The URL can be used to link to this page

UFR2018-00009 UFR2O18 - 00009 CWS TUALATIN INTERCEPTOR AND SIPHON IMPROVEMENT NOTICE OF TYPE I DECISION URBAN FORESTRY REVIEW UFR2018-00009 11,1 11111 MODIFICATION OF URBAN FORESTRY PLAN FOR CLEAN WATER SERVICES T I GARD 120 DAYS = April 25, 2019 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: Clean Water Services Tualatin Interceptor and Siphon Improvement • CASE NO.: Urban Forestry Review(UFR) UFR2018-00009 PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to modify the Urban Forestry Plan approved under the Conditional Use Permit and Sensitive Lands Review for the Clean Water Services Tualatin Interceptor and Siphon Improvement (Case Nos. CUP2018-00005 and SLR2018-00004). The proposed modifications are located in Cook Park. The applicant proposes to remove eight (8) trees in the eastern parking lot due to conflicts with the proposed pipeline alignment, and six (6) trees located directly south of the western parking lot,in order to construct a new bioswale. These trees were originally proposed for preservation under the original Urban Forestry Plan. APPLICANT: Clean Water Services Attn: Wade Denny 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway Hillsboro, OR 97123 OWNER: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 LOCATION: WCTM 2S114A,Tax Lot 1500 and WCTM 2S114AC,Tax Lot 700 ZONING DESIGNATION: PR:Parks and Recreation Zone.The Parks and Recreation(PR) zone is applicable to all city-owned lands intended as parks, open space, and recreational facilities and may be applied within all comprehensive plan designations. City-owned parks, open space, and recreational facilities located in a plan district may retain or receive other than a PR zone designation if it better furthers the goals of the plan district. In addition,other public agencies may request a PR zone designation for areas that meet the purpose of the zone. See Chapter 18.795, Map and Text Amendments. (Ord. 17-22 §2) APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code (CDC) Chapter 18.520.070 UFR2018-00009 Clean Water Services Tualatin Interceptor and Siphon Improvement 1 SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above request,subject to a condition of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV. CONDITION OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITION MUST BE SATISFIED: Unless noted otherwise, the staff contact shall be Lina Smith,Assistant Planner; (503) 718-2438 or LinaCSga tigard-or.gov. 1. The applicant must submit a revised planting plan for the Cook Park parking lot to be reviewed by the City of Tigard Parks Department. THIS APPROVAL IS VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Information: In September 2018,the City of Tigard Hearings Officer approved a Conditional Use Permit and Sensitive Lands Review for the Clean Water Services Tualatin Interceptor and Siphon Improvement Project (Case Nos. CUP2018-00005 and SLR2018-00004). The project is located in Cook Park (WCTM 2S114A, Tax Lot 1500 and WCTM 2S114AC,Tax Lot 700),which is owned by the City of Tigard, and 16745 SW 85th Avenue (WCTM 2S114AD, Tax Lot 100), which is owned by Clean Water Services. The applicant proposes to modify the Urban Forestry Plan approved under Case Nos. CUP2018-00005 and SLR2018- 00004. This approval will only address the modifications that are located on the two (2) Cook Park properties,which are zoned Parks and Recreation(PR).Changes to the Urban Forestry Plan on the Clean Water Services tax lot are being addressed through a separate legal process. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 18.520.070 Modification to the Urban Forestry Plan Component of an Approved Land Use Application A. Approval process. Except as exempted in Subsection 18.520.070.B, an application for a modification to the urban forestry plan component of an approved land use shall be processed through a Type I procedure, as provided in Section 18.710.050, using the approval criteria in Subsection 18.520.070.C. The applicant proposes to modify the Urban Forestry Plan approved under the Conditional Use Permit and Sensitive Lands Review for the Clean Water Services Tualatin Interceptor and Siphon Improvement Project. This approval will only address the modifications that are located on the Cook Park properties (WCTM 2S114A, Tax Lot 1500 and WCTM 2S114AC, Tax Lot 700). The applicant proposes to remove eight (8) trees in the eastern parking lot due to conflicts with the proposed pipeline alignment, and six (6) trees located directly south of the western parking lot, in order to construct a new bioswale. These trees were originally proposed for preservation under the original Urban Forestry Plan. The removal of these trees is not exempt from the Type I Urban Forestry Plan Modification. Therefore, this application is subject to the approval criteria outlined below. UFR2018-00009 Clean Water Services Tualatin Interceptor and Siphon Improvement 2 C. Approval criteria. The approval authority shall approve or approve with conditions the modification to the urban forestry plan component of an approved land use application when all of the following are met: 1. The project arborist or landscape architect has provided a report and statement certifying that the previously approved urban forestry plan did not account for the circumstances that lead to the proposed modification; The project arborist (Elwood A. Newhouse of Elwood's Tree Service) has provided a revised report and statement certifying that the previously approved Urban Forestry Plan did not account for the circumstances that led to the proposed modification. The applicant encountered conflicts with the proposed pipeline alignment and eight (8) trees,including seven (7) Honey Locusts and one (1) Red Oak, in the eastern Cook Park parking lot that were originally planned for preservation. These conflicts were not anticipated during the original land use review for the project. Accordingly, the applicant proposes to remove and replace these trees in order to better accommodate the pipeline alignment. Additionally, the applicant proposes to remove six (6) Japanese Flowering Plum trees, located directly south of the western parking lot,in order to construct a new bioswale. This criterion is met. 2. The project arborist or landscape architect has provided a report and statement certifying that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed modification; and The applicant has provided a revised report and statement certifying that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed modification. This criterion is met. 3. The project arborist or landscape architect demonstrates through a revised urban forestry plan, compliance with Section 18.520.030. (Ord. 17-22 §2) The applicant submitted a revised Urban Forestry Plan and supplemental report that demonstrate compliance with CDC 18.520.030, including tree preservation, protection, and removal standards. As outlined in Section 10,Part 3,Subsection N of the Urban Forestry Manual,there is no minimum effective tree canopy requirement for Cook Park because it is located in the PR Zone. The applicant submitted a planting plan for replacement trees in the Cook Park parking lot. The City of Tigard Parks Department reviewed this plan, and had concerns about the size and species of the proposed replacement trees. Accordingly,staff has included a condition of approval for the applicant to submit a revised planting plan to be reviewed by the Parks Department. This criterion is met. CONCLUSION: As demonstrated in the analysis above, the proposed modification to the Urban Forestry Plan Component of the Clean Water Services Tualatin Interceptor and Siphon Improvement Project meets all applicable approval criteria. SECTION V. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice was provided to: X The applicant and owner Final Decision: A Modification to the Urban Forestry Plan Component of an Approved Land Use Application is a Type I Procedure. As such, the Director's decision is final for purposes of appeal on the date it is mailed or otherwise provided to the applicant, whichever occurs first. The Director's decision is not appealable locally, and is the final decision of the City. UFR2018-00009 Clean Water Services Tualatin Interceptor and Siphon Improvement 3 THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON JANUARY 14, 2019, AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JANUARY 15, 2019. Questions: If you have any questions, please contact Lina Smith at (503) 718-2438 or LinaCS(a�tigard-or.gov. `�-- ✓� . January 14, 2019 APPROVED BY: Lina Smith,Assistant Planner Community Development Director's Designee UFR2018-00009 Clean Water Services Tualatin Interceptor and Siphon Improvement 4 1��1 ` J �I p',:::r r:1V E D 1 _ 1,..s /PI City of f Tigard COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NO\ 2 9 NIB ._--i Master Land Use Application CITY' OF T GARD LAND USE APPLICATION TYPE ❑ Adjustment/Variance(II) ❑ Planned Development(III) ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment(Legislative) ❑ Sensitive Lands Review(II or III) ❑ Conditional Use (III) ❑ Site Development Review(II) El Development Code Amendment(Legislative) ❑ Subdivision(II) El Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review (III) ❑ Transportation Mitigation(II) El Downtown Design Review(II,III) ® Urban Forestry Plan Modification (I) El Historic Overlay(II or III) ❑ Zone Change (III or Legislative) El Home Occupation(II) (11 Land Partition (II) UFR2018-00009 APPROVAL FOR MODIFICATIONS ON COOK PARK NOTE:For required submittal elements,please refer to PROPERTIES ONLY (TAX LOT IDs PROPOSAL SUMMARY (Brief description) 2S114A001500 AND 2S114AC00700) The revised urban forestry plan provides updates regarding tree removal at CWS Durham WWTP Plant, the east side of Cook Park, and the west side of Cook Park. Additional trees were removed at Durham Wastewater Treatment as part of preparatory erosion control/clearing. There was an after-the-fact recognition that trees shown to be removed on the plans, and discussed with CWS were removed but were not depicted or calculated for removal as part of the urban forestry plan. This revision accounts for those tree removals. It also includes trees on the east end of Cook Park that will/may need to be removed based on revised pipeline alignment after the initial urban forestry plan was submitted. The revisions also incorporate plum trees on the west end that were identified by City of Tigard as priority removal and required to construct a bioswale that was required by City of Tigard as part of the land use application review. PROPERTY INFORMATION (where proposed activity will occur) Location (address if available): 16745 SW 85th Ave, Tigard, OR 97224 Tax maps and tax lot #s: 25114AC00700(13.08 AC), 2S114A001500(21.2 AC), 2S114A000100(13.08 AC) Total site size: 47.28 AC Zoning classification: PR, R-4.5 -� FOR STAFF USE ONLY • • APPLICANT INFORMATION �(F, .20/e -0,600 g Name: Clean Water Services, attn: Wade Denny, Sr. Engineer Case No.: 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway Related Case No.