As stated above, the proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D include regulatory incentives and
flexible standards that allow for the preservation of significant tree groves (Vol. II, P. 317).
Regulatory incentives and flexible standards would allow adjustments to street and utility
standards.
In addition, the proposed DCA in Section 18.790.030 provide flexibility for meeting tree canopy
requirements through planting, preservation or a fee in lieu to support the city's urban forestry
program (Vol. II, p. 303).
Therefore, the proposed CPA and DCA are consistent with, and supportive of Statewide Planning
Goal 12 because they allow maximum flexibility for a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system while incorporating trees.
Statewide Planning Goal 13, Energy Conservation, requires land and uses developed on the land
to be managed and controlled to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon
sound economic principles.
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D include regulatory incentives and flexible standards
that allow for the preservation of significant tree groves (Vol . II, p. 317). In addition, the proposed
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 36 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 115
DCA in Section 18.790.030 require the achievement of tree canopy through planting, preservation
or a fee in lieu to support the city's urban forestry program (Vol. II, p. 303).
In addition, the discretionary Urban Forestry Plan review option (Vol. II, p. 307) allows the use
techniques such as solar power generation that minimize the use of fossil fuels an alternative to
meeting the clear and objective Urban Forestry Plan requirements in Section 18.790.030.
The Tree Values Memo documents the ability of trees to reduce energy demands through strategic
placement and shadingVol. III, p. 1). Therefore, the flexibility in placement of trees afforded by
the proposed DCA, and. the allowance of alternative techniques that minimize use of fossil fuels,
are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 13, which seeks to maximize energy conservation
based on sound economic principles.
Statewide Planning Goal 14, Urbanization, requires provision for an orderly and efficient
transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment
inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land and to provide for livable
communities.
The proposed DCA in Section 18.790.050.D include regulatory incentives and flexible standards
that allow for the preservation of significant tree groves (Vol. II, p. 317). Regulatory incentives and
flexible standards would allow density transfer, increased building height, reduced setbacks,
adjustments to Urban Forestry Plan requirements and adjustments to street and utility standards.
In addition, the proposed DCA in Section 18.790.030 provide flexibility for meeting tree canopy
requirements through planting, preservation or a fee in lieu to support the city's urban forestry
program (Vol. II, p. 303).
Therefore, the proposed CPA and DCA provide flexibility in tree preservation and planting
strategies to allow for the efficient use of land to accommodate urban population and employment
within the urban growth boundary, consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 14.
Inapplicable Statewide Planning Goals include Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) and Goal 4 (Forest
Lands) because they address rural land outside the Metro Urban Growth Boundary; Goal 15
(Willamette River Greenway), because the Willamette River does not flow through Tigard; and
Goals 16 (Estuarine Resources), 17 (Coastal Shorelines), 18 (Beaches and Dunes), and 19 (Ocean
Resources), because they relate to Oregon's coastal resources.
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendments are
consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals.
SECTION V. CITIZEN COMMENTS
Comments were received in response to the public hearing notice to interested parties and Measure
56 notice to all city property owners. These comments have been provided to the Planning
Commission.
SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS
Metro - Land use and Planning, Washington County Department of Land Use &
Transportation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Oregon Department of State Lands, Oregon
Department of Land Conservation and Development, and Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J
were given the opportunity to review this proposal and submitted no comments or objections.
The cities of Tualatin, Lake Oswego, Beaverton, King City and Durham were given the
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 37 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 116
opportunity to review this proposal and submitted no comments or objections.
Oregon Department of Transportation and Clean Water Services have reviewed the proposal as
members of the Technical Advisory Committee and provided input that contributed to the
proposed amendments.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife provided comments, which have been provided to the
Planning Commission.
Verizon, Comcast Cable Corp, Qwest Communications, Portland General Electric and NW
Natural Gas Company were given the opportunity to review this proposal and submitted no
comments or objections.
PREPARED BY: Gary Pagenstecher DATE
Associate Planner
REVIEWED BY: Ron Bunch DATE
Community Development Director
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT-Staff Report to the Planning Commission PAGE 38 OF 38
CPA 2011-00004/DCA 2011-00002 117
.�::_ :':►.:.""" FF.EI'•"„r-�,� �.., _....-rte :.;; ----- -- ............................... - . ------ e_ - -
••�' Cn�..y..,., . _tea.�•.�. .-�: :E. . 'mil" :di:i:•L"-"J'.•7i ♦� ..'1.11111_-..'.dna..'.... �, ....p::.�1► •
`♦:••� �_`„':�• C■,`plr. __ Pd- .-.: '��'� •i9_ - •�... .:� LW1i
i steni To ,.n• o:� - 1r 4.,_ ..�I li,'i°'iie:iiiIII!Iii i i ....,.. `�.\.q0� Mil
BROGKMAN / • •O,,,%s.' Q t;,■..• .r Ii u1;; 91..., r�.u■o 1�
�• Significant Tree Groves him
- � R,GREENWAY•;,•. ',r , x - ,` ,' ♦ 1111■uE��r._�••'-- _
.. g !-�=: : "'r' Imo: '�" , ,-I D O� ' ■:::: ,1.1111::111911:nil
t•�3'sr. '-'. �_ ...................
i-u.:�pn. i t� LI:Ilfi�llll_..II■:1112.:LJ:' �' ' �,ilie'.171 iaallll:alilllli::ii
City of Tigard .: 1rrr, ,�' �. for ' 0�1 t� k,m ; ■ .:1.�.:il■1I i :I
p `'. 75^i'.i:l ::�:°n:'; -' e- �� , am•liij E'."',...' Iii si li \lily. . _�_
1 : - :.�.�; 6i : er.�'° E 11- ` „�:IIht, - n�a:fig P i--Ki -
'-F...,': •.. -. . :u..u•11� - 5. • ■ ,,„ ..,,, p••�:'-•...: _11!•:11111: ' 1117111h,,•Z ..nnr.
70 groves I�d't:��,. .rums r.. =m■:In 1 11111.11 �'
■ /, e r •.®e lvi �\:il•. ► u .• . Q0,__,..,.,,,„k,_ 4114.‘,, :.IIIA moni.i .111111111:6 ®A-..
