10/01/2007 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
October 1, 2007
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: President Inman; Commissioners Anderson, Doherty, Fishel,
Hasman, Muldoon, and Walsh
Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Caffall and Vermilyea
Staff Present: Ron Bunch,Assistant Community Development Director;John Floyd,Associate
Planner;Todd Prager,Arborist; Darren Wyss,Associate Planner;Jerree Lewis, Planning
Commission Secretary
3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
None
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
Motion by Commissioner Muldoon, seconded by Commissioner Fishel, to approve the
September 17, 2007 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman,Inman, Muldoon
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: Walsh
EXCUSED: Vermilyea
5. WORKSHOP WITH TREE BOARD
Tree Board members present: Janet Gillis, Dennis Sizemore,Tony Tycer, Kandace Horlings
Tree Board Chair Janet Gillis gave a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit A) that highlighted
the tasks charged to the Tree Board and the work completed to date. She provided
background information on the project and noted that the proposed policy language reflects
ongoing work of the Board with input from the Polity Interest Team and the community.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—October 1,2007—Page 1
She said the Tree Board is asking for direction and input from the Planning Commission on
the proposed language for tree protection. After the Tree Board receives public comments
and the results of the Metro canopy study, the Board will meet with the Planning
Commission again.
Associate Planner John Floyd advised that there is a perception that the canopy cover in
Tigard is declining and that there is loss of trees. The proposed document looks at flexible
standards and incentive-based standards. There are 3 broad differences between the
proposed language and the current system:
1. The current system is based on numbers (how many you save, how many you
take, caliper inches). There's no qualitative aspect to what we're saving. The new
policies aim for a much more targeted preservation. It looks at things like native
trees, preservation of existing trees over mitigation, and it prioritizes trees based
on performance (e.g., canopy trees, stable trees, long-lived trees, and saving the
cohesive nature of groves).
2. The current Planned Development standards don't work for some of the smaller
infill projects. There needs to be a better way to offer incentives so people will
use it. Also, the Policy Interest Team wants to have mandatory flexible standards
—make people go through an alternatives analysis.
3. The current standards for such things as planter strips and sidewalks aren't very
tree friendly.
Following are questions and comments made during discussion of the draft policy language
(responses are written in italics):
• There isn't a goal specifically relating to diverse species. If we had significant disease
or infestation, how would it be addressed? The number 1 goal is to enlarge, improve, and
sustain a diverse urban forest to maximise the economic, ecological, and social benefits of trees and
other vegetation. It is implied that this concern could be addressed with the language in policies #8
and#1 5 and action measure #x. Perhaps we could add additional language for this specific issue.
Todd Prager, the CityArborist, will be overseeing selection of diverse trees that are available for public
distribution.
• Is keeping existing trees the primary consideration of the goals? The ideal thing is that
you maintain whatyou have ifyou can, but if trees need to be taken out, there needs to be a plan for
mitigation.
• What about new trees for the future? The word "diverse"in Goal#1 relates to species
diversity as well as age diversity. Its important to talk about mixed-age stands.
• The policy language talks a lot about preservation,but there isn't a sense of looking
forward 100 years. What are we going to plant now that's going to be a heritage tree?
To enlarge, improve, and sustain an urban forest into future is one of the objectives that the City
should have. Soil vaults should also be required for planting trees that will become heritage trees in the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—October 1,2007—Page 2
future. We need to design and engineer the plants environment in order to make it work. If a
developer wants to go through the expense to do that, there should be some kind of incentive.
® Is there a way to provide links on the City's website for free educational resources?
There are links already on the City's website. Also, action measure #viii talks about educational
materials and programs. Perhaps it could be expanded to say, `Develop and maintain a website that
would have links to resources to assist the community in planting, maintaining, and enhancing urban
forests."
• Perhaps we could have special tags on Tigard-approved trees at local garden centers.
Maybe we could expand action measures#viii and#x to talk about that. We could also have
approved tree lists posted on the walls at garden centers.
• With regard to policy#3, what happens after construction? How do we minimize
impacts after everybody is gone? This is where education comes in for the homeowner. It's
not all the developers responsibility.
• In policy #6, is the idea that we are going to retrofit old neighborhoods, or are we
talking about development moving forward? Primarily, we are talking about new
development and when redevelopment occurs. This is really associated with Clean Water Services
standards and green development practices. Are we going to require green development;
are we talking about water quality? That's one end of the.rpectrum. The other end could be
just planting parking lot trees.