(s): Mailing address: Hillsboro, OR 97123 Application Fee: 7 Ll City/state: zip: 503-547-8117 Application accepted: Phone number: J / Mortenson Construction, attn: Steve Holmes By: �`' Date: 1� �-�' � Primary contact name: Phone number: 503-400-0638 Application determined complete: i Email: steve.holmes@mortenson.com By: A.--- Date: /a6 l:\Community Developmentltand Use Appikations102_Forms and TempTatesVand Use App&caticxu Rev.12/14/2017 p�.,.�.i.�.._":.,,a. - en •�+�+�Y- .%,v✓_;.=rrrs��r..=;:-r.=.•::..:,oa:�.:�^r...^wz,.rr._^�.;atx::c-..�r�:.y.•�n+l^w:rrr.imvrr_+.-:�S7-sr.i,:,...r.�x::-+::.ri•. City of Tigard • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • www.tigard-or.gov • 503-718-2421 • Page 1 of 2 PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER INFORMATION (Attach list if more than one) Name: Clean Water Services,attn: Wade Denny, Senior Engineer Mailing address: 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway City/state: Hillsboro, OR Zip: 97123 Phone: 503-547-8117 Email: Dennyw@cleanwaterservices.org *When the owner and the applicant ate different people,the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner.The owners must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. THE APPLICANTS) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • If the application is granted,the applicant shall exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All the above statements and the statements in the plot plan,attachments,and exhibits transmitted herewith,are true;and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued,based on this application,map be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application,including the policies and criteria,and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application(s). Applicant's signature / Print name Date Applicant/Agent/Representative's signature Print name Date Applicant/Agent/Representative's signature Print name Date SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property required Owner's signature Print name Date Owner's signature Print name Date Owner's signature Print name Date Owner's signature Print name Date MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION City of Tigard • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • wwwtigard-or.gov • 503-718-2421 • Page 2 of 2 4e400244 TREE SERVICE November 28,2018 Aaron Franzen aaron@keex.net Tim Johnson tim.w.johnson@mortenson.com Tualatin Interceptor Urban Forestry Plan with revisions Site Address: Cook Park 17005 SW 92nd Ave. Tigard,Or 97224 Trees in question: Honey Locust(Gleditsia triacanthos),Red Oak(Quercus rubra) and Japanese Flowering Plum (Prunus cerasifera) Purpose: Evaluate trees for sewer line. Requirements for Modification to the Urban Forestry Plan Component of an Approved Land Use Application The following requirements are set for in City of Tigard's Code section 18.520.070.A-C A. Approval process. Except as exempted in Subsection 18.520.070.B, an application for a modification to the urban forestry plan component of an approved land use shall be processed through a Type I procedure, as provided in Section 18.710.050,using the approval criteria in Subsection 18.520.070.C. Response: As required,the revision to the approved Urban Forestry Plan will go through Type I review. B. Exemptions. The following activities shall be exempt from the Type I modification to the urban forestry plan component of an approved land use application: 1. Removal of any tree shown as preserved in the tree canopy site plan and supplemental report of a previously approved urban forestry plan provided: a. The project arborist or landscape architect provides a written report prior to removal attesting that either the condition rating or suitability of preservation rating(per the supplemental report requirements in the Urban Forestry Manual)of the tree has changed to a rating of less than 2;and b. A revised tree canopy site plan and supplemental report are submitted for review and approval prior to removal that reflect the proposed changes to the previously approved urban forestry plan. The revised tree canopy site plan and supplemental report shall demonstrate how the effective tree canopy cover requirements will be provided by tree planting,preservation, or payment of a tree canopy fee in lieu of planting or preservation. 2. Modification of the quantity, location, or species of trees to be planted in the tree canopy site plan and supplemental report of a previously approved urban forestry plan provided: a. The modification results in the same or greater amount of future tree canopy through tree planting as the previously approved urban forestry plan for the lot or tract where the modification is proposed; b. Payment of a tree canopy fee in lieu of planting is not proposed as part of the modification; and c. A revised tree canopy site plan and supplemental report are submitted for review and approval prior to planting that reflect the proposed changes to the previously approved urban forestry plan. 3. Modification of the tree protection fencing location in the tree preservation and removal site plan, tree canopy site plan,and supplemental report of a previously approved urban forestry plan provided: a. The project arborist or landscape architect provides a written report prior to modification of the tree protection fencing describing how the proposed modification will continue to protect the viability of the trees shown as preserved in the previously approved urban forestry plan; and b. A revised tree preservation and removal site plan, tree canopy site plan, and supplemental report are submitted for review and approval prior to modification of the tree protection fencing that reflect the proposed modifications to the previously approved urban forestry plan. 4. Modification of any other site elements that do not require any modification of the tree protection fencing location or trees to be planted or preserved in the tree preservation and removal site plan, tree canopy site plan,and supplemental report of a previously approved urban forestry plan;and 5. Maintenance of any trees in compliance with tree care industry standards. Response: Not applicable,revision will go through type I review process. C. Approval criteria.The approval authority shall approve or approve with conditions the modification to the urban forestry plan component of an approved land use application when all of the following are met: 1. The project arborist or landscape architect has provided a report and statement certifying that the previously approved urban forestry plan did not account for the circumstances that lead to the proposed modification; 2. The project arborist or landscape architect has provided a report and statement certifying that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed modification;and 3. The project arborist or landscape architect demonstrates through a revised urban forestry plan, compliance with Section 18.520.030. (Ord. 17-22 §2)■ Response: The following findings are from a site inspection on November 27,2018. Trees#19-25 I examined these trees(7 Locust)for the purpose of any potential impact during digging operations. The trees are growing in a parking strip with irrigated turf on one side and asphalt on the other side.The trench cut line is on the asphalt side of the trees. Asphalt areas are usually compacted to 95%. Roots do not grow in these conditions. By looking at visible surface roots, it is obvious the roots grow to compacted areas and turn back towards the irrigated turf for better growing conditions. There are no signs of roots pushing up the asphalt. Considering these conditions, it is my opinion digging through these areas will have no effect on the critical root zone. There will be a need to do some clearance pruning when the excavator makes the"counter swing".The pruning will be minimal without making the trees unbalanced. Tree#42-Red Oak 14"(1) The sewer line is approximately 9 feet from this tree. The critical root zone will have little effect on this tree.The major issue is the excavator will need vertical height clearance. The tree will require severe pruning to meet necessary clearances for the excavator. The tree will be unsightly and should be removed. Bio-swale Area Japanese Flowering Plum(6)at the Bioswale 1-18",1-21",1-15",2-13",1-12.5". Two of these trees will be severely impacted by root loss.The other four trees will also have root damage,considering the species I suggest removal of all six trees. See additional comments in Revised Urban Forestry Plan and Exhibits. Sincerely, Elwood A Newhouse Certified Arborist PN-0735A tO,KBP.A, CERTIFIED 4.;t. ,:.;4".;,t (p...... i - y`' ice. tea. r ,,, :411101 998ORIt VOICE OF TREE CARE ARBORIST P.O. Box 17218, Salem, Oregon 97305 • 3989 Timbet Dr. SE, Salem, Oregon 97317 Ph 503.390.2838 • Fax 503.390.9648 • www.elwoodstreeservice.com rh i �a ' P,:'i11�1 �+f# ;' Y � f Yw r .It , . 42'x. .t. , , E Y ? 4-. : „ ., ,, - .. t.: ,", .1i, a. s R , . f iscv- .:',i,;i4.-- . , me r , i-, «-- Y 1 f. t . , Urban r aesry Plan City of Tigard -- Clean Water Services Tualatin Interceptor REVISED BY if Ref#KNJK0000-0009 • 0 taaVra June 2018 DAVID EVANS TREE SERVICE AND ASSOCIATES INC. ,,,_,.