:�. ;p1 i',. : ? u4;. .� ....: ■1.::■�.ch,alw. , Ir,�•p........ni` �:;J
II
TIGARD 527 acres .�-, •=\: - ="'N.:. ilti !un:annus ■mnl ��li� ®"'�:':uinumiiii iN 1' ,WI ig ; :1•- 1 / ' ■11 = II .-- Cin��... :::::: ._�� :I;� _II> ;,ae;2,.o \ . 0 J::uu 1:a: i=null/ tl■rl�■un -,., :1i...._.■......,�• �.;7,�..moi--. •� I •� m 1" - , 4 VSA' - :I? ':.��..:p. .....:::I:ir: __ •� ,.. 111:a SI:.�� J -JL'll!�^.� :Sip .� „- Lr' -_ O �:: �0 0.25 0.51 •►i :.:u...��.-: iv`y-i . •`I'. .I lli; �.' ILIS�� ::G1.: il/s.in- �� 'in..•;-.'y I�•.• •�••'.11 I r . . I r ' . I - :lopes .:um: .-,2. 1 ✓ vim
..-.,,,;;::;;,....,:e. - n';--,--_ :'■tli_::-:::.:':.:I
.ro.m:•. ..�.'.: ::::l :i.S� to 1111111 :�_;' . .•m:[reum'.,111 MIIIIII..ill ii-qui ■ •.rr_e:5!•,.-•
Miles 5n=_ ■;:: :-D.......... jr:: .,: O rill• IN .-Nei;:1JI!:IIII::::/■■IL, 1 y March 20 2012 al",„ �� ::s+3: i3'.":. , -:I •/ z.,, AK 40 e` .^.I�u-.:nn::: :11:= n::a:m.rli'ie.:�--�_ -���� �.;• . �:':: - s
Agenda Item#: #5 Page I of Date of Hearing: 4/16/2012
Case Number: CPA2011 -00004/DCA2011-00002
Case Name: Urban Forestry Code Revision Project TIGARD
Location: Citywide
PLEASE SIGN IN HERE
Tigard Planning Commission
Please Check the box identifying whether you are
For; Against; or Neither For or Against.
If you would like to speak on this item please CLEARLY print your name and information:
Name: Le-ri- is` i-.L ,-77_,..._ i 5 ❑ For 0 V'
Address: s. '''9 ` J �� ��
/ Against
City, State, Zip: / Li' 6,`,---Q ( 0 & ❑ Neither For or Against
Name: (1 al i ❑ For `->
Address: ( C 2- 1 t4 `j'Cit S' LGM 1 L 1, ' ❑ Against S
City, State, Zip: 1, th ) y Neither For or Against
Name: ''Z` N , For
Address: 7) T CD c p t- r_y G Fkog' Against
City, State, Zip: ' j1 r CCP. . 3'7 Z.2.3 ❑ Neither For or Against
Name: /<i ii e�.�.2....„ X For
Address: 4 i Z `' ,' Against
City, State, Zip: lc_a_ a„ 1 a 6 Z ?"Neither For or Against
Name: ❑ For
Address: ❑ Against
City, State, Zip: 0 Neither For or Against
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
President Walsh called the meeting to order at 7: 02 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
ROLL CALL
Present: President Walsh
Vice President Anderson
Commissioner Doherty
Commissioner Fitzgerald
Commissioner Muldoon
Commissioner Rogers
Commissioner Ryan
Commissioner Schmidt
Commissioner Shavey
Alt. Commissioner Armstrong
Absent: Alt. Commissioner Miller
Staff Present: Susan Hartnett, Assistant Community Development Director; Marissa
Daniels, Associate Planner; Shelley LaBarre, Sr. Admin.; Doreen
Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Todd Prager, Associate Planner/City
Arborist
Also Present: Councilor Marland Henderson
COMMUNICATIONS -None
CONSIDER MINUTES
March 5 Meeting Minutes: President Walsh asked if there were any additions, deletions, or
corrections to the March 5 minutes; there being none, Walsh declared the minutes approved
as submitted.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM MARCH 5 REOPENED
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT: CPA2011-00004/
DCA2011-00002
REQUEST: To implement the city's Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Urban Forestry
L•\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\041612-PH-UFCR Continued\tpc 041612 minutes.docx Page 1 of 6
Master Plan, the City of Tigard is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopting the
"Significant Tree Groves" Map and Tigard Development Code (Title 18) Amendments to Chapters
18.115, 18.120, 18.310, 18.330, 18.350, 18.360, 18.370 18.390, 18.530, 18.610, 18.620, 18.630 18.640,
18.715,18.745, 18.775, 18.790, and 18.798. In addition, in support of the Title 18 amendments,
amendments are proposed to the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Chapters 1.16, 6.01, 6.02, 7.40,
8.02 thru 8.20, 9.06, and 9.08.
LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: Citywide.
After reopening the public hearing,President Walsh gave a quick run-down as to what the
evening would hold.
STAFF REPORT
Todd Prager,Associate Planner/City Arborist, took a few moments to go over the process.
He explained that the purpose of the hearing was to accept public testimony on the
amendments requests and then for the commission to forward a final recommendation to
council if they feel prepared to do so. He went over the materials in their packet and then
gave a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit A).
SOME QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS
• What's the code if someone on private land wants to remove a healthy tree?If the tree
was required as part of a land use decision— that decision would have to be amended. However, f
someone bought a house in, say, 1985 that had no trees and they planted a tree in the backyard, they
can do whatever they want with that tree night now. If however, there was a requirement at the time
when the subdivision was done to plant certain trees, or preserve certain trees and that's noted in the
land use decision, then thy fall under our current tree removal process.
• How available are the "natives" and how expensive and readily available are they?
Certain natives are easier to get ahold of than others but.sad: — a Douglas fir is relatively easy to get
hold of I've seen a 6— 8'tree in the,5"60.00 range. So you have a list of these? Yep-, it's in the
Urban Forestry Manual under Native Trees.
• President Walsh wanted to clarify the following. The tree canopy requirements as
proposed only apply to new development—it's not applied to existing homeowners?
Correct-it's not retroactive.
• Regarding credits available for the developer... are those additive? Tell me about
enforcement.
Todd Prager advised them of the penalties for the various sized trees. The penalty for
removing one tree under the current code is as low as $2500 for a 10 inch diameter
tree. Under the new code it's different... all is complaint driven.