■ How do we implement the language in policy #9 for private lots? The challenge is
when there are changes in ownership. There are things we could do,perhaps bonding on conditions
of approval or through code enforcement. When ownership changes hands, new owners buy the
conditions of approval as well as the property. They have to continue to comply with the conditions
of approval. We can do a lot by just enforcing the policies we already have.
• In policy #17, what is meant by "support"? Does it mean we're financially
obligating ourselves to support community groups? How about the word "embrace"?
We should make the intent of the word clear. Perhaps we could say, "Support through actions and
deeds."
• In policy #19 — "...discourage the sale and propagation...," what are we obligating
ourselves to and is it legal? As an example, certain nurseries in Portland won't sell English
Ivy. Perhaps we could use the words "through actions and deeds"again. A letter to retailers from
the City Arborist with a list of things the Ciy would like to see and things we don't like could be
one kind of discouragement. When landscape plans are put together for new subdivisions could be a
time for input.
■ It seems that policy #19 could be stepping out of what the City could be legally
allowed to do. There are 2 components that could occur here. One is to encourage retailers not
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—October 1,2007—Page 3
to sell things, which might not be very realistic. The other is what other cities and counties have
done—make it illegal to plant and propagate certain species. It is actually spelled out in their
municipal codes.
• Maybe there is a way to flip the wording in #19 from the negative (from discourage
to encourage). This is where the website could be helpful on a continuing basis.
• Should policy #21 begin with the words "The City shall..."? Also, should we add
the words "and screening" after "buffering" and should we use the term
"incompatible uses" or "differing land uses"?
• For action measure #ii,what can we require of a developer as far as after
development? All they can really do is educate. We can go back to the transfer of
conditions of approval. When the applicant goes for development approval, would they
have to have an inspection and enforcement program in place before they can get
approval? Perhaps we can get rid of the words `as part of'and put "by"development approval.
We gauge our enforcement program on the requirements of development approval. President
Inman agreed with this. The words "as part of" mean that you have to have it
before approval; the word "by" translates it to after approval.
• In action measure #iii— "inspection and enforcement program for non-
development related tree management" — does this mean private lots? If a
homeowner wanted to take down a tree in their yard,would they have to comply
with the City's landscape standards and tree protection ordinance? There are 3 parts to
this: street trees, sensitive areas, and individual lots. Heritage trees have been protected through
deed restrictions. The Tree Board looked at tree removal ordinances in Lake Oswego, where
removal over a certain number of caliper inches would require a permit;certain species would also
require a permit. Invasive species wouldn't require a permit. The Tree Board has not gotten to
specifics of this action measure yet.
• There are certain fundamentals of action measure #iii that are going to polarize the
community. We need to be very clear what the action measure is intending to do.
Perhaps a future action measure could be `Work with the community to ascertain the future level of
tree regulations."
• What is the end purpose for action measure #v? One would be to go back and learn from
our mistakes— what works, what doesn't. Another would be to work in partnership with other
groups such as Friends of Trees to learn where our problem areas are. There is no kind of
enforcement with this;its an informational, educational, supporting community program.
• In action measure #vi,why do we want to maintain an inventory of removals? This
would be a part of tree inventories. The inventory is a critical aspect of this whole process. It gives
us a starting point of what we actually have. Updates to the inventory will show fluctuations over
time and will show if the policies are effectively doing what we're tying to accomplish. It will give us
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—October 1,2007—Page 4
more tools in the future.
• Is action measure #ix the same as #iv? It's a strong statement to require
consideration of new incentives and penalties. This is where the word incentive is the
strongest in the action measures. The word penal0 emerged out of the Policy Interest Team
meetings. The Tree Board talked more about incentives because penalties exist currently. This
might be redundant.
Public Comments
The Planning Commission received comments on the proposed language from members of
the public.
John Frewing— Exhibit B.