- ,ca, L E M. CI R E G Q N Mnv mhtr 2(11R CONTENTS Summary 1 Report Use and Purpose 1 Tree Assessment 2 Proposed Tree Removal 2 Urban Forestry Requirements 3 Tree Canopy Fee Calculation Requirements 12 Tree Protection Recommendations 13 Conclusion 14 Urban Forestry Plan(Tualatin Interceptor) Page J 1 SUMMARY The subject properties consist of land owned by City of Tigard (i.e., Cook Park) and Clean Water Services (i.e., Durham Treatment Facility). Within these two properties, all of the proposed improvements will occur within the temporary construction easement(TCE). Only trees within the permanent utility easement(PUE) are proposed for removal.The entire site is classified as Tigard Sensitive Lands. Within the TCE,there are 68 trees that are greater than 12 inches diameter at breast height(DBH). Of the 68 trees,twenty six (26) of these are within the PUE and are proposed for removal due to conflicts with the proposed pipeline alignment. This equates to a retainage of 61.8%of the existing trees and 60.1%of the total DBH. Since the new pipe is being bored beneath the Tualatin River, only two trees within the sensitive boundary, including the Tualatin River, its associated vegetated corridor(VC) and adjoining wetlands will be affected by the proposed pipe replacement. Based on the proposed alignment,there are 42 trees within the TCE that will need to have tree protection fencing installed to properly protect the trees during the replacement of the sanitary sewer line. Revision by Elwood's Tree Service Similar to the original plan, this revision only covers the subject properties consisting of land owned by City of Tigard (i.e., Cook Park) and Clean Water Services (i.e., Durham Treatment Facility). All the proposed improvements will occur within the temporary construction easement(TCE) which has been expanded to include the area for the required bio-swale at Cook Park per City of Tigard's request. Within the TCE,there are 74 trees that are greater than 6 inches diameter at breast height(DBH). Of the 74 trees,fifty (50) of these are within the construction path and are proposed for removal due to conflicts with the proposed pipeline alignment and the operation of the excavation protective system. This results in a retainage of 32.4%of the existing trees and 29.4%of the total DBH. Although the construction team will strive to preserve as many trees as feasible, the proposed removal plan reflects what the team considers trees with a potential to be affected due to the nature of the excavation protective system and the operation of such system. If the construction team is able to limit/eliminate damage to any given tree,the construction team will preserve the tree. All trimming of retained trees will be performed by Elwood's Tree Service under the supervisions of Elwood Newhouse, Certified Arborist PN#0735. Since the alignment of the trenchless crossing under the Tualatin River has changed, the two trees within the sensitive boundary(trees#1,2)will not be affected anymore. Based on the proposed alignment, there are 17 trees within the TCE that will need to have tree protection fencing installed to properly protect the trees during the replacement of the sanitary sewer line. REPORT USE AND PURPOSE This report is written to meet the requirements of the City of Tigard Urban Forestry Plan Standards for tree preservation/removal and tree replacement requirements associated with construction of the new Tualatin Interceptor and Siphon Improvements project. The purpose of this report is to: 1. Review the survey of all trees that are within the TCE and field verify thespecies; Urban Forestry Plan(Tualatin interceptor) Page 1 1 2. Visit the site and evaluate the condition of the tree resources on the site; 3. Verify which trees within the TCE will be removed in order to replace the existing sanitary sewer line and the associated improvements; 4. Calculate the percentage of tree retention; 5. Calculate the percentage of tree canopy coverage;and 6. Calculate the required soil volumes Revision by Elwood's Tree Service The purpose of this revision is to update the current tree inventory and the removal and preservation plan for the Tualatin Interceptor Project. The revisions highlight three (3) elements: trees removed within the boundaries of Clean Water Services Durham Wastewater Treatment facility,trees within the east side of Cook Park that need to be removed due to a change in the alignment of the pipeline post-June when the original urban forestry plan was developed, and plum trees on the west side of Cook Park that weren't inventoried as part of the original urban forestry plan. During the revisions to the plans and the Land Use Application process,the City of Tigard to required construction of a bioswale facility and advised and recommended construction of the facility in the area of the plum trees since the trees were non-native species and removal was desired. TREE ASSESSMENT On June 5, 2018, representatives from David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA)visited the site to observe the trees that were present on site. The information in the tree inventory provided with this report was taken from the survey of the property completed by DEA and updated accordingly to reflect the current siteconditions. The general condition of the trees as inspected indicated that the trees are generally open grown and in good to excellent health and condition.A complete inventory is provided in the tree inventory spreadsheet in Attachment 2.The data collected for each tree includes the tree ID number; genus/species; common name; tree diameter(DBH); tree canopy area; open or stand grown; heritage; numerical condition; numerical stability; as well as any general comments.The tree numbers in the treee inventory in Attachment 2 correspond to the tree numbers on the Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan in Attachment 4. Revision by Elwood's Tree Service On November 28, 2018, a representative from Elwood's Tree Service visited the site to observe the additional trees present on site and assess the required revisions to the initial Urban Forestry Plan. The revised information in the tree inventory provided with this report were taken from the survey of the property completed by DEA and updated by Elwood's Tree Service to reflect the current site conditions. PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL Initial Assessment Of the 68 trees, 26 of these are within the PUE and are proposed for removal due to conflicts with the proposed pipeline alignment.This equates to a retainage of 61.8%of the existing trees and 60.1%of the total DBH. Urban Forestry Plan(Tualatin Interceptor) Page f 2 Since the new pipe is being bored beneath the Tualatin River, only two trees within the sensitive boundary, including the Tualatin River, its associated vegetated corridor(VC) and adjoining wetlands will be affected by the proposed pipe replacement. , " ---1-- OMR,' Item 68 1 Total Number of Trees Greater Than 6 Inches DBH (within TCE only) 26 Total Number Trees Greater Than 6 Inches DBH proposed for Removal (within TCE only) 61.8% Percentage of Total Trees being Preserved 609 Total DBH Inches of all Trees Greater Than 6 Inches(within TCE only) 243 Total DBH Inches of Removed Trees Greater than 6 Inches(within TCE only) 60.1% Percentage of Total DBH being Preserved Revised Assessment by Elwood's Tree Service With the addition of the trees in the Bio-swale area, the total number of tress surveyed within the TCE is 74.The following table includes the updated number of trees within the TCE and the number proposed for removal. Y Item' 74 j Total Number of Trees Greater Than 6 Inches DBH (within TCE only) 50 � Total Number Trees Greater Than 6 Inches DBH proposed for Removal (within TCE only) 32.4% Percentage of Total Trees being Preserved 701 Total DBH Inches of all Trees Greater Than 6 Inches(within TCE only) 495 Total DBH Inches of Removed Trees Greater than 6 Inches(within TCE only) 1 I 29.4% Percentage of Total DBH being Preserved URBAN FORESTRY REQUIREMENTS The City Urban Forestry Plan regulates tree removal/preservation and canopy coverage. Listed below are the specific requirements: A. Urban forestry plan requirements.An urban forestry plan shall: 1. Be coordinated and approved by a landscape architect(the project landscape architect)or a person that is both a certified arborist and tree risk assessor(the project arborist), except for minor land partitions that can demonstrate compliance with effective tree canopy cover and soil volume requirements by planting street trees in open soil volumes only; Response:As required,the urban forestry plan has been prepared by a professional landscape architect. 2. Meet the tree preservation and removal site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual; Urban Forestry Plan(Tualatin Interceptor) Page I 3 A. The plan shall be standard size D(24"x 36"), a reduced ledger size(11"x 17")and a PDF, and include all items in part 1.B-O below. When required for clarity, the development impact area information in part 1.1 may be detailed separately on multiple plan sheets provided that all of the remaining items in part 1 are included for reference.Alternate sheet sizes may be allowed if approved by the city manager ordesignee. B. Date of drawing or last revision. Updated Response: The urban forestry plan has been updated by a Certified Arborist to evaluate and inventory additional tree removal required due to design modifications submitted and approved by the City of Tigard,subsequent to the June 2018 urban forestry plan. Urban Forestry Plan(Tualatin Interceptor) Page 1 4 C. North arrow. D. Bar scale as follows(unless otherwise approved by the city manager or designee): 1. Less than 1.0 acres:1"=10' 2. 1.0-5.0 acres:1"=20' 3. 