41LRPLN`Planning Commission\2012 Packets\041612-PH-UFCR Continuedltpc 041612 minutes.dccw Page 2 of 6
PUBLIC TESTIMONY— IN FAVOR
John Frewing— 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, 97223 —Mr. Frewing questions reliance on
canopy cover percentage alone. He says it doesn't work in other places. He believes
requirements should be changed. He submitted written testimony (Exhibit B).
Ken Gertz, 19200 SW 46th Tualatin, OR— spoke on behalf of the HBA (Homebuilders
Association). He said the HBA, in general, is in favor of the tree code. He said the old code
only addressed lots with trees so the only trees that were planted were on those properties
where the property had trees. The new code looks at the entire city; plants trees on every
single lot. There are no exceptions. So there are a lot more trees with the new code —more
tree preservation because the new code gives people incentives to save trees so it incentivizes
him, as a builder, to go and save a tree — and that's a good thing. He said the majority of the
HBA is against the 40% tree canopy. The bonus credit for the native trees is a good thing.
He believes the native trees will have a higher survivability rate and will give more natural
surroundings. He would like them to go with half of the canopy requirement for the
mitigation fee. He thinks that's reasonable. It's onerous for the homeowner to incentivize
him to plant the trees but it's not so crazy that "Ma and Pa Kettle" can't afford to build their
one-story house. The HBA would like to see the canopy cover at about 30% or so and to
exempt small lots. He said if you can envision your lot with 40°o trees on it—you don't have
a lot.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY—AGAINST
John Frewing— 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, 97223 said for the smallest lots he's not sure
that a tree plan and more than street trees are required. He said he'd be happy to give on that
if some minimum level of trees were required on every lot. He also spoke about the wildlife
values associated with trees - see Exhibit B. He said he believes more of the ODF&W
comments should have been addressed, particularly regarding wildlife. Only the native tree
issue was addressed.
Ken Gertz, 19200 SW 46th Tualatin, OR said the HBA has heartburn over two major
points. One is the canopy percentage and the other is how the mitigation is calculated. He
said they're not questioning the cost of the canopy— they're questioning how much of the
canopy they're paying on. He thinks half of the missing canopy—whatever they don't
achieve, they should pay mitigation on half. He believes that's a fair deal. He would like them
to re-explore the mitigation number; make it reasonable. As a developer he does personal
walkthroughs with homeowners. He noted that with the `graying of America' —people are
less likely to want trees on their lot. They enjoy looking at them, but don't want to have to
climb on their own homes to get leaves and debris out of their gutters.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY—NEITHER FOR OR AGAINST
Mr. Robert E. Ruedy, 14185 SW 100th Avenue, Tigard, 97224 dropped off some written
testimony to submit for the record and to distribute to the commissioners (Exhibit C). The
commission was asked to look at it and to let staff know if they had comments or if the
l:\LRPLN\PIanning Commission\2012 PacketA041612-PH-UPCR Continued\tpe t41612 minutes.docx Page 3 of 6
testimony brought up any concerns. The commissioners read over the testimony and stated
no comments or concerns.
President Walsh asked for "Round Table Comments" from the commissioners. He said
they'd break for a short time while staff considers the comments and questions. Following is
a synopsis:
• Is this the avenue to deal with the wildlife issue?
• This is a good document but not comfortable about applying the tree code or canopy
cover to small tree lots. Perhaps that should be revisited. Concerned about the cost
burden on developer/owner.
• Concerned about the small lot canopy cover. Why go to the expense? Where does
wildlife gets addressed?
• This hasn't been done around the country. Mr. Prager needs to look at the tree
canopy if this is passed on. Willing to give it a shot and see where it goes. Would like
to know where the 40% figure came from. How easy is it to obtain native trees and
are they expensive?
• Comfortable with the proposal with the amendments. Good flexibility (15°!0) ability
to average over development. Believes the cost estimate from Iden Gertz is
exorbitant.
• The plan has lots of options. Developer's requirements vs. homeowners —who
removes? Wonders about the small lot tree plan requirement.
• Sold on the canopy concept. Likes the document as amended by the staff. Believes
the 15% rule is good. Generally likes the document as amended by staff.
• Likes the document as amended. Would like to see staff address the mitigation costs
to developers. Does the owner pick up the cost if they take trees out later? 15% is a
good compromise.
• The plan is workable and reasonable. Wonders about removal of backyard trees and
how that affects the 40% for the site. Also, how does this plan compare to
Beaverton?
• Commissioner Anderson read Commissioner Miller's comments (in Miller's absence)
(Exhibit D).
• Concerned about the cost of a tree plan on small lots.
The commission took a 15 minute break while staff discussed the commissioner's concerns.
STAFF REPLIES
After the break, staff came back to address some of the commissioner's concerns. Susan
Hartnett, Assistant Community Development Director, said the small lot issue had come up
and that there were questions about some of the cost numbers. She believes that's not
something that can quickly be answered and that most likely the best thing would be to
continue this hearing to May 7. She said if there is some desire to look at perhaps exempting
small lots, that's not an amendment to try to make on the fly. She said that what would make
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission2012 Packets\041612-PH-UFCR Continued\tpc 041E12 min utes,docx Page 4 of 6
sense for this evening would be to have a little more conversation about the small lot issue
and maybe try to answer a few questions that had come up but to propose that on May 7th
they would bring back a very short staff report directed at the small lot issue and perhaps
give a couple of optional ways to address it—maybe exempting small lots or perhaps looking
at some other way of reducing costs associated with a tree plan for a small lot.
They spoke about the 40% requirement and how canopy coverage is calculated and whether
or not it's the type of tree or the number of trees. She briefly walked them through that.
Canopy coverage is by tier. The 40%, which is the highest tier, the tier 1, only applies to the
low and medium density residential zones. So more intense zones such as the high density
residential, the mixed-use, the commercial industrial zones all fall into tier 2 or tier 3 so
there's a lower requirement there. The canopy coverage is based on the species of tree
indicated on the tree plan and the presumed or assumed canopy coverage of that species at
full maturation. That information is readily available to arborists through professional
information and would be provided on the plan. That's how staff would check to see
whether or not the proposal meets the canopy requirements.
There had been a question as to where the 40% figure came from. Todd Prager said the 40%
came out in the Urban Forestry Master Plan as the recommended canopy and went into
detail about how that came about and how the tiers came into play. He said the peer review
helped as well.