Susan Beilke —Exhibit C
Alan DeHarpport—Exhibits D and E
6. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—PUBLIC FACILITIES WORKSHOP
Associate Planner Darren Wyss presented the draft goals,policies, and action measures for
the Public Facilities and Services chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that this is
the same process of working with a Policy Interest Team (PIT) and City department review
team to come up with the proposed language. Some of the key principles the PIT came up
with are ensuring that development pays their fair share of infrastructure costs; continued
collaboration and cooperation with partner agencies and districts; striving for efficient
planning and expansion of the infrastructure; protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the
community; and ensuring that appropriate public facilities and services contribute to a
complete community.
During review of the proposed language, the following questions/comments were made
(responses are written in italics):
• Do studies look at Tigard having a role in ownership of purification plants in regional
rivers? Currently, there are 3 feasibility studies in process looking at a long-term water supply—one
is with Lake Oswego, one is with the joint Water Commission, one is the Wilsonville Willamette
River plan. Tigard is looking at their options for finding a long-term water supply for the community.
Some of the options could be joint ownership or providing financial backing for expansion of facilities.
• Commissioner Doherty advised that she sent questions to Wyss earlier in the day.
The questions and answers are included in Exhibit F.
• For action measure #i— does this mean that we will require green, low-impact,
sustainable impact standards? Yes, that was from the habitat-friendly development standards
that the Commission saw last fall that dealt with Goal S. The standards are currently voluntary and
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—October 1,2007—Page 5
the PIT wanted to go a step further in making some of those mandatory. The City currently
follows CWS standards; this could be supplemental if we required additional
standards on top of that. If we required a developer to use pervious asphalt, they may
not get any credit from CWS for doing so. It could be expensive for the developer.
A lot of jurisdictions will give the developer a deduction to keep the costs the same or
somewhat comparable. Staff will re-visit the issue and come up with some alternatives. It was
suggested that we strike the word mandatory or use a combination of action measures #i and#ii.
• In Goal 11.2, would we benefit by staking a claim to a certain portion of the regional
water by being an owner of a purification facility? The City does have groundwater rights,
but because we're in a groundwater limited area, we can only withdraw out of 1 of our 3 groundwater
wells right now. We purchase our water from Portland. Staff is not aware of any other water rights.
In 15-20 years, we do want to be in the position where we have some kind of ownership of our water
suppy.
• Would it be a benefit to be an early stakeholder for water in the regional rivers? Yes,
we want to have an interest in the water supply to meet the community's needs. That's what polig
#1 intends. The policies don't seem to have a sense of immediacy. It does not say that
we'll meet the goal by a certain date. Without that specificity, there isn't pressure to
meet the target. This was a priority 15 years ago. The joint Water Commission has not
completed their water study for Washington County yet. It probably won't be complete for a couple of
years. It would be difficult to assign ayear to the policy.
• We could tell Council that we think this is a high priority, but to put a timeline with
any policy planning is not a good way to go. We could change the language to say, `The
City's priority shall be to secure interest in high-quality longterm water supply..."
• President Inman suggested changing the language to read, "The City shall prioritize
securing an interest in high-quality,long term water supply..."
• The issue of fluoridation was brought up. Could we bring the issue to the voters?
Staff will put an action measure together and email it to the Commission.
• Under stormwater management, should there be an action measure to create an
incentive for people that disconnect from the City's storm water? It's in the incentives,
but just not specific.
■ Have we adequately addressed cell phone towers under franchise utilities? And, to
take it a step further, do we have something for emerging technologies? This chapter of
the Comp Plan deals with the land use side of public facilities and services. The Comp Plan deals
with 2 d fferent things— land use regulations and the aspirational side. The PIT didn't discuss the
aspirational side. If the Commission would like, we could add something such as, It is the policy of
the City to provide wireless communication."
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—October 1,2007—Page 6
• Isn't this consumer-driven? Yes, and it's also a promotional economic development issue.
• Do we want to deal with more PR and aspirational things, or do we want to stick with
land use issues? We don't want to litter the landscape with towers; collocation is key.
Have other communities given some thought to emerging technologies? The City of
Tigard currently has a pretty strong collocation code for wireless communication. We're pretty strict
about enforcing installation of new wireless facilities. Maybe we should have a wait and
monitor policy for now.
■ Should we have a policy for wireless communications that says the City shall manage
the siting of wireless communication facilities to limit the visual impacts or other
kinds of impacts they have on the community?
■ Do we have an obligation to the general public to provide wi-fi? Perhaps it would be
appropriate to think about including it in the Downtown master planning.