5.0—20.0 acres:1"=50' 4. Over 20.0 acres:1"=100'. E. Site address or assessor's parcel number. F. The location of existing and proposed propertylines. G. Location of existing and proposed topographic lines at 1-foot contours unless otherwise approved. H. The location and type of sensitive lands areas. I. Proposed activities within the development impact area,including but not limited to: 1. Construction of structures and walls; 2. Paving and graveling; 3. Utility and irrigation installation; 4. Construction parking and construction equipment storage; 5. Landscaping; 6. Grading and filling; 7. Stockpiling; 8. Demolition and tree removal; 9. Trenching and boring;and 10. Any other activities that require excavation or soil disturbance. I. The trunk locations, driplines, assigned numbers and "X"marks when applicable(indicating trees proposed for removal)for the following trees within the development impact area and within 25 feet of the development impact area: 1. Trees greater than or equal to 6 inch DBH;and 2. Other trees that require a permit to remove by Title 8 and are less than 6 inch DBH. K. The trunk locations, driplines and assigned numbers for the following trees that are not within the development impact area: 1. Open grown trees greater than or equal to 6 inch DBH;and 2. Other trees that require a permit to remove by Title 8 and are less than 6 inch DBH. L. The driplines of stand grown trees greater than or equal to 6 inch DBH that form a contiguous tree canopy. The driplines may be delineated at the outer edge of the stand. Each stand shall be assigned a number. Urban Forestry Plan(Tualatin Interceptor) Page i 5 M. The location and type of proposed tree protection fencing. If the location of the tree protection fencing will be phased, indicate the location of the tree protection fencing for each corresponding phase. Tree protection fencing shall be minimum 5-foot tall metal unless otherwise approved by the city manager or designee. N. Any supplemental tree preservation specifications consistent with tree care industry standards that the project arborist or landscape architect has determined are necessary for the continued viability of trees identified forpreservation. O. A signature of approval and statement from the project arborist or landscape architect, attesting that the tree preservation and removal site plan meets all of the requirements in Section 10,part 1 of the Urban Forestry Manual. Response:A tree preservation and removal plan has been prepared in accordance with the standards listed above. Refer to Attachment 4 for an exhibit illustrating the tree preservation and removal plan. 3. Meet the tree canopy site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual;and A. The plan shall be standard size D(24"x 36"), a reduced ledger size(11"x 17")and PDF format, and include all items in part 2.B-O below.Alternate sheet sizes may be allowed if approved by the city manager or designee. B. Date of drawing or last revision. C. North arrow. D. Bar scale as follows(unless otherwise approved by the city manager or designee): 1. less than 1.0 acres:1"=10' 2. 1.0-5.0 acres:1"=20' 3. 5.0—20.0 acres:1"=50' 4. Over 20.0 acres:1"=100'. E. Site address or assessor's parcel number. F. The location of proposed property lines. G. The location of proposed building footprints, utilities and irrigation,streets and other paved areas. H. The trunk locations, driplines and assigned numbers for trees to be preserved in parts 1.J and 1.K. Each tree on both the tree preservation and removal site plan and tree canopy site plan shall be assigned the same number on both plans. I. The dripline locations of stand grown trees proposed for preservation greater than or equal to 6 inch DBH that form a contiguous tree canopy. The dripline may be delineated at the outer edge of the stand. Each stand shall be assigned a number. Each stand on both the tree preservation and removal site plan and tree canopy site plan shall be assigned the same number on both plans. Urban Forestry Plan(Tualatin Interceptor) Page 1 6 J. The location of existing or potential areas of tree growth limiting soils due to compaction, drainage,fertility,pH, contamination or otherfactors. K. Methods for improving areas of tree growth limiting soils if tree planting is proposed in those locations. L. The location,species, caliper(in inches for deciduous)or height(in feet for evergreen), assigned numbers and depiction of the mature tree canopy(in feet as identified on any of the tree lists in the Urban Forestry Manual or by the city manager or designee)for all trees to be planted and maintained as open grown trees. The minimum size for all trees planted and maintained as open grown trees is 1 i4 inch caliper for deciduous or 6 feet in height for evergreen. Open grown trees shall be selected from any of the tree lists in the Urban Forestry Manual(except the nuisance tree list)unless otherwise approved by the city manager or designee. If an open grown tree approved for planting is not identified on any of the tree lists in the Urban Forestry Manual, then the project arborist or landscape architect shall determine the average mature tree canopy spread using available scientific literature for review and approval by the city manager or designee. The city manager or designee may consider trees less than 6 inch DBH as equivalent to newly planted trees if they meet all applicable species,size, condition and location requirements in this section. Overall, the selection of open grown trees shall result in a reasonable amount of diversity for the site. Open grown trees shall be located asfollows: 1. Trees categorized as small stature on any of the tree lists in the Urban Forestry Manual or by the city manager or designee shall be spaced no closer than 15 feet on center from other newly planted or existing trees and 10 feet from the face of habitable buildings. The setback from the face of habitable buildings may be reduced if approved by the city manager or designee; 2. Trees categorized as medium stature on any of the tree lists in the Urban Forestry Manual or by the city manager or designee shall be spaced no closer than 20 feet on center from other newly planted or existing trees and 15 feet from the face of habitable buildings. The setback from the face of habitable buildings may be reduced if approved by the city manager or designee; 3. Trees categorized as large stature on any of the tree lists in the Urban Forestry Manual or by the city manager or designee shall be spaced no closer than 30 feet on center from other newly planted or existing trees and 20 feet from the face of habitable buildings. The setback from the face of habitable buildings may be reduced if approved by the city manager or designee; 4. Trees determined by the city manager or designee to have a mature spread of less than 20 feet shall be considered small stature, and shall be spaced no closer than 15 feet on center from other newly planted or existing trees and 10 feet from the face of habitable buildings. The setback from the face of habitable buildings may be reduced if approved by the city manager or designee; 5. Trees categorized as small stature on any of the tree lists in the Urban Forestry Manual or by the city manager or designee shall not be planted with the center of their trunks closer than 2 feet from any hard surface paving; 6. Trees categorized as medium stature on any of the tree lists in the Urban Forestry Manual or by the city manager or designee shall not be planted with the center of their trunks closer than 2 'z feet from any hard surface paving; Urban Forestry Plan(Tualatin Interceptor) Page 1 7 7. Trees categorized as large stature on any of the tree lists in the Urban Forestry Manual or by the city manager or designee shall not be planted with the center of their trunks closer than 3 feet from any hard surface paving; 8. Where there are overhead utility lines, the tree species selected shall be of a type which,at full maturity, will not interfere with the lines;and 9. Where there is existing mature tree canopy or other areas with significant shade, the species selected shall be an understory tree according to available scientific literature. However, understory trees shall only be planted when the planting of non-understory trees is precluded due to site constraints. M. The location,species,size(in height or container size), assigned number and depiction of the mature tree canopy dripline as identified in the native tree list in the Urban Forestry Manual (delineated at the outer edge of the stand)for all trees to be planted and maintained as stand grown trees. The species of trees planted and maintained as stand grown trees shall be selected from the native tree list in the Urban Forestry Manual. The depiction of the mature tree canopy dripline shall be consistent with dimensions in the native tree list. The minimum size of stand grown trees shall be 2 feet in height(from the top of the root ball)or equivalent to a 1 gallon container size. The city manager or designee may consider trees less than 6 inch DBH as equivalent to newly planted trees if they meet all applicable species,size, condition and location requirements in this section. Overall, the selection of stand grown trees shall result in a reasonable amount of diversity for the site.Stand grown trees shall be located as follows: 1. No closer than an average of 10 feet on center from newly planted or existing trees; 2. No further than an average of 20 feet on center from newly planted or existing trees; 3. Trees categorized as small stature on the native tree list in the Urban Forestry Manual or by the city manager or designee shall be spaced no closer than 15 feet from the face of habitable buildings. The setback from the face of habitable buildings may be reduced if approved by the city manager or designee; 4. Trees categorized as medium stature on the native tree list in the Urban Forestry Manual or by the city manager or designee shall be spaced no closer than 20 feet from the face of habitable buildings. The setback from the face of habitable buildings may be reduced if approved by the city manager or designee; 5. Trees categorized as large stature on the native tree list in the Urban Forestry Manual or by the city manager or designee shall be spaced no closer than 30 feet from the face of habitable buildings. The setback from the face of habitable buildings may be reduced if approved by the city manager or designee; 6. Trees categorized as small stature on the native tree list in the Urban Forestry Manual or by the city manager or designee shall not be planted with the center of their trunks closer than 2 feet from any hard surface paving; 7. Trees categorized as medium stature on the native tree list in the Urban Forestry Manual or by the city manager or designee shall not be planted with the center of their trunks closer than 2 4 feet from any hard surface paving; 8. Trees categorized as large stature on the native tree list in the Urban Forestry Manual or by the city manager or designee shall not be planted with the center of their trunks closer than 3 feet from any hard surface paving; 9. Where there are overhead utility lines, the tree species selected shall be of a type which,at full maturity, will not interfere with the lines;and Urban Forestry Plan(Tualatin Interceptor) Page/8 10. Where there is existing mature tree canopy or other areas with significant shade, the species selected shall be an understory tree according to available scientific literature. However, understory trees shall only be planted when the planting of non-understory trees is precluded due to space constraints. N. Any supplemental specifications that the project arborist or landscape architect has determined are necessary for the viability of trees proposed for planting. 