Ms. Hartnett spoke about the wildlife issue. She said she agrees that trees have value in terms
of wildlife; however, if we, as a city,want to recognize that through our land use laws we
would have to do a Goal 5 analysis for all of our tree regulations. She went on to explain
what a Goal 5 analysis entails and spoke also about the ESEE (Environmental Social
Economic & Energy) areas. She said in places in Tigard where wildlife has a significant Goal
5 resource, such as in sensitive lands, that is already rolled into those regulations but we're
not trying to do that for the full range urban forestry regulations that are in front of you
tonight.
She spoke to the commissioners about small lots and the cost of creating a tree plan. She
explained that there is a two year establishment period and how that component affects the
ultimate buyer of the new home and what options the developer has for potentially holding
that new buyer responsible for the maintenance of the trees. Staff will follow-up on this with
the City Attorney to find out what legal options are available.
Ms. Hartnett explained the difference between "mitigation" and "fee in lieu." She said
"mitigation" is an old term that doesn't exist in the new regulations. In existing regulations
the term mitigation is used to characterize the payment of a fee for the inability or the failure
to replace existing trees that are removed— either as part of a development or, in cases
where a tree has been previously protected and then is removed, without replacement. Both
of those are instances where we use the term "mitigation fee." That fee is based on a caliper
inch as well as an appraised value of the tree. It's a double fee and can be very expensive.
The only fee we have in the proposal is a fee in lieu of actually creating canopy through one
of the other options. So there are three other ways you can meet the requirement: Preserve
I,\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Rackets\041612-PH-LIFCR Continued\tpc 041612 minutes.docx Page 5 of 6
existing trees;plant new trees; go through discretionary review and propose a green roof or
solar panels. If you chose to do none of those things and simply say "I don't want to deal
with trees -- I just want to pay a fee" —we have a "fee-in-lieu." She went on to explain hos,
that works and how it's similar to other city fees.
Todd Prager talked about the logistics of how the fee-in-lieu is calculated for tree canopy.
Staff will provide a couple of scenarios to help explain the whole issue.
President Walsh summarized what topics staff would be bringing back before the
commissioners. 1) Examples of the fee-in-lieu; 2) Smaller lots; 3) Results of a check in to the
City Attorney about developers ability to transfer that requirement of the liability to the new
homeowner; and 4) a comparison of various cities.
MOTION TO CONTINUE TO MAY 7
The following motion was made by Commissioner Muldoon and seconded by
Commissioner Schmidt, "I move to continue to a time certain- May 7."
The motion was voted on and carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
OTHER BUSINESS
Update on City Budget Reductions and Impact on Community Development
Susan distributed a press release from Marty Wine. She explained the impact and gave details
of positions eliminated and service hour changes.
Debrief on April 10 Joint Meeting with Beaverton
Seven commissioners attended. They felt the presentation was a bit overwhelming. They
liked the idea, and the fact that they met, but they felt slightly awkward because they didn't
know the others. They talked about possibly meeting with other cities as well - regarding the
Southwest Corridor, in particular.
ADJOURNMENT
President Walsh adjourned the meeting at 10:23 p.m.
• t^.._ G
Doreen Laughlin,Planning dbmmission Secretary
(7)— ik4 4,91.---
A'ITEST: President Dave Walsh
I:\LRPLN\Planning Cornmission\2012 Packets\041612-PH-LIFCR Continued\tpc 041612 minutes.docx Page 6 of 6
CITY OF TIGARD
Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing I Get it Done
TIGA[RD
Urban Forestry Code Revisions
Planning Commission Public Hearing
on the Amendment Requests
Community Development I April 2012
CITY OF TIGARD
e
Amendment Requests ;._
Land Use Related (47) Non-Land Use Related (47) . { .. •
II .114,frriiiie
• Development Code • Municipal Code
• Comprehensive Plan • Urban Forestry Manual -� , �_
• ESEE Analysis
i
CITY OF TIGARD
Staff Recommended land Use Amendments
, - - ,
: .
, . .. .,... .„ ....., .t , .. . . ih, , _ ,
_ _ e
in • r text eirrenL. e! . s ti, ,. �.' �. �. i-� .
• , - lf A
2. Reduce the per lot rrai. �4, um req event
PP' dr
CnwrrQK" scrivener' ser� or ! . ,
, _ ,,i, Ille,..tia. , `.;"1 , -,,teda• - ,
-,,UItIL Scrivener 's �.. :, ;fl ESEE - ',�7`
ka a � PF �ar�t tree greves x#38 arm # '
ilk .
rnend.rne e to clarify the review and approval pro _ - s
� ill
, .,.� t ,.r- _' G.0r� .L;�-1-3
yj�,,y , i,.. 1 Ylg
ea 40 Oa 1
r
_
.s. -_ '
CITY OF TIGARD
Staff Recommended land Use Amendments
, „,,
1. Minor text amendment to summary heading of 18.790.030.A
kin";""c-' ^IF S1 rfi ci 1" t s� 1 S�a. ;. t
perp )Tr�°ai �� unr �r ,
3. Correct scrivener's error in section 18.790.030.0 t . •
ktheAriz
4. Correct scrivener's errors in ESEE f� ~P � �
t;�..L r '‘.":"''::;Cant 3 Cant tree groves
6. Minor text amendment to clarify the review and approval process
y
in sections 18.790.070.6.1-3
1.2:‘_ _ -
CITY OF TIGARD
Staff Recommended land Use Amendments
-
,t: .
` , _
en . s
Jr.
t ,� 0 ' i. �.
sit /
2. Reduce the peri t rrii-r0;11um raq - ement
1. Cnrrpet SCriVenei P n i 91 r ,L` ti
. .voc,' %,--t,„,..i,441 . . .. '
a.uI «IL '' "it'ener \ . n ESE f V. '" , .
- -- 5. Correct boundaries of significant tree groves #38 and #62 ' ,
iv, o o ci, ,, .o ... �eview c�'sy. approval pro0_ s
01
, F
CITY OF TIGARD
Staff Recommended land Use Amendments
, ,- - ,
„_ .: . .._ _ , .. 4 . . . . ..._. .
-.- --... • -- -Jr.,. I,t'r • .- 'it ik" " 1 -,t .., The - I' dy 0
2. Reduce the per lot minimum requirement to 15% • . ` 4
s. Lor�Iei,t scree ie�i. a �tor 4.A. er:tiuon .o. /9, . , , tP: : f
...orrect scriveners L. ; 'n ESEE -
.r ..- .lit -4. g.Y L boUndar� p 4` r 'V t1" cant tree groves #38 and #6 ' - `_
. rnendrneoto clarify the ieview 4id approval prov_.� S
i
., y t);..4'.—.