• There is a perception that any regulatory process in the State has to address the need
for the underserved. We need to be aware of the PUC's regulations.
• Does the Commission want to address any of the issues associated with new or
emerging communication or energy technology to promote access to Tigard residents
and businesses? We should monitor that there's adequate equitable access. Our language should
be flexible enough to handle emerging technologies that come along as it affects the franchising, our
rights-of-way, and access. Use the words emerging technology rather than specific terms. Staff
suggested, `The City shall monitor emerging technologies to effectively manage franchise agreements
into the future."
7. OTHER BUSINESS
None
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:06 p.m.
Jerree- e 'is, Planning Commission Secretary
ATTEST: President Jodie Inman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—October 1,2007—Page 7
Joint Meeting of the
Planning Commission and
Tree Board
October 1, 2007
Background Statement
and Goals, Policies, and.
Action Measures
1. History and Context
2. Background Statement
3. Goals, Policies and Action Measures
4. Outstanding Issues
1
History and Context
1. Joint meeting with Planning Commission
on December 11, 2006
2. Council tasks the Tree Board with
Comprehensive Tree Protection and
Urban Forest Enhancement Project on
May 22, 2007
3. Language reflects ongoing work with
staff, the public, and Policy Interest
Team
Background Statement
1. Documents historic changes and existing
conditions
2. Discusses the benefit of trees and the
importance of proper management
3. Metro is assisting with a comparative
canopy study utilizing 1996 and 2005
aerial photos. Will be periodically
updated as part of Nature in
Neighborhoods program.
2
Goal 1
To enlarge, improve and sustain a
diverse urban forest to maximize
the economic, ecological, and
social benefits of trees and other
vegetation .
Goal 2
To balance the development
needs of the City with the
sensitive use of land through
well-designed urban
development that minimizes the
associated loss of existing trees.
3
Policies & Action Measures
1. Total of 18 Policies & 11 Recommended
Action Measures
2. Policies call for flexible and incentive
based tree protection
3. Affects both private and public projects
Outstanding Issues
1. Waiting for Metro to complete 1996/2005
comparative canopy study
2. HBA seeks specific policy language
exempting infrastructure, driveways and
building pads from tree protection &
mitigation standards
3. Recent surge in public comment.
4
Next Steps
1. Respond to direction provided by Planning
Commission
2. Finish consideration of public comments
3. Review / incorporate results of
comparative tree canopy study
4. Present formal recommendation to the
Planning Commission
Post Adoption Activities
1. Develop interim tree protection standards
(if appropriate)
2. Identify and develop Muni and/or
Development Code Amendments
3. Identify and develop planting and
management programs
5
FREWING COMMENTS—TIGARD COMP PLAN POLICIES RE
TREES/VEGETATION OCT 1 07
1 Goal 2 should be deleted, it is duplicative. Alternatively, add a goal "to balance
ecological needs of Tigard natural plantings ....".plus other goals for socioeconomic
benefits,etc.
2 Vegetation appears in the title of these materials but is largely omitted in detailed
wording of policies and action measures. It should be included with trees throughout.
EG, in Policy 3,move mention of vegetation to the f rst line.
3 Policy 4. This policy should encompass more than sensitive lands. To not implement
this policy on all lands is inconsistent with the stated goal.
4 Policy 5. Include the concept that evaluation of tree health shall be done by
independent certified arborists,to avoid the possibility that a decision on tree health
might be influenced by the person hiring the arborist. Require applicants for tree removal
to fund the independent arborist.
5 Policy 19. Include in the policy the development of a list of known invasive plants,
perhaps using the Oregon Dept of Ag list.
6 Action Measures: I, iii and iv should include vegetation in their scope of work as well
as trees.
COMP PLAN-----TREE COMMENTS JOHN FREWING SEPT 5,2007
Based on draft material distributed for Tree Board meeting this date.
1 In initial paragraph of Background,should mention how trees also serve to meet Goals for Natural Resources,
Environmental Quality and Economic Health. Mention Goals.
2 In Overview,Para 2,state the scope as `city limits of Tigard'. Make same change throughout.
3 In Overview,Para 2,note that these invasive species detract from meeting tree goals.
4 In Overview,Para 4,it is stated that`most'remaining trees are on sensitive lands. Note the rare nature of some few
remaining stands of large native trees on uplands,and note that they deserve special protection.