0. A signature of approval and statement from the project arborist or landscape architect,attesting that the tree canopy site plan meets all of the requirements in Section 10,part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual. Response: Sections L and M above are superseded by the Sensitive Lands Tree Replacement Standards in Section 6 part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual: A. Replacement trees shall be planted in a manner consistent with tree care industry standards. B. The minimum size of a replacement tree shall be 2 feet in height(from the top of the root ball)or equivalent to a 1 gallon containersize. C. Replacement trees shall be selected from the native tree list in the Urban Forestry Manual. D. The city manager or designee may consider native trees that are less than 6 inches DBH as replacement trees if they meet all applicable species,size, condition and location requirements in this section and were not already required to be planted by the Tigard Municipal Code. E. The location of replacement trees shall be asfollows: 1. As close as practicable to the location of the tree that was removed provided the location complies with the other standards in thissection; 2. No closer than 10 feet on center from newly planted or existing trees; 3. Trees categorized as small stature on the native tree list in the Urban Forestry Manual or by the city manager or designee shall be spaced no closer than 15 feet from the face of habitable buildings; 4. Trees categorized as medium stature on the native tree list in the Urban Forestry Manual or by the city manager or designee shall be spaced no closer than 20 feet from the face of habitable buildings; S. Trees categorized as large stature on the native tree list in the Urban Forestry Manual or by the city manager or designee shall be spaced no closer than 30 feet from the face of habitable buildings; 6. Trees categorized as small stature on the native tree list in the Urban Forestry Manual or by the city manager or designee shall not be planted with the center of their trunks closer than 2 feet from any hard surface paving; 7. Trees categorized as medium stature on the native tree list in the Urban Forestry Manual shall not be planted with the center of their trunks closer than 2'z feet from any hard surface paving;Trees categorized as large stature on the native tree list in the Urban Forestry Manual or by the city manager or designee shall not be planted with the center of their trunks closer than 3 feet from any hard surface paving;and Urban Forestry Plan(Tualatin Interceptor) Page 19 8. Where there are overhead utility lines, the tree species selected shall be of a type which,at full maturity, will not interfere with the lines. F. The city manager or designee may allow for an "in lieu of planting fee"equivalent to the city's cost to plant a tree in sensitive lands per the standards in this Section and maintain a tree in sensitive lands per the standards in Section 8.10.030 of the Tigard Municipal Code for a period of three years after planting. Payment of an in lieu of planting fee shall satisfy the sensitive lands tree replacement requirement. Response:A Tree Canopy Plan has been prepared in accordance with the standards listed above. Refer to Attachment 6 for an exhibit illustrating the tree canopy plan. 4. Meet the supplemental report standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. A. The supplemental report shall be provided by the project arborist or landscape architect in paper and PDF format, and include all items in part 3.8-P below. B. Date of the report. C. The name, address, telephone number, email address and ISA certified arborist number of the project arborist or stamp and registration number of the project landscape architect. D. The following inventory data in table or other such organized format corresponding to each tree in parts 1.J and 1.K in the tree preservation and removalsite plan: 1. The assigned tree number; 2. The genus,species and common name; 3. DBH(in inches); 4. Average tree canopy area(in square feet),calculated as follows: a. Average tree canopy area=(average tree canopy spread/2)2 xrc; 5. Open grown tree or stand grown tree; 6. Heritage tree?(Y or N); 7. Numerical condition rating(0-3)as follows: 8. Numerical suitability for preservation rating(0-3)as follows: 9. Proposed for preservation?(Y or N);and 10. Additional comments. E. The following inventory data in table or other such organized format corresponding to each existing stand in the tree preservation and removal site plan: 1. The assigned stand number; 2. The genus,species and common name of the tree species estimated to be dominant in the stand; 3. The genus,species and common name of the tree species estimated to be the second and third most common in the stand; 4. The estimated average DBH(in inches)of the dominant tree species in the stand; Urban Forestry Plan(Tualatin Interceptor) Page I 5. The estimated average DBH(in inches)of both the second and third most common tree species in the stand; 6. The estimated average condition rating(per part 3.D.7)of the dominant tree species in the stand; 7. The estimated average condition rating(per part 3.D.7)of both the second and third most common tree species in the stand; 8. The total on site tree canopy area(in square feet)of thestand; 9. Numerical suitability for preservation rating of the stand(0-3)as follows: 10. The total on site tree canopy area(in square feet)of the stand proposed for preservation; and 11. Additional comments. F. Supplemental specifications regarding the location and type of proposed tree protection fencing. If the location of the tree protection fencing will be phased,indicate the location of the tree protection fencing for each corresponding phase. Tree protection fencing shall be minimum 5-foot tall metal unless otherwise approved by the city manager or designee. G. Supplemental specifications consistent with tree care industry standards that the project arborist or landscape architect has determined are necessary for the continued viability of trees identified for preservation. H. Supplemental specifications consistent with tree care industry standards that the project arborist or landscape architect has determined are necessary for the continued viability of stands identified for preservation. I. A general accounting of soil characteristics on site.Areas of existing or potential tree growth limiting soils due to compaction, drainage,fertility,pH, contamination or other factors shall be clearly identified. Methods for improving areas of tree growth limiting soils if tree planting is proposed in those areas shall be specificallyaddressed. J. The following inventory data in table or other such organized format corresponding to each open grown tree proposed for planting in the tree canopy site plan: 1. The assigned tree number; 2. The genus,species and common name; 3. The caliper(in inches for deciduous)or height(in feet for evergreen); 4. The average mature tree canopy spread(in feet)as identified on any of the tree lists in the Urban Forestry Manual. if an open grown tree approved for planting is not identified on any of the tree lists in the Urban Forestry Manual, then the project arborist or landscape architect shall determine the average mature tree canopy spread using available scientific literature for review and approval by the city manager ordesignee; 5. The average mature tree canopy area(in square feet)calculated as follows: a. Average mature tree canopy area=(average mature tree canopy spread/2)2 x it; Urban Forestry Plan(Tualatin Interceptor) Page l 6. The proposed available soil volume(in cubic feet)for each tree according to the methodology in Section 12,part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual. If the available soil volume is greater than 1000 cubic feet,then it is OK to note soil volume as simply"over 1000 cubic feet";and 7. Additional comments. K. The following inventory data in table or other such organized format corresponding to each stand proposed for planting in the tree canopy site plan: 1. The assigned stand number; 2. The genus,species and common name of trees proposed for planting in the stand; 3. The average spacing(in feet)and total number of each tree species proposed for planting in the stand; 4. The height(in feet)or container size(in gallons)of each species proposed for planting in the stand; 5. The mature tree canopy dripline area of the stand(in square feet)delineated at the outer edge of the stand;and 6. Additional comments L. Any supplemental specifications consistent with tree care industry standards that the project arborist or landscape architect has determined are necessary for the viability of trees proposed for planting. M. A summary in table or other such organized format clearly demonstrating the effective tree canopy cover that will be provided for the overall development site(excluding streets)and for each lot or tract in the R-1,R-2, R-3.5,R-4.5 and R-7 districts(excluding streets)as follows: 1. The area(in square feet)of the overall development site and each lot or tract;and 2. The effective tree canopy area that will be provided for the overall development site and each lot or tract which shall be considered the sum of the following: a. Double the canopy area(in square feet)of all open grown trees in the tree canopy site plan proposed for preservation within the overall development site and each lot or tract (or associated right of way,excluding median trees). Only trees with both a condition rating and suitability for preservation rating of 2 or greater are eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover. The overall development site and each lot or tract(or associated right of way)with the largest percentage of the trunk immediately above the trunk flare or root buttresses shall be assigned the effective tree canopy cover area for the corresponding tree; b. Double the canopy area(in square feet)of all stands in the tree canopy site plan proposed for preservation within the overall development site and each lot or tract(or associated right of way, excluding median trees). Only stands with both a condition rating and suitability for preservation rating of 2 or greater are eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover. The eligible tree canopy area shall be the portion directly above the overall development site and each lot or tract(or associated right of way). The canopy area of any stand grown tree with the largest percentage of the trunk immediately above the trunk flare or root buttresses outside of the overall development site and each lot or tract(or associated right of way)shall not be eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover requirement for that development site or lot or tract; Urban Forestry Plan(Tualatin interceptor) Page 10 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 the mature canopy area(in square feet)of each stand in the tree canopy site plan to be planted and maintained within the overall development site and each lot or tract(or associated right of way, 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);and f. Divide the tree canopy area(calculated per part 3.M.2.a-e 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 tree canopy cover for the overall development site and each lot ortract. N. The standard percentage of effective tree canopy cover for the overall development site shall be at least: 1. 