- t. `' . _'.G.O%r(1.1 -1-3
�_ fr ;.
A � i,.. 1 Ylg
44..--- -:., r. I i =
� '_ -
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
, ! '
y 4 ti 1B 97 19 ! t3
_. __
R. III i. i 1 TRAcT"$',
P . --ia �
,i.
.____,......_
' `y.� " .„... 1 w� __, 01. * 12 titi .rnocr.
s 4. 1 1 AiR--.140,. 11'. .r.:).:• '''), —' I
v r"..V.icP. 44.::::1"'7•% . °'—'-' 1
a glMPS*pm
��` ''fir �..
[( .
G4 . ia; I •I 5,' .' .�q I i I `y .erwr
I ' '
I. ---- .e -,..... .s. TREE ColthOPYT m.E
W.:11 ''''' r.. . 11'.41
'.,!a -- r� a r— er 4r•..,....k am...
miern4IlGWifi Ei..�1M5®IWLLIIMiN r "'Mee* Ir ......1.7".""
Ys. MMI MMIMMIII n.. lIrPMM !. ears ! - roe .. .......
.w
' . ri ' -en en of rasa
um Ftlill no.� s .. . --...- ;., .ems.- .-ansa•..
3111.411111101.1•Jar—fille UAW
WI. 1M st' VE M. rmu 1119 url mama M
MI
KKO 199u9 I.Mr. Mu M
u um
...-w nrM
WM
...ns...Pi .«:.:ma._.w—palma,INFOS TREE CANOPY
PLAN
�q� y.� 2
aim
SITE F7"ILG L+�Ai� F L►41M a�w ee.. 1 4+. $%7f
Mr
1 i Of r
Land Use Amendment 2
CITY OF TIGARD
Staff Recommended Non-Land Use Amendments y
'-: �cad ill, �25 bonus c ' ror thep1anti iu: e r 9vti' r �:ii �
L. lequ red for the 1. TT "' -,7 '- per lot mini ' m is reduced to - ' ;.
3. Removes repetct a ,rc-t di .riterion ini _�r tri:: k'e nn va.-
y'
' permits ''i
r -
--.,_"z'''."
♦ y.
CITY OF TIGARD
Staff Recommended Non-Land Use Amendments y
(JrcriRN 1.25 bons cre for the Olantir" , Ur IidClve tk t - F
n .If
2. Required for the UFM if the per lot minimum is reduced to 15% .:- ' •;:
t
3. Removes �epeti� ���:e �� � � :rite ion �rs � � r � ��"�M# " 4�
permits f .
110, 1 ik ' II
4 I
110
'fit "k 1" y,r4
MJF
IF♦ y.
At. '1 4
400 -
_ '
CITY OF TIGARD
Staff Recommended Non-Land Use Amendments y�
rjic,ri`S 1.25 bonus cret .� for the plantiri6 Lk ercuuve ts'it `s; .d
. 1u.red for the t T" '4' -,' e, per lkt minimum is rec!uced to
3. Removes repetitive approval criterion in the UFM for tree removal ,.
permits - _ 1 f
'V,' y - _ --1.
. ,
st
•♦
r i.- -1 4
ik
Lam _ _ -
Y
/ _- = -
CITY OF TIGARD
Staff Recommended Non-Land Use Amendments r y
'
1. Grants 1.25 bonus credit for the planting of native trees F, rr ' :.
,
• piIrW.Y�a edforthe T! �� E, w4, ;% ,.it iWi W:� YL.:IL� ed - :_
3. Removes repetitive rL v � i criterion in .� ��� i _ r tet: k '27MI ia.-,
permits "',
tit " , -
'fit' -Y '14
leol,
MJF
♦ y.
� i,.. Y1;
ill
....... -
CITY OF TIGARD
Non-Land Use Amendment 1 i_, li; •fi;:. . , . .
wr o- y,
i
- '. r
• Tier 1: 16-32% actual canopy when using natives : '4i '•
• Tier 2: 13-26% actual canopy when using natives .7c-'41/44 . f '-r
• Tier 3: 10-20% actual canopy when using natives
,, y _ :,
it
lit
6 1111M44
ipi
ir-
mato poi 0 ' , - ilmilimpo.
:_ -
CITY OF TIGARD
Draft Motions (page 78)
• Motion 1: Incorporates staff recommended land use amendments
swelisitiSM46„,r, '
• Motion 2: Recommends approval of land use elements of UFCR
pp
• Motion 3: Advises non-land use elements are consistent with and
supportive of land use elements
r -
.r T
3- - �- _
CITY O F TIGARD
Refresher : �. , .. . .
,:
or
, .,yid► 0 #n., r: r.
Tree canopy req'_�if� .h' = s .only apply to develop' '- - ,.7- 71, tM "
Requirements can ' ,_-_, -e. - t ' ), o g planting, preserva: on, ',, - in Ii'1 �
. ' or discretionary review jy,,1L�, b. :
- , . Trees requil"- ,d vittf 1 �,v•% F 'anent become protected' . }�, ' ,, .
,. ,g :_"*. for future r :,P. r L',',-_..- -ill is more flexible _ - .,
�; ,,
live ,, -'
-u , .. m nds the +,, continue low or no-fee tree removal ~x ,..)c =__ :.i
mei-
reill
• , 1 - . . re not sand by tree canop4. �� rruire ent
F rt}
r eat. Oa 1
_
- �I
_ ' -7-
CITY O F TIGARD
Refresher _ ' *,r
.; , .c 0 . 4 1 b°•
10
• Tree canopy requirements only apply to development . -, ' �ti, , 'I. .
Ilie» a.4ri ;�ment ca T t .:-%,e.or..igh lai,...,6`;_ � �: .W int on C �gil ‘L
or discretionary review ;�' 'c� »
• Trpac rAt., ,,t`E.q1 R>rq,»y , v .;°•%:: ,.r....,A �v 4' a - ,;
~or TuLure L ' r �,',F , . � i more _xi • e '
S,. . -,OF �, _` m nds t ,i c:t i' continue low or no- ee tree removal "x- �c ,r
,,
�m • Fut .ro •• ia ', re not ' and by tree can , ,• ire �p rpt -t. _
_= _ _ - _ _ �� -
CITY O F TIGARD
RefresherIrl, Oil *,r r
," ; yy ` 1. b
• Tree canopy requirements only apply to development s. ' `` -I, Y - �l .