5 In Overview,Para 4,note that control of invasives is a matter of ongoing concern,not only concern at the time of site
development. Note that Tigard has not maintained invasives under control on either its own public properties or regulated
invasives on private property.
6 In Overview,Para 6,note that scientific literature supports stream/wetland buffers of as much as 200 feet from actual
stream/wetland areas;CWS,whose rules Tigard currently follows only require a minimum of a 50 foot buffer.
7 In Air and Water Quality,note that many trees and other vegetation in Tigard are in decline because of air quality
conditions,particularly near heavy traffic routes.
8 In Socioeconomic Effects,document the reported fact that trees add 3-7%to property values. I believe it can be much
higher than this.
9 In Proper Management,add discussion of the importance of managing invasives.
10 In Existing Regulatory Environment, add discussion and statistics on the number of enforcement actions and amount
of fines collected regarding trees and vegetation each year for the past five years. State the expenditures and ending
balance of the tree mitigation fund for each of the past five years. Identify specific tree removal mitigation sites in the
city.
11 In Existing Regulatory Environment,note that the city regulates trees on private property ONLY at the time of site
development;little or no action on maintenance of trees at a later date has been taken.
12 Goal 1. Retain language previously reviewed by Tree Board.
13 Proposed Goal 2. Do not adopt.
14 Policy 3. Retain language previously reviewed by Tree Board. Strengthen it by adding definitional words to explain
`minimize'.
15 Policy 6. Retain language previously reviewed by Tree Board.
16 Policy 9. Add the words"including location of sidewalks,driveways,building footprints and other areas where trees
would be removed"
17 Policy 19. Add after reference to the development process the words"and by regulation for times after site
development"to ensure that ongoing attention is paid to trees and vegetation on private property.
18 Policy 20. Add the words`incrementally more protective'in front of the words `tree preservation strategies'to
indicate that these stands are special and require more protection than individual trees.
Page 1 of 2
John Frewing
From: "John Frewing" <jfrewing @teleport.com>
To: "John Floyd" <Johnfl @tigard-or.gov>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 7:15 AM
Subject: Tree Board Meeting Last Night
John,
I just want to commend you on your presentation and discussion last night at the Tree Board. You properly tried
to keep the discussion on point—this is the Tree Board, and issues such as housing density, transportation,
population, zoning, etc are properly discussed in their own sections of the Comp Plan. No harm in mentioning or
referencing them, but this section is about trees.
I think the word 'efficient'was removed from your Goal 2 which was proposed last night, but wanted to document
my concern about that word. If'efficient' means'cost effective', then it will always be most cost effective to
remove all trees from a development site and I don't think this is the preference of Tigard citizens or the Tree
Board. If'efficient' means'least difficulty', the same situation will exist. This word raises the question of'efficient'
for whom--efficient for the developer is one thing (probably meaning removal of all trees), and efficient for long
term community health is something else. I think the word 'efficient'should be stricken from your Goal 2 which
was proposed last night. Using the term'balance with development needs of the city'at least allows the city to
say what its development needs are, rather than rely on whatever the developers say their needs are. In this
regard, I would ask you to look again at what the people of Tigard expressed as their highest priority in terms of
livability—protection and enhancement of trees and natural resources.
I am somewhat concerned that while the comments of Venture Properties, received by you on Sept 4, were
distributed to the Tree Board, the comments of Sue Beilke, which were emailed to you on I think Sept 1, were
not. Could you make sure that Sue's comments get to the Tree Board? Of course I am disappointed that the six
developer representatives barged right in to the discussion and the meeting was spent almost totally on their
concerns and none on my comments submitted last night, I understand the need to hear all view points—just
wish they would appear at sometime other than the last point in preparation of the comp plan language. I hope
that on Sept 19, there will be a way to balance the discussion so that equal time is given to all points of view.
I am somewhat concerned about the heavy reliance on the canopy maps which seem to be part of the emerging
corTO plan material on trees. It has been said that these maps will show individual trees. I wonder to what extent
they can delineate other vegetation, such as a hazelnut tree with its many sprouts. Strictly, a'tree'is defined as a
single stern plant with more than 6" DBH trunk, and I think that consideration of the amount and type of other
vegetation is an important part of the health of Tigard's urban forest. Do the canopy maps distinguish certain
invasive plants like Himalyan blackberries and invasive tall grasses? It would be wrong to simply say that since
vegetation shows on the photos, that it is 'trees'.