40 percent for R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 districts,except for schools(18.130.050())); 2. 33 percent for R-12, R-25, R-40, C-N, C-C, C-G, C-P, MUE, MUE-1, MUE-2, MUC, MUR and I-P districts, except for schools(18.130.050(1));and 3. 25 percent for MU-CBD, MUC-1, l-L and i-H districts, and for schools(18.130.050(1))in all districts. 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 15 percent for any lot or tract in the R-1, R-2, R- 3.5, R-4.5 and R- 7 districts(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 15 percent effective tree canopy cover for each lot or tract in the R-1, R-2, R- 3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 districts(only if the overall development site meets or exceeds the standard percent effective tree canopy cover in item n but individual lots or tracts in the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R- 4.5 and R-7 districts do provide 15 percent effective tree canopy cover)according to the methodology in Section 10,part 4 of the Urban Forestry Manual. P. A signature of approval and statement from the project arborist or landscape architect, attesting that: 1. The tree preservation and removal site plan meets all of the requirements in Section 10,part 1 of the Urban Forestry Manual; 2. The canopy site plan meets all of the requirements in Section 10,part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual;and 3. The supplemental report meets all of the requirements in Section 10,part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual. Urban Forestry Plan(Tualatin Interceptor) Page 111 Response: Due to the location of the site within Tigard Sensitive Lands, sections M through 0 above do not apply. TREE CANOPY FEE CALCULATION REQUIREMENTS A. The tree canopy fee shall be calculated asfollows: 1. if the percentage of effective tree canopy cover is less than the applicable standard percentage in part 3, item n above for the overall development site find the difference(in square feet)between the proposed effective tree canopy cover and the applicable standard effective tree canopy cover for the overall development site and multiply the difference(in square feet)by: a. The most recent wholesale median tree cost established by the PNW-ISA for a 3 inch diameter deciduous tree in the Willamette Valley, OR divided by 59 square feet. 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 15 percent for any individual lot or tract in the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 districts,find the difference(in square feet) between the proposed effective tree canopy cover and 15 percent effective tree canopy cover for each deficient lot or tract and multiply the difference(in square feet)by: a. The most recent wholesale median tree cost established by the PNW-iSA for a 3 inch diameter deciduous tree in the Willamette Valley, OR divided by 59 square feet. B. Tree canopy fee. If the supplemental report demonstrates that the applicable standard percent effective tree canopy cover will not be provided through any combination of tree planting or preservation for the overall development site(excluding streets)or that the 15%effective tree canopy cover will not be provided through any combination of tree planting or preservation for any individual lot or tract in the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 districts(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 the tree canopy fee calculation requirements in the Urban Forestry Manual. C. Tree canopy fee use. Tree canopy fees provided to the city shall be deposited into the urban forestry fund and used as approved by council through a resolution. (Ord. 12-09§1) Response:Specific information regarding the on-site tree species is included in this documents.The data collected for each tree includes the tree ID number; genus/species; common name;tree diameter (DBH);tree canopy area; open or stand grown; heritage; numerical condition; numerical stability; as well as any general comments. Refer to Attachment 2 for detailed existing tree inventory. Urban Forestry Plan(Tualatin Interceptor) Page 112 TREE PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS A typical minimum recommended tree protection zone encompasses a radius around a tree that is six times (6x)the tree diameter. For example, a tree with a 24-inch trunk diameter would have a minimum protection radius of 144 inches (12 feet). However,this standard may need to be adjusted on a case by case basis due to tree health, root distribution, and whether the tree will be impacted on multiple sides. Attachment 1 shows the proposed sanitary sewer line in relation to the trees. The 42 trees within the TCE will require tree protection fencing installed to properly protect the trees within the construction area. Specialized construction techniques can be utilized to encroach closer to the tree if done properly, especially given that only one side of the tree will be impacted. Measuring the tree diameters and then utilizing the tree diameter multiplied by 12 will indicate how far the tree protection fencing has to be placed from the face of a tree's trunk. A consulting arborist should be involved in the final placement of the tree protection fence in order to incorporate the health and structural condition of the trees to be protected when locating the placement of the temporary tree protection fence. No storage of any material, parking of extra vehicles for construction, parking of utility or office trailers and even the pedestrian traffic of construction workers should be allowed within the tree protection areas. Please refer to Attachment 5 for additional steps in tree protection. Revision by Elwood's Tree Service The number of trees requiring tree protection is 17.The construction team will follow the recommendations established in the original Urban Forestry Plan. Any pruning of retained trees will be performed by the Project Arborist, Elwood's Tree Service. Urban Forestry Plan(Tualatin Interceptor) Page/13 CONCLUSION Of the 68 trees, 26 of these are within the PUE and are proposed for removal due to conflicts with the proposed alignment.This equates to a retainage of 61.8%of the existing trees and 60.1%of the total DBH. Since the new pipe is being bored beneath the Tualatin River, only two trees within the sensitive boundary, including the Tualatin River, its associated vegetated corridor(VC) and adjoining wetlands will be affected by the proposed pipe replacement. The trees that are to be retained should be far enough away from the planned construction envelope that they should be able to be protected from any construction damage.The tree protection areas will have to be established during construction as shown on the site plan or at the direction of the project arborist. Please call if you have any questions or concerns regarding this report. Sincerely, Kevin Apperson Revision by Elwood's Tree Service The updated number of trees within the TCE is 74 trees. Of these trees, SO are proposed for removal due to conflicts with the pipeline alignment, operation of the excavation protection system, and the establishment of a bio-swale.This results in a retainage of 32.4%of total pre-existing trees and 29.4%of the total DBH. Based on the updated alignment,there are 17 trees within the TCE that will need to have tree protection fencing installed and two trees that will no longer need to be removed (trees#1,2). If the construction team is able to limit/eliminate damage to any given tree, the construction team is to preserve the tree. Should there be any questions or concerns regarding the revisions to the Urban Forestry Plan, do not hesitate in contacting Elwood's Tree Service. Sincerely, Elwood A. Newhouse, President Attachments: Attachment 1—Site Plan Map (Revised) Attachment 2—Existing Tree Inventory(Revised) Attachment 3—Existing Tree Stand Inventory Attachment 4—Tree Preservation and Removal Plan(Revised) Attachment 5—Tree Protection Recommendation Attachment 6—Tree Canopy Plan (Revised) Attachment 7—Open Grown Planted Tree Inventory(Revised) Attachment 8—Stand Grown Tree Inventory(Revised) Attachment 9—Soil Volume Plan (Revised) Urban Forestry Plan(Tualatin Interceptor) Page/14 ATTACHMENT 2 - ;EXISTING TREE INVENTORY '- Average Numerical Nu Open Grown �`' , tee 10 amm+an H, Tree Condition itabiiity :.._> ' `^ ,Genus Species `l N, or Stand Heritage t Comments Number Name Inc . Canopy Rating(0 'eservation �'. Y r ,_ Grown Tree 1 Acer Bigleaf (2)6 56 Open N 3 3 macrophyllum Maple Acer Bigleaf 2 macrophyllum Maple 10 79 Open N 2 3 3 Prunus sp. Cherry 12 113 Stand N 2 2 Remove 4 Prunus sp. Plum 12 113 Stand N 2 3 Remove 5 Thuja plicata Cedar 6 28 Stand N 3 3 Remove 6 Pinus sp. Pine 10 79 Stand N 2 2 Remove 7 Thuja plicata Cedar 6 28 Stand N 3 3 Pseudotsuga 8 Fir 16 201 Stand N 3 3 menziesii 9 Pseudotsuga Fir 10 79 Stand N 3 3 menziesii 10 Thuja plicata Cedar 8 50 Stand N 3 3 11 Pseudotsuga Fir 8 50 Stand N 3 3 menziesii 12 Quercus sp. Oak 8 50 Stand N 3 3 Remove 13 Fraxinus sp. Ash 8 50 Open N 2 2 Remove 14 Fraxinus sp. Ash 8 50 Open N 3 3 Remove 15 Fraxinus sp. Ash 8 50 Open N 2 2 16 Fraxinus sp. Ash 8 50 Open N 2 2 Gleditsia Honey 17 8 50 Open N 3 3 Remove triacanthos Locust Gleditsia Honey 18 8 50 Open N 3 3 triacanthos Locust Gleditsia Honey 19 8 50 Open N 3 3 Remove triacanthos Locust Gleditsia Honey 20 8 50 Open N 3 3 Remove triacanthos Locust Gleditsia Honey 21 8 50 Open N 3 3 Remove triacanthos Locust Gleditsia Honey 22 8 50 Open N 3 3 Remove triacanthos Locust Gleditsia Honey 23 8 50 Open N 3 3 Remove triacanthos Locust Gleditsia Honey 24 8 50 Open N 3 3 Remove triacanthos Locust Gleditsia Honey 25 8 50 Open N 3 3 Remove triacanthos Locust 26 Gleditsia Honey 8 50 Open N 3 3 triacanthos Locust 27 Fraxinus sp. Ash 6 28 Open N 2 2 Remove Gleditsia Honey 28 8 50 Open N 3 3 triacanthos Locust illk Average g` Numerical Numerical Open