• Requirements can be met through planting, preservation, fee in lieu,
or discretionary review = ,. a.
A, '� , ' f
;� e"rruLure L ,'f r �,',F , ,, i1 L more -xi • a
�, m nds thy, 4.."- Lti continue lowor no-fee tree removal ; x 3c _
}
,,
mei
• Fut .eg . , 1• - notcan ,_ ire r N rpt t. _ -
_ -_= _ -a - �� _
CITY OF TIGARD
Refresher ik 01 *,r
• Tree canopy requirements only apply to development is ' ``--, Y s,.,
• Requirements can be met through planting, preservation, fee in lieu,
or discretionary review
• Trees required with development become protected f�� ' .:
1
-er Tuture L r �. ,F _, ,, ,-41 LI Mr`s tiE iaie
IV -
'-'' _` m nds th 1 zt continue low or new-fee tree removal x �c ,�
}
,,
Fut .� a ' re nc t h' end by tree can - ire p rpt ' _
CITY OF TIGARD
Refresher *,r
• Tree canopy requirements only apply to development s `` -I, - - Flo. .
• Requirements can be met through planting, preservation, fee in lieu,
or discretionary review
• Trees required with development become protected f�� ' .:
• Process for future tree removal is more flexible ^.
go,
mak_, E A:UItIt cello z : ct,v '',.t.ifiitilaue low or no-fee tree removal ; -;-oc n ,
sh ti * uire
aiis are not and by tree can gik.,r.t a
, .
. ..
- t
r . .,}
r.
CITY OF TIGARD
Refresher *,r
• Tree canopy requirements only apply to development s. • ``�,' •- s!� •
• Requirements can be met through planting, preservation, fee in lieu,
or discretionary review
• Trees required with development become protected f 74ft ,1,. AllicittliP'
�� ' :
• Process for future tree removal is more flexible =- ^ ,
iv, • CAC recommends the city continue low or no-fee tree removal process
It
r I
LI. _ _ -
_ .
CITY OF TIGARD
Refresher _ *,r
• Tree canopy requirements only apply to development s: ``�,' Y �!� •
• Requirements can be met through planting, preservation, fee in lieu,
or discretionary review
4 a. ' fA :*
Arkithe
• Trees required with development become protected f�' ' .:
1
• Process for future tree removal is more flexible =-:
iv,
y
• CAC recommends the city continue low or no-fee tree removal process
• Future owners are not bound by tree canopy requirements for y
development
r
ItL
- - - _
v :_ .
CITY 0 F T I G A R D
„. -;',.'.c. 4 'i
.
—. , i . •I „.1. ,.S
:1:74;4:
,e'4* , .A y r',°' ' • ''ili ' ' i i .;4 , nOr-' •
•11.%—?4,4.. Ir. ! 114.=3', :J 1 3 .11• 0'It.. 4'J r,
'
ii
.
, --
..
.... .. . • . x_ ... . .., s
_L 4._L._ _
.a. A ' 1-,' ' lEr
.-- ,
-
' 16 xi:
% p '. • ,- _ , - :r .,,
,., • , _
• ....1 . - - ,,,,,r.,, 12), 7 .47:-- --n $f?- -
_,_...... , ---...irose
4'"'Immaiiim _
u.---
_ _ ..,,
---._..-
-
_----..w --.------- -
Questions
APRIL 16, 2012 TESTIMONY OF JOHN FREWING RE TIGARD URBAN FORESTRY
PROGRAM
1 Comment LU5, which I submitted on January 12, and which urged some
supplemental control of tree removal other than a calculated future canopy cover. I
earlier said that relying on future canopy cover alone was 'novel' in the United States.
Staff followed with some reference cities and noted a USDA paper (2003) which
discussed the canopy cover approach. I followed by reading the USDA paper and
calling three typical Virginia cities. My conclusion is that SUCH ORDINANCES HAVE
BEEN PUT ON THE BOOKS, BUT THEY ARE NOT FOLLOWED. In Manassas,
Community Development Director Elizabeth Gossman told me that they simply
negotiate with the developer what trees are to be saved and any enforcement is
complaint based -- little or no experience with canopy cover calculations over the
decade the ordinance has been in place. In Lynchburg, Planner Kevin Henry told me
that they have been told to 'not go there' regarding calculation of required canopy
cover. In Fairfax, Development Chief Jack Blevins replied to my query with the
attached email -- he acknowledges that city enforcement is impossible for canopy
cover but interestingly adds that in addition to canopy cover rules for site development,
'Removal of any tree must be justified in writing as part of a (required) Tree
Management Plan'. The USDA paper is interesting; it notes that in their survey, there
are exemptions from the canopy requirement for single family developments; so the
experience cited is not applicable directly to Tigard.
My followup research adds evidence to the view that reliance on a canopy cover
percentage alone, as proposed by Tigard staff is 'novel'. Staff response to this and
earlier evidence is simply to name some cities, without examining what actually is
going on there. You should call for some objective evidence that the canopy cover
percentage approach before you has at least some real life experience and success.
2 Comment NLU40, elicited a staff response stating that their consideration of tree
values is based on a 'bibliography' attached to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan, which
does not refer to wildlife values. The absence of wildlife values referenced in this
'bibliography' does not mean that there are not wildlife values for all trees in Tigard; the
Comprehensive Plan itself (i.e. in the BODY of the Comprehensive Plan) note these
wildlife values (see page 2-10 of the Comprehensive Plan).
3 Regarding comment LU 15, staff has sidestepped the issue which was raised. My
comment was that amendment of the acknowledged code which affects mapped Goal
5 resources calls for an ESEE analysis. Staff refers to a DLCD memo, which says in
part (not relevant words left out) that Goal 5 applies "to actions that amend a portion of
an acknowledged land use regulation adopted to protect a significant Goal 5
resource". That is exactly what is being done here; a consequence of such
amendment calls for an ESEE analysis. The existing and acknowledged regulations
which are being amended are the significant habitat map, which shows different levels
of sensitive lands, and the words which call for protective actions on some of these
sensitive lands and encourage protective actions on other parts of the sensitive lands.