The idea from developers of exempting the areas of dedicated public streets/sidewalks and housing footprints is a
bad one. It takes away any incentive to minimize the loss of trees by adjusting the location of these
developments. Your staff position is correct.
In the pmposed Goal 1, some discussion last night was centered on eliminating the word 'existing'. I read this
sentence to refer to the 2007 canopy, not some continuing status of tree canopy. In fact, deleting it makes the
sentence seem to refer to whatever tree canopy exists at the time of reading. In reality, people know that this
• document was written in 2007, so maybe substituting the term '2007'would be most clear. In this same Goal 1,
there was some concern by developers about using the word 'enlarge'. I think this word is fine—it expresses the
values of the people of Tigard as stated in 2006.
At the end of the meeting, there was some informal discussion about the need for a "mixed age" urban forest.
This makes sense to me. It doesn't make sense to keep each and every old/big tree at the expense of planting
new trees which in some years will be old/big. But to make this happen over large spaces in Tigard, it seems to
make more important to develop some kind of regulation for removal and replanting of trees at any time
(particularly in years after site development)on private land—this doesn't exist today. Today, regulation is
centered on trees on private land AT THE TIME OF SITE DEVELOPMENT ONLY. Thus, there needs to be some
10/1/07
Page 2 of 2
rules on private land which encourage the planting and retention of growing trees all the time. It is not clear that
as currently drafted, the comp plan policies ensure that such code provisions will be developed. Could the Tree
Board discuss this at its next meeting?
Finally, you indicated that you apparently have completed the comparison of tree provisions in a variety of cities
codes. How can I get a copy of this comparison??
Would you please be so kind as to forward this note to members of the Tree Board?? I don't have all their emails.
Thanks again for your sustained work on this project.
John Frewing
10/1/07
October 1, 2007
Tigard Planning Commission
City of Tigard
RE: Comments on Tigard Tree Board&work to date on Comprehensive Plan, Draft Goals
and Policies and Management and Preservation of Trees and other vegetation concepts, etc.
Below are our comments on current efforts by the Tree Board and Tigard staff to update the
goals, etc. of the Comprehensive Plan regarding trees, local forests, etc. The Biodiversity
Project of Tigard is a local, all volunteer-citizen run group dedicated to the protection and
conservation of the natural resources in Tigard, in particular rare and State and Federal listed
fish,wildlife, and vegetation, including locally unique or declining species. We have been
conducting surveys in Tigard for the past fifteen years and have identified and worked toward
the protection and conservation of such species/vegetation communities including the rare and
declining Western Pond Turtle, and the oak/camas prairie habitat.
Over the past fifteen years,Tigard has seen rapid and uncontrolled growth throughout the
area, resulting in an immense lost of the biological diversity that existed originally. In
particular, we have lost to date almost ALL of our upland forests, such as those that existed
on Bull Mountain and in other parts of Tigard,to development that has in many cases not
even left one tree of the forest that previously existed on a site. This deforestation in Tigard
has resulted in a huge loss of native vegetation, native songbirds, loss of amphibians such as
the State listed Northern red-legged frog, and other species. The red-legged frog depends on
uplands forests to survive, since it spends most of its time away from water for its life
requirements. Some forested sites, such as the 3+ acre Dorothy Gage property off Durham
road that was clearcut this past March of 2007, contained one of the most diverse small forests
left in our city, with Oregon ash, oak, maple, willow, Douglas fir, and hawthorne on the site.
It was home to a diverse wildlife population including a resident pair of Cooper's hawk which
nested on the site every year. All is now gone, the developer left 2 trees, and called the
development the Gage Forest, as a way of insulting our city and the citizens who care
about our community and our natural resources.
So,where do we go from here? What is to be done regarding the current lack of
protection for our forests, our fish, our wildlife? How can we save what is left so that we
do not lose any more of our natural resources and so that we can leave something for
future generations to enjoy and cherish? How do we better protect water and air
quality through forest protections?