Grown: ID Common DBH Tree Condition Suitability for: Genus Species , - or Stand .ritage omme own Tr i er Name (in Inches) Canopy Rating(0- Preservation y Area( ",: 3) Rating(0-3) 29 Gleditsia Honey 8 50 Open N 3 3 triacanthos Locust Gleditsia Honey 30 8 SO Open N 3 3 triacanthos Locust 31 Fraxinus sp. Ash 8 50 Open N 3 3 Remove 32 Fraxinus sp. Ash 8 SO Open N 2 2 33 Gleditsia Honey 8 50 Open N 3 3 triacanthos Locust Gleditsia Honey 34 8 50 Open N 3 3 triacanthos Locust 35 Fraxinus sp. Ash 9 64 Open N 3 3 Remove 36 Fraxinus sp. Ash 8 50 Open N 3 3 37 Gleditsia Honey 8 50 Open N 3 3 triacanthos Locust 38 Gleditsia Honey 8 50 Open N 3 3 triacanthos Locust 39 Fraxinus sp. Ash 6 28 Open N 3 3 Remove 40 Fraxinus sp. Ash 8 S0 Open N 3 3 Remove 41 Fraxinus sp. Ash 8 50 Open N 3 3 42 Quercus sp. Oak 14 154 Open N 3 3 Remove 43 Acer sp. Maple 12 113 Open N 3 3 Remove 44 Acer sp. Maple 12 113 Open N 3 3 Remove 45 Unknown 8 50 Stand N 3 3 Removed 46 Unknown 8 50 Stand N 3 3 Remove 47 Thuja plicata Cedar 10 79 Stand N 3 3 Remove 48 Unknown 8 50 Stand N 3 3 Removed 49 Unknown 8 50 Stand N 3 3 Removed 50 Unknown 8 50 Stand N 3 3 Remove 51 Thuja plicata Cedar 10 79 Stand N 3 3 Remove 52 Thuja plicata Cedar 10 79 Stand N 3 3 Removed 53 Thuja plicata Cedar 10 79 Stand N 3 3 Remove 54 Thuja plicata Cedar (4)6 112 Open N 3 3 Removed 55 Thuja plicata Cedar 10 79 Open N 3 3 Removed 56 Alnus rubra Alder 6 28 Open N 3 3 Removed 57 Alnus rubra Alder 8 50 Open N 3 3 Removed 58 Alnus rubra Alder 8 50 Open N 3 3 Removed 59 Thuja plicata Cedar 8 50 Stand N 3 3 Remove 60 Thuja plicata Cedar 8,10 50,79 Stand N 3 3 Remove 61 Alnus rubra Alder 8 50 Stand N 3 3 Remove 62 Alnus rubra Alder 8 50 Open N 3 3 Removed 63 Thuja plicata Cedar 8 50 Stand N 3 3 Removed 64 Alnus rubra Alder 6 28 Open N 3 3 Removed 65 Alnus rubra Alder 8 50 Open N 3 3 66 Alnus rubra Alder 8 50 Open N 2 0 Remove(significant lean) 4„ 7 „„ , , 1, ,,, 1.1 11. L.. ge Open Gro're , dirir e rf Genur) - ' gar 5taa�Numb Nasse Incpy g 67 Alnus rubra Alder 8 50 Open N 3 3 94 Fraxinus sp. Ash 8 50 Open N 2 2 EXISTINGTREES IN BIOSWALE AREA �; lir Average w.. Open Grown Tree ID Common DBH Tree Suit Genus Species or Stand Herit , ` Number Name tin inches) Canopy ; , ,.," `. .' Pr t x Area f5f) Growl... f , 113 Prunus sp. Plum 12 M: Stand N NA Remove 114 Prunus sp. Plum 13 - Stand N - NA Remove ® Prunus sp. Plum 13 - Stand N - NA Remove 116 Prunus sp. Plum 21 MIN Stand N - NA Remove 117 Prunus sp. Plum 18 - Stand N - NA Remove 118 Prunus sp. Plum ® - Stand N - NA Remove 74 Total Number Trees Greater Than 6 Inches(within TCE only) 50 Total Number Trees Greater Than 6 Inches proposed for Removal (within TCE only) 32.4% Percentage of Total Trees being Preserved 701 Total Diameter Inches of all Trees Greater Than 6 in (within TCE) 495 Total Inches of Removed Trees Greater Than 6 in (within TCE) 29.4% Percentage of Total Trees being Preserved 280,875 Total Site Area (TCE area) included 82,397 PUE 4,168 Total Canopy Coverage 1.5% Percentage of Site Tree Coverage *Canopy coverage does not include area for bioswale. ATTACHMENTACUM [ NT3 — EXISTING TREE SI AND | �]� �C� �]-Fy�� [�� | �� - �� «~� [� Y Genus sp./Common Ave Cond. �� Dominant �� I Rating ��` Ave. Ave. -` . Total Ove Genus ap�/[omrnonof 2 R��in�2 Assigned - On Site Stand nopy for Stand -: ,. ;,' ' 1 Ave Ave Cond Canopy Pres reservation Number Gen, ‘p./Common cf3'~wDBH 3 Rating 3 (SF) agahn0' (SF) ' [omnnen6 :- 1 Prunus sp./Cherry 12 2 333 2 0 Located under Prunus sp./Plum 12 2 power lines Pinus/Pine 10 2 2 Pseudotsuga menziesii/Fir I1.3 3 438 3 388 / i Thuja plicata/Cedar 7 3 Quercus sp./Oak 8 3 3 Quercus sp./Oak 8 3 566 3 229 Thuja plicata/Cedar 4 3 4 Thuja plicata/Cedar 8.5 3 229 3 50 | oetu|asp. Birch 8 3 ] Urban Forestry Plan(Tualatin Interceptor) Attachment 3 ATTACHMENTS - TREE PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS: 1. Notify all contractors of the tree protection procedures. For successful tree protection on a construction site, all contractors must know and understand the goals of tree protection. It can only take one mistake with a misplaced trench or other action to destroy the future of a tree. a. Hold a Tree Protection meeting with all contractors to fully explain goals of tree protection. b. Have all sub contractors sign memoranda of understanding regarding the goals of tree protection. Memoranda to include penalty for violating tree protection plan. Penalty to equal appraised value of tree(s)within the violated tree protection zone per the current Trunk Formula Method as outline by the Council of Tree&Landscape Appraisers current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. Penalty is to be paid to owner of the property. 2. Fencing a. Establish fencing around each tree or grove of trees to be retained. b. The fencing is to be put in place before the ground is cleared in order to protect the trees and the soil around the trees from any disturbance at all. c. Fencing is to be placed at the edge of the root protection zone. Root protection zones are to be established by the project arborist based on the needs of the site and the tree to be protected. d. Fencing is to consist of 6-foot high steel fencing on concrete blocks or 6-foot high metal fencing secured to the ground with 8-foot metal posts to prevent it from being moved by contractors, sagging or falling down. e. Fencing is to remain in the position that is established by the project arborist and not to be moved without written permission from the project arborist until the end of the project. 3. Signage a. All tree protection fencing should have signage as follows so that all contractors understand the purpose of the fencing; TREE PROTECTION ZONE-DO NOT REMOVE OR ADJUST THE APPROVED LOCATION OF THIS TREE PROTECTION FENCING. Please contact the project arborist or owner if alterations to the approved location of the tree protection fencing are necessary. b. Signage should be placed as to be visible from all sides of a tree protection area and spaced every 75 feet. Urban Forestry Plan(Tualatin Interceptor) Attachment 5 DURING CONSTRUCTION: 1. Protection Guidelines within the Root Protection Zone a. No traffic shall be allowed within the root protection zone. No vehicle, heavy equipment, or even repeated foot traffic. b. No storage of materials including but not limiting to soil, construction material, or waste from the site. i. Waste includes but is not limited to concrete wash out, gasoline, diesel,paint, cleaner, thinners, etc. c. Construction trailers are not to be parked/placed within the root protection zone without written clearance from project arborist. d. No vehicles shall be allowed to park within the root protection areas. e. No activity shall be allowed that will cause soil compaction within the root protection zone. 2. The trees shall be protected from any cutting, skinning or breaking of branches,trunks or roots. 3. For any roots that are to be cut from existing trees that are to be retained,the project consulting arborist shall be notified to evaluate and oversee the proper cutting of roots with sharp cutting tools. Cut roots are to be immediately covered with soil or mulch to prevent them from drying out. 4. No grade change should be allowed within the root protection zone. 5. Any necessary deviation from the root protection zone shall be cleared by the project consulting arborist or project owner. 6. Provide water to trees during the summer months.Tree(s)that will have had root system(s) cut back will need supplemental water to overcome the loss of ability to absorb necessary moisture during the summer months. 7. Any necessary passage of utilities through the root protection zone shall be by means of tunneling under roots by hand digging or boring. AFTER CONSTRUCTION: 1. Carefully landscape in the area of the tree. Do not allow trenching within the root protection zone. Carefully plant new plants within the root protection zone. Avoid cutting the roots of the existing trees. 2. Do not plan for irrigation within the root protection zone of existing trees unless it is drip irrigation for a specific planting or cleared by the project arborist. 3. Provide for adequate drainage of the location around the retained trees. 4. Pruning of the trees should be completed as one of the last steps of the landscaping process before the final placement of trees, shrubs,ground covers, mulch or turf. 5. Provide for inspection and treatment of insect and disease populations that are capable of damaging the retained trees and plants. 6. Trees that are retained may need to be fertilized as called for by project arborist after final inspection. Urban Forestry Plan(Tualatin Interceptor) Attachment 5 REVISED ATTACHMENT 7 — OPEN GROWN PLANTED TREE INVENTORN verage Proposed Mature Mature Available 7111HI - 1 ommon> Canopy Canopy Soil Volume E , Genus sped." - Eip�r Comments Name Spread Area(SF) F) u .F € is ti; A w, se .zllt�;n,�. 5 �ifli7l AIR[:R �3 Ph-�i...gin,. .,. � :..... u.... i'• 68 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 1.5"cal. 50' 1,963 5,891 69 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 1.5"cal. 50' 1,963 5,891 75 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 1.5"cal. 50' 1,963 3,048 76 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 1.5"cal. 50' 1,963 2,547 77 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 1.5"cal. 50' 1,963 4,272 83 Quercus garryana Oregon White 1.5"cal. 50' 1,963 3,334 Oak 84 Quercus garryana Oregon White 1.5"cal. 50' 1,963 2,385 Oak 105 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 1.5"cal. 50' 1,963 5,559 Proposed Replaement for tree#19 106 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 1.5"cal. 50' 1,963 5,559 Proposed Replaement for tree#20 107 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 1.5"cal. 50' 1,963 5,559 Proposed Replaement for tree#21 108 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 1.5"cal. 50' 1,963 5,559 Proposed Replaement for tree#22 109 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 1.5"cal. 50' 1,963 5,559 Proposed Replaement for tree#23 110 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 1.5"cal. 50' 1,963 5,559 Proposed Replaement for tree#24 111 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 1.5"cal. 50' 1,963 5,559 Proposed Replaement for tree#25 112 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 1.5"cal. 50' 1,963 1,143 Proposed Replaement for tree#42 Locations of proposed trees are as close as possible to location of removed trees per Sensitive Lands Tree Replacement Standards(Section 6,part 2). REVISED ATTACHMENT 8 — STAND GROWN PLANTED TREE INVENTORY ds , ature x °' 4° , anopy tand Tree I v,;, :Genus specie, Common Name Size ripline ^ommet s 3 Numbe = >, Area of "' and(SF; 1 70 Crataegus douglasii Black Hawthorn 1.5" cal. 3,239 Replacing existing Tree Stand #1.Located under power lines. Stand contains 4 proposed trees. 