4
iip
-11-- ,
r
1/1/4S7W, 2
City of Tigard Public Hearing Testimony on the Urban Forestry Code
Revision (UFCR) Project Identified as (CPA) 2011-00004 & (DCA) 2011-00002
Resident/Property Owner 2S111 BB, TL500 Written Testimony Submission for the Record
Testimony Date: April 16, 2012
Testimony by: Robert E. Ruedy
14185 SW 100th Avenue
Tigard, OR 97224-4951
(503) 620-5997
The Amended UFCR Plan remains in essence a broad-brush approach to an eventual solution, my
questions, comments, and finding at this initial stage of my recent (1 week) notice of this "amended" City
of Tigard (COT) UFCR Plan are as follows:
1. Information for these COT UFCR Plan proceedings has not been comprehensively compliant with
"public comment" guidelines as currently established. It appears that the COT UFCR Hearing
Notices for these Planning Commission meetings, and distribution of the "amended" UFCR Draft
Plans to discuss and inform Tigard property owners and concerned residents with the process and
its plan changes, are inconsistent and fraught with dissemination and/or notice errors. This concern
was presented in my February 6, 2012 testimony. Additional hearings, and their preceding notices,
are anticipated for every additional change in the UFCR Plan currently under consideration as is
required by law. And the dissemination processes established for this UFCR Plan comment activity
must occur as has been presented, or it lends itself to a violation of due process.
2. My prior written testimony Item#2, to wit "There appears to not be any current common sense
existing within either the City of Tigard Municipal Code OR the City of Tigard Development Code
addressing adjacent property line tree preservation, hazard mitigation, or canopy/drip-line/root
infringements. So how will this UFCR address these concerns and issues, regulate irresponsible or
violating properties and its owners, and improve enforcement, including the current code
enforcement of"Noxious Vegetation", "Non-native Species", and otherwise. These existing COT
codes and regulations are currently being comprehensively overlooked and remain unenforced,
leaving our City landscapes, both public and private, being invaded by rodents, possums, skunks,
raccoons which inherently can present an unhealthy and many times dangerous presence. Bottom-
line here is that the entire city is beginning to take on the appearance of a slum. This is a city-wide
disgrace, a detriment to our property values and quality-of-life, and warrants immediate addressing.
A typical example of the public property neglect would be the many storm detention basins around
the city which were deeded to the City by prior landowners and are currently in a state of serious
maintenance arrears" has, to date, not been adequately responded to by staff and therefore is
incomplete and unresolved at this time.
3. My prior written testimony Item#3 requested that the City or its planning commission "Please define
the City's current position on "sustainability", the City's participation & "roadmap" to assisting the
State of Oregon with its "Renewable Portfolio Standard" (RPS/SB 838 -
http.//www_oregon govIENERGY/RENEW/RPS home.shtml) relating to renewable Energy, and the
dovetailing or interweaving of this proposed UFCR with these objectives. My understanding is that
other Cities (such as our neighboring "Portland"with a population of 566,141 (reference Title 33,
Chapter 639, http://www.portiandonline.corn/bps/index.cfm?a=348774&c=55263;
http://www.portlandonline.corri/bpsfindex.cfm? 57643; http://solaroregon.orq/news/cities-eye-solar-
savings; http://www.port/andonline.cam/bpslindex_cfm?a=209180&c=54924
http:flwww_oregonlaws.orgfors/215.047 , http:l/www.greenbuildingadvisor.corn/blogs/deptlgreen-
Page 1 of 4
City of Tigard Public Hearing Testimony on the Urban Forestry Code
Revision (UFCR) Project Identified as (CPA) 2011-00004 & (DCA) 2011-00002
Resident/Property Owner 2S111 BB, TL500 Written Testimony Submission for the Record
Testimony Date: April 16, 2012
building-news/closing-hoa-solar-installation-restrictions ,
http:l/www.nwcn.com/home/?f Id=137364383&fPath=/news/local&fDomain=10227
http://www.dsireusa.orq/solar/solarpolicyquide/?id=19 ,
http:/Iwww.solarabcs_orq/aboutfpublications/reportsfsolar-access/pdfs/Solaraccess-full.pdf
http://www.dsireusa.org/solar/incentives/index.cfm?EE=1&RL=1&SPV=1&ST=1&searchtype=Acces
s&solarporta!=1&sh=1 ,
http://www.dsireusa.orq/solar/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive Code=OR02R&re=1&ee=1 ), the
City of Ashland a much smaller population of 20,996 (reference
http:l/www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID-2788) with and agencies (such as our neighboring
Multnomah County), coordinate "Solar Access"with "Tree Canopy" coverage. So Tigard is certainly
positioned with a size of population around 50,390 to embrace such regulation in its City Codes and
Regulations. Please refer to the intemet links identified in issue#2 above, especially
http:l/www.nwcn.com/home/?fld=137364383&fPath=/news/local&fDomain=10227 ,
http://www.dsireusa.oro/solar/solarpolicyouide/?id=19
http://www.solarabcs.orq/about/publications/reports/solar-accesslpdfs/Solaraccess-full.pdf
http://www.dsireusa.orq/solar/incentives/index.cfm?EE=1&RE=1&SPV=1&ST=1&searchtype=Acces
s&solarportal=l&sh=1 ,
http:f/www.dsireusa.orglsolar/incentives/incentive.cfm?incentive Code=OR02R&re=1&ee=1 )", has
not been adequately addressed to date within the"amended" draft UFCR Plan being discussed by
the Planning Commission tonight This oversight is unacceptable and my request is that the
Planning Commission return the "amended" Draft UFCR Plan to City Staff to complete their
responses to all testimony presented.
4. My prior written testimony Item #4 requested that the City or its planning commission address the
issue that "Because the COT does not currently have any Solar Access regulation, ANY enacted
UFCR must regulate "Tree Height" and "Solar Encroachments" the same as "Structure/Building
Heights and Set-backs'. This would be consistent with many CC&R's for past and current
developments. And while we're on the subject of"Native and Non-native Tree Species", an example
of this Solar Access "encroachment" issue would be a property owner who installs a ground-
mounted Solar Photovoltaic Array, but his/her neighbor to the south plants a windrow of"Giant
Sequoias". This is an especially non-mitigatable scenario if neighbors have an adversarial
relationship, or the neighbor to the south is simply passive aggressive or wants to lower the value of
the property to its north for some reason or another. Any unregulated height or set-back location of
Trees would in essence be a violation of the intent to allow Solar Access for individual property
owners of adjacent properties. This is a very serious issue that must be addressed in conjunction
with this UFCR Plan. Anything less is a disservice to most current and future COT Property
Owners", has not been adequately addressed to date within the "amended" draft UFCR Plan being
discussed by the Planning Commission tonight. This oversight is unacceptable and my request is
that the Planning Commission return the "amended" Draft UFCR Plan to City Staff to complete their
responses to all testimony presented.