Our general recommendations are as follows:
• Goals, policies, etc. that address Trees and Forests, etc. SHOULD also be developed
under the Natural Resources Section of the Comprehensive Plan, Goal 5, in order to
adequately address the values and functions they provide to wildlife, water quality, etc,
and to make sure they are protected and conserved for the future. Trees and forests are a
crucial part of our biological diversity and if only addressed under the Goal 2, Community
Design section of the Comp. Plan, will not be adequately addressed as far as protection,
conservation, etc.
• Before we can go any further in the Comprehensive Plan process, we MUST conduct an
inventory of all of our trees, forests, etc. in Tigard, in order to adequately and effectively
meet the Comprehensive Plan goals, needs, etc. Without an up to date inventory we do
not have the information necessary to develop goals,policies and action measures; a
current inventory will give us information on species of trees in our city, numbers and size
remaining, acreage of all forests left, plant communities left and their condition, invasive
species present, etc.
• Once an inventory is completed, all data should be mapped so that we can visually see
what is remaining, location, etc.
• The new updated Comprehensive Plan MUST provide standards and programs that protect
trees and forests in Tigard to the highest degree possible, and which must also have a
sound legislative basis.
Draft Goals,Policies, etc. and recommendations:
Goals:
Include new goals including:
• 1) To increase the biological diversity of Tigard's native trees and forests in
order to help protect and conserve fish and wildlife species and their habitats.
• 2) To prevent any further loss of native trees and forests through the purchase
of remaining undeveloped lands.
• We object to any deletion of the words "Protect/ Preserve" in statements regarding trees
and tree protection. The words "steward and stewardship"have now been inserted and
these do not convey the same meaning and are more ambiguous. Citizens want the
strongest protections possible for our trees and forests.
For example,there was an original goal that stated: "Protect and enhance the environmental
& aesthetic contribution of trees and other vegetation." It was changed to "To enlarge,
improve and sustain...."; we object to the word"sustain". Again, we do not believe this
word offers adequate "protection"for the resource(s) and we would like to see it changed
back to "protect" in order to make sure the language is strong in nature and ensures statewide
planning goals for natural resources are met and that Tigard's trees are conserved into the
future.
• Certain members of the development community have recently made attempts to weaken
the Tree Board's efforts to protect trees by insisting on including language in some goals
that would actually make things worse here in Tigard. Words such as "balance" have
been suggested to be included. We strongly object to any weakening of current efforts to
protect trees, etc. and must point out here that there is no "balance" here currently and
there never has been. Tigard has already lost most of its forests, so the "balance" is
already toward pro-growth as everyone knows, and any efforts to make the current state of
affairs even worse will be met with strong objections and legal actions if necessary.
Policies:
We strongly recommend the following policies be added to those developed by the Tree
Board.
• The city shall increase the number of native trees and forest acreage through
purchase of remaining undeveloped lands throughout the city.
• The city shall only allow development when a developer can show that the loss of
trees, forests,etc.will not have a negative impact on the wildlife that occupy areas to
be developed. "Negative impact" is defined as "no loss of nesting habitat, food,
cover,etc."
• The City shall manage trees and forests, etc. so that they provide the greatest
biological diversity possible.
• The City shall manage trees and forests in order to adequately meet the needs of and
protect and conserve the fish and wildlife that occupy those forests, including the
State listed Northern red-legged frog, Western pond turtle, etc.
• The City shall develop "special status" protections for rare habitats, including
Oak/Camas prairies, in order to protect and enhance remaining rare habitats and
the species that are found on these sites.
We wish to thank everyone on the Tree Board and the Planning Commission for all their
efforts on behalf of Tigard's trees, forests, etc. in developing goals, policies, etc. for the future
that will protect and enhance Tigard's natural resources.
Sincerely, A
Susan Beilke,Director
The Biodiversity Project of Tigard
October 1, 2007
To: Tigard Planning Commission
Fr: Alan DeHarpport
Re: Tree Ordinance Revisions
Along with HBA's Ernie Platt, Al Jeck from Alpha Community Development and Ken Gertz from Gertz Fine
Homes, I attended a planning commission workgroup on November 6, 2006 at 7:00pm. At that time, we addressed
the Comission about our concerns with the current ordinance and looked forward to participating in the revision
process to create a more fair and balanced tree code for those sites with trees and zoned for development. We also
spoke with two members of the tree board about becoming more involved with the revisions to the tree code, which
was welcomed. At the meeting the Commission voted to delay the vote on adopting the revisions presented by the
tree board, and the task was ultimately sent to you in long range planning.