71 Crataegus douglasii Black Hawthorn 1.5"cal. 72 Crataegus douglasii Black Hawthorn 1.5"cal. 73 Crataegus douglasii Black Hawthorn 1.5"cal. 2 74 Quercus garryana Oregon White Oak 1.5"cal. 2,870 Tree added to existing Tree Stand#2.Stand contains 5 existing and 1 proposed tree. 3 85 Quercus garryana Oregon White Oak 1.5"cal. 3,780 Trees added to existing Tree 86 Thuja plicata Western Red Cedar 2' ht. min. Stand#3.Stand contains 4 existing and 5 proposed trees. 87 Quercus garryana Oregon White Oak 1.5"cal. 88 Thuja plicata Western Red Cedar 2' ht. min. 89 Thuja plicata Western Red Cedar 2' ht. min. 90 Alnus rubra Red Alder 1" cal. 2,235 Trees added to existing Tree Stand#4. Mature canopy of 91 Thuja plicata Western Red Cedar 2' ht. min. proposed trees increases stand 4 to include existing trees numbers 57,58,and 62.Stand 92 Thuja plicata Western Red Cedar 2' ht. min. contains 4 existing and 3 proposed trees. 78 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 1.5" cal. 3,142 Proposed Stand#5 includes existing tree#94.Tree#79 is replacing removed tree#31- could not be planted in same 5 79 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 1.5"cal. location due to proximity of hard surface paving.Stand contains 1 existing and 2 proposed trees. 80 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 1.5"cal. 3,922 Proposed Stand#6 includes existing tree#41.Tree#81 is replacing removed tree#35— 81 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 1.5"cal. could not be planted in same 6 location due to proximity of hard surface paving.Stand 82 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 1.5"cal. contains 1 existing and 3 proposed trees. ature 4,t, I p.„ anopy Stand Tree ID nus spe Common Name ie ripiine ;, ments' rn rea of WAIIIIIK- nd(SF 7 93 Quercus garryana Oregon White Oak 1.5"cal. 4,034 Proposed replacement for removed trees(#45,48,49,52). 94 Quercus garryana Oregon White Oak 1.5"cal. 95 Quercus garryana Oregon White Oak 1.5"cal. 96 Thuja plicata Western Red Cedar 2' ht. min. 97 Thuja plicata Western Red Cedar 2' ht. min. 7,066 Proposed replacement for removed trees(#55-58,62-64). 98 Thuja plicata Western Red Cedar 2' ht. min. 99 Alnus rubra Red Alder 1"cal. 100 Alnus rubra Red Alder 1" cal. 8 101 Alnus rubra Red Alder 1" cal. 102 Alnus rubra Red Alder 1"cal. 103 Alnus rubra Red Alder 1"cal. Locations of proposed trees are as close as possible to location of removed trees per Sensitive Lands Tree Replacement Standards (Section 6, part 2). REVISED BY Q � DAVID EVANS TREE SERVICE AND ASSOCIATES INC. A E IV] E c 1\1 O l J )-1I tt Fai Lina Smith From: Antonio Chaj <Antonio.Chaj@mortenson.com> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 3:21 PM To: Martin McKnight Cc: Lina Smith Subject: RE:Tree Caliper for Planting Plan - CWS Tualatin Interceptor Thank you Martin! We will proceed accordingly. Antonio Chaj, Field Engineer Mortenson I Building what?s next.® direct 425.497.7089 I mobile 530.746.8330 Antonio.Chaj@mortenson.com www.mortenson.com/Seattle Mortenson From: Martin McKnight<Martin@tigard-or.gov> Sent:Thursday, March 14, 2019 3:15 PM To:Antonio Chaj<Antonio.Chaj@mortenson.com> Cc: Lina Smith<LinaCS@tigard-or.gov> Subject: RE:Tree Caliper for Planting Plan-CWS Tualatin Interceptor Antonio, Yes, let?s get the bigger trees when possible but we will accept the smaller, 1.5?CAL. ?ve Cc?d Lina. Thanks, Martin McKnight City of Tigard,Parks Supervisor 503.718.2598 desk From: Antonio Chaj<Antonio.Chaj@mortenson.com> Sent:Thursday, March 14, 2019 3:11 PM To: Martin McKnight<Martin@tigard-or.gov> Subject:Tree Caliper for Planting Plan -CWS Tualatin Interceptor Hi Martin, 1 Following up on the tree planting plan for Cook Park,we called the replanting team to ask about having larger calipers. They informed us that they used the caliper of 1.5?as a minimum but when selecting the trees,they opted to earmark trees with larger caliper. Based on the conversation with them,the expected caliper would range between 1.5? to 2?with the majority on the larger size but some close to 1.5?(when there was no larger one to choose from). Would having the trees range from 1.5?to 2? be sufficient? Please let me know if you have other questions or need additional information. Thanks, Antonio Chaj, Field Engineer Mortenson I Building what?s next.® direct 425.497.7089 I mobile 530.746.8330 Antonio.Chaj@mortenson.com www.mortenson.com/Seattle Mortenson DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules ?City General Records Retention Schedule.? 2 TREE PLANTING PLAN RECEiVED MAR 11 2019 � w � N w CITY OF:GGI Gr�aDo IpLANNINGIEINEERING,..., < a' w COOK PARK 2"PVC SCH 40 ELEC I. L-±rj ..''' 44\ , I— CONDUIT WITH 6#12`nCONDUCTORS yG`�O \SD DETENTION1\�as�� yya `�OSN�"/ 1 4 (E)RECYCLED ! ' r'11 --_TCS .,. TCE{ — TCE A. (9 WATER MAIN t - �.. I I 2 I 44-4' ® Q! �i/ Al r�,' r� T� T.'; j.,__ - —j w T �,, ir.. TCE .. w — _ ©� g -- •4. ® — TCE TCE . • BC TC TCE TCEX T� it r 6 �� Co ,L. WWI' __ ^ -- — -- �-- -- �j i4+�r ; �r �' —— - — P / . __ JF �� '• . - .mss= +' "'_ • _ -- �'� _ e_'�.�-..r. — ''==1=7— -----•---7.1w.-•-- -- n 19 00 _tea+' — �� g rr +00 L 13+00 "_ ;i 12,00 •_ ii �` 14 + 1 _ 2 11.00 : ! d7 20+00 — — N. —� � �� 5-n 9„,N SAN 1 W . r 1 _ -- - pm —— �-w • —O CP 41 ti L.c7 •Y �n ® l �, �ucu al CPT-7 �.,, 0 ' I i, — 1 y y TGE sib y L I TCE ---1—TCE TCE TCE�- !T r a . 0 PROTECT I I �� .1Rool•+ 1 y " y • I + y OVERHEAD VER E D I I 1 \` RW RW PVa: WETLAND RW Hw �_� qty- `y 11_ —L.. Rw �.v —_ _ — CP6 1 (E)RECYCLED Os-C'- G p L • �L' CE WATER MAIN �R�M9 0:' MO J �o.�� l P� � `�(E)RECYCLED / STORMWATER SWALE, WATER LINE SEE SHEET C35 I I -\_ 1 (E)RECYCLED WATER LINE \ \\ / Pre-existing Trees Restoration Tree Plan Pre-existing Trees Restoration Tree Plan KEY: Tree ID Common Genus Common Genus Tree ID Common Genus Common Genus Number Name Species Status Name Species Size Number Name Species Status Size Name Species SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT —— Eastern Cercis Honey Gleditsia PROJECT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT -- TCE 3 Cherry Prunus sp. Removed Redbud canadensis 1.5"CAL 23 Preserved NA NA NA Locust triacanthos TUALATIN INTERCEPTOR SANITARY SEWER INTERCEPTOR(NEW) — — — 4 Plum Prunus sp. Removed Eastern Cercis 1.5"CAL 24 Honey Gleditsia Preserved NA NA NA TIGARD, OREGON Redbud canadensis Locust triacanthos PROPERTY LINE/RIGHT-OF-WAY — — — — -- — ' 5 Cedar Thuja Removed Eastern Cercis 1.5"CAL 25 Honey Gleditsia Preserved NA NA NA DECIDUOUS TREE plicata Redbud canadensis Locust triacanthos SHEET TITLE �, — CONIFEROUS TREE 6 Pine Pinus sp. Removed Eastern Cercis 1.5"CAL 26 Honey Gleditsia Preserved NA NA NA TREE PLANTING PLAN REV 2 Redbud canadensis Locust triacanthos REVISED BY ELWOOD NEWHOUSE, TREE TO BE REPLACED ® PROJECT ARBORIST Zelkova serrata 12 Oak Quercus 5-p. Preserved NA NA NA 27 Ash Fraxinus 5-p. Removed Zelkova "Village Green" 1.5"CAL PROPOSED MANHOLE(NEW) O O — Zelkova serrata Zelkova serrata MANHOLE(EXISTING) 13 Ash Fraxinus sp. Removed Zelkova Village Green" 1.5"CAL 31 Ash Fraxinus sp. Removed Zelkova "Village Green" 1.5"CAL DATE 03/11/2019 Zelkova serrata Zelkova serrata 14 Ash Fraxinus sp. Removed Zelkova "Village Green" 1.5"CAL 35 Ash Fraxinus sp. Removed Zelkova "Village Green" 1.5"CAL NOTES: _ 1. PLANTING ISLANDS WITHIN PARKING AREA ARE AREAS OF POTENTIAL SOIL Thornless Gleditsia Honey Gleditsia Zelkova serrata COMPACTION,LIMITING TREE GROWTH.IF SOIL COMPACTION OCCURS,BACKHOE 17 Locust triacanthos Removed Honey triacanthos 1.5"CAL 39 Ash Fraxinus 5-p. Removed Zelkova "Village Green" 1.5"CAL Locuss inermis TURNING SHOULD BE USED TO LOOSEN SOIL. -", 2. BACKHOE TURNING:REMOVE ANY LAYERS OF GOOD TOPSOIL.SPREAD 3"-4"OFThornless Gleditsia ORGANICS HIGH-LIGNIN COMPOST)OR ESCS(EXPANDED SHALE/CALCINE CLAY) Honey Gleditsia Zserr ( 19 Locust triacanthos Removed Honey triacanthos 1.5"CAL 40 Ash Fraxinus sp. Removed Zelkova ^Vikoge illage Green"na 1.5"CAL AMENDMENT OVER THE AREA,PRIOR TO TURNING THE SOIL.MAINTAINING A SAFE Locuss inermis Clean Water Services DISTANCE FROM PAVING,SIDEWALKS,AND STRUCTURES,USE BACKHOE TO TURN SOIL Thornless Gleditsia TO 36"DEPTH.BREAK SOIL INTO LARGE PEDS AND LOOSELY INCORPORATE THE SOILHoney Gleditsia Bigleat Acer 20 Removed Honey triacanthos 1.5"CAL 42 Oak Quercus sp. Removed 1.5"CAL AMENDMENT.MAINTAIN A SLOPE OF COMPACTED SOIL AT THE EDGE OF PAVING SO AS Locust triacanthos Locuss inermis Maple macrophyllum r' NOT TO UNDERMINE THE PAVING SUB-BASE.HAND TURNING MAY BE NECESSARY -- '� - ALONG THE EDGES OF PAVING AND AT WALLS.DO NOT TILL TO A DEPTH GREATER THAN Honey Gleditsia Thornless Gleditsia Oregon Quercus THE BOTTOM OF FOOTING.AFTER TURNING,RE-SPREAD TOPSOIL AND ADD 3"-5"OF 21 Locust triacanthos Removed Honey triacanthos 1.5"CAL 43 Maple Acersp. Removed White oak garryana 1.5"CAL M ortenson YARD WASTE ORGANIC AMENDMENT OVER THE SURFACE AND LIGHTLY TILL TO BREAK Locuss inermis Kennedy/Jenks Consultants THE SOIL INTO TEXTURE SUITABLE TO FINE GRADE. Honey Gleditsia 421 S.W.6TH AVENUE,SURE 1000 22 Preserved NA NA NA 44 Maple Acersp. Preserved NA NA NA PORTLAND,OREGON 97204 Locust triacanthos 503295-4000 0 PROJ NO 1776025'00 ■ I TIGARD City of Tigard December 26, 2018 Clean Water Services Attn: Wade Denny 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway Hillsboro, OR 97123 Project: Modification to Urban Forestry Plan for Clean Water Services Tualatin Interceptor and Siphon Improvement Project Site: WCTM 2S114A, Tax Lot 1500 and WCTM 2S114AC,Tax Lot 700 Land Use File: UFR2018-00009 Dear Mr. Denny, Please be advised that the above referenced land use application has been deemed complete as of December 26, 2018, in accordance with Tigard's submittal requirements and Oregon Revised Statutes 227.178. The 120-day deadline by which the City must reach a final decision on this application is April 25, 2019. If you decide to withdraw your application before a decision is rendered, please be aware that application fees may not be fully refundable. Please feel free to contact me at (503) 718-2438 or LinaCS@tigard-or.gov should you have any questions. Sincerely, L . Lina Smith Assistant Planner Copy: UFR2018-00009 Land Use File 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard-or.gov