5. My prior written testimony Item#5 requested that the City or its planning commission address the
issue of"How will this new code impact and enhance existing publically and privately held properties
that are fully developed and improved? Or is this new code under consideration using a
Page 2 of 4
City of Tigard Public Hearing Testimony on the Urban Forestry Code
Revision (UFCR) Project Identified as (CPA) 2011-00004 & (DCA) 2011-00002
Resident/Property Owner 2S111BB, TL500 Written Testimony Submission for the Record
Testimony Date: April 16, 2012
discriminatory approach to just regulate and impact (both financially and allowed use) "undeveloped"
or"under-developed" private properties. It seems that if ALL property owners and the City overall
will benefit from the enhanced tree canopy, cleaner air, reduced runoff, stream &"sensitive lands"
enhancement, reduced "heat island" effects, improved air quality and reduced wind effects, Al[
property owners should equitably share in the costs of city-wide tree enhancement regulation. This
can be done by adding a fee portion to the already in-place road and sanitary sewer and Surface
Water Management (through the City and "CleanWater Services) fee structures and billing process,
and be based on the square footage of each property, both public and private. So the question
remains as to how the COT will equitably apply the costs of this new code regulation to ALL
properties of the City", has not been adequately addressed to date within the"amended" draft UFCR
Plan being discussed by the Planning Commission tonight. This oversight is unacceptable and my
request is that the Planning Commission return the "amended' Draft UFCR Plan to City Staff to
complete their responses to all testimony presented.
6. My prior written testimony Item#6 requested that the City or its planning commission address the
issue "Will Measure 49 waivers and/or waiver requests by private property owners be negated or
impacted in any manner by this new development code? If so, how will compensation for the
reduced land use capability be accomplished and measured in a "market price square footage of
land use and building volume loss" scenario? Please reference, at a minimum, for this and
questions#5 above and#7 below http:/twww.oregon.gov/LCD/MEASURE49/index.shtml ,
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/publications/M49 2011-01-31.pdf
htt.://www.ore.on..ov/LCD/MEASUR E49Idocs/•eneral/m49 fa..pdf", has apparently not been
adequately addressed to date within the "amended" draft UFCR Plan being discussed by the
Planning Commission tonight. City Staff indicates that "Measure 49 is not applicable within the
Urban Growth Boundary and, more specifically, not within the incorporated boundaries of the City of
Tigard." If this is the case then COT Ordinance 07-09 remains comprehensively valid and in full
effect going forward, regardless of Measure 49.
7. My prior written testimony Item #7 requested that the City or its planning commission address the
issue of"Aside from Measure 49 implications, how will private properties that incur a negative
financial impact by this proposed code/regulation be financially compensated comprehensively by
the City and its residents?", has apparently not been adequately addressed to date within the
"amended" draft UFCR Plan being discussed by the Planning Commission tonight. City Staff
indicates that"Measure 49 is not applicable within the Urban Growth Boundary and, more
specifically, not within the incorporated boundaries of the City of Tigard." If this is the case then
COT Ordinance 07-09 remains comprehensively valid and in full effect relating to reduced-or-loss-
of-land-use reimbursement(s) going forward, regardless of Measure 49.
8. My prior written testimony Item#8 requested that the City or its planning commission address the
issue "Relating to ongoing maintenance responsibilities and costs of UFCR Tree enhancements,
who will be burdened with these and how will this equitably be distributed among ALL COT property
owners both public and private", has not been adequately addressed to date within the "amended"
draft UFCR Plan being discussed by the Planning Commission tonight. This oversight is
unacceptable and my request is that the Planning Commission return the "amended" Draft UFCR
Plan to City Staff to complete their responses to all testimony presented.
Page 3 of 4
City of Tigard Public Hearing Testimony on the Urban Forestry Code
Revision (UFCR) Project Identified as (CPA) 2011-00004 & (DCA) 2011-00002
Resident/Property Owner 2S t 11 BB, TL500 Written Testimony Submission for the Record
Testimony Date: April 16, 2012
9. Again, in this "amended" draft UFCR Proposal Planning Commission meeting public comment
period, that due to the delay in my receipt of the "amended" Draft UFCR Plan, of which the
procedure for procurement of said document was stated within the public notice to all COT property
owners, please hold the record open for an additional two weeks for interested citizens and
residents to provide public comment.
10. My prior written testimony Item#10 requested that the City or its planning commission address the
issue that"I am in agreement with other testimonies relating to this initial enactment of the proposed
UFCR Plan only affecting Single Family low-density properties such as R-3.5 and R-5 land use
zoning within the COT. All others development requests must take a case-by-case approach to add
common sense to the UFCR objectives", has not been adequately addressed to date within the
"amended" draft UFCR Plan being discussed by the Planning Commission tonight. This oversight is
unacceptable and my request is that the Planning Commission return the "amended" Draft UFCR
Plan to City Staff to complete their responses to all testimony presented.
11. It is sincerely appreciated that the "Green Roof"options be accepted by the City in lieu of"Trees"
since they achieve the same objectives as the UFCR Plan, and their positive influences are
immediate. This needs to be solidified as being "based on a square footage comparative with the
20-year canopy of a typical tree or grouping of trees in our region."
In conclusion, again I wish to state that for the COT to enact a luke-warm, incomplete, or unenforcable
UFCR Plan and expect sanity to be applied to the initial regulatory codes' insanity, is at best a hap-
hazard way to provide sensible regulation, and at worst, grossly irresponsible. My recommendation
again is to take an additional year to create a rational, enforceable, and comprehensive UFCR Plan.
We've been without one since November 6, 1962. So for 50 years we've done just fine without it, and
another year to ensure that it's comprehensively written and reasonable, given the availability of reduced
staffing at the City and the need for additional public comment and revision to the current draft plan
would seem to be both prudent and rational under the circumstances. Besides, it's not like we're
experiencing a "housing boom" right now or in the foreseeable future.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
c
Owner of 25111 BB, T1_500
Page 4 of 4