I have spoken to many developers, builders, engineers, planners, arborists, real estate brokers, and landscapers who
all share the same concerns about the current tree ordinance. These businesses have made significant investments in
City infrastructure in the form of streets, sidewalks, utilities, and landscaping. They have also made expensive tree
mitigation payments to the City as part of their development requirements. Prior to leaving the City, Arborist Matt
Stine advised that there were no public lands left within the City limits to plant trees for mitigation. Consequently,
fee in lieu of mitigation payments cannot currently be used to plant trees since there are no public lands available
for planting. In essence, the ordinance now imposes a de facto penalty to develop property with trees specifically
zoned for development. This results in a fee that cannot currently be used, which is most impractical. It should also
be noted that the underlying property owner indirectly pays for the mitigation fees since developers generally hire
arborists to determine the number of caliper inches on a site with development potential prior to purchasing the
property in an effort to determine the cost of tree mitigation. Once the amount is determined, the purchase price to
the owner is reduced by the amount of the mitigation fees required to be paid to the City. On those properties where
few trees exist the fees are nominal. However, on properties where many trees exist that must be cut in order to
meet zoning requirements, the fees(and therefore the decrease in property values) can amount to hundreds of
thousands of dollars.
There is no question that trees are an asset to the community as a whole and should be preserved when it is feasible.
However, with current City development requirements it is often difficult to save more than about 15%to 20%of
trees on site at best. It is sometimes impossible to save any trees if they are all located within required right of way
dedications and building pads. The current ordinance imposes mitigation requirements if more than just 25%if the
caliper inches are removed even though 80%of the property must be cleared and graded to create roads and
building pads. Based on these concerns, we hope to come up with a fair and balanced revision to the current
ordinance that does not result in exorbitant mitigation fees applied to property owners with land zoned for
development. At the same time, we also recognize that preserving and planting as many trees as possible in
locations where they can be saved and planted creates a more livable community and should be promoted.
Our recommendation is simple: exempt tree mitigation from required street right of ways and building pads for new
structures.
We look forward to discussing these concerns in further detail and getting additional input from all of the
stakeholders including, the tree board, the environmental community, Tigard's citizens, arborists, landscapers,
owners of properties zoned for future development, and the City planning and engineering staff In a coordinated
effort, I am sure we can improve the current ordinance and at the same time save trees when possible.
Alan DeHarpport
Roundstone Development
9550 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy
Beaverton, OR 97005
Alan DeHarpport
9550 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy
Beaverton, OR 97005
(503) 709-2277
August 13, 2007
John Floyd
Long Range Planning
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Tree Policy Interest Team Recommended Goals,Policies, and Action Measures
Dear John,
As the nominated Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland liaison, I want to thank
you for keeping me posted regarding the Tree Policy Interest Team meetings of July 18,27 and
30. I apologize for not being able to attend the meetings. The developer/builder community has
a great deal of interest in the proposed language for the draft goals,policies, and action measures.
I have addressed each item of interest below using the same foirnat provided(proposed changes
in bold underline, proposed deletions st sl eta, my notes are in italics).
I believe that the goals should acknowledge that Tigard's growth rate will continue to put pressure
on available lands for development and as those lands develop existing trees will be removed and
new trees planted. Growth will continue to have impacts on existing trees. The population of
Tigard has almost doubled from approximately 25,000 in 1990 to about 47,000 today. That's an
average annual growth rate of around 2.5%. The draft goals seem to imply that Tigard's mission
is to save every existing tree and discourage development, which is surely not the view of many
interested parties both within City Hall as well as within Tigard's business community. While
some environmentally driven citizens undoubtedly feel that all development is"bad",I believe
there is a larger group of citizens who feel that a balance between growth and tree preservation
should be struck. Saving every existing tree is an enviable goal for any community, but to
eliminate the word"growth" from Policy 2 seems very detached from reality. Let's face it, we
live in one of the fastest growing communities in the country.
I would like the tree board and the PIT to weigh in and provide feedback on the following goal
and policy language,which I drafted.
DRAFT GOALS
1. To balance the ongoing population growth and development of the City with the
environmental community's desire Tto enlarge and improve the urban tree canopy and other
vegetative cover to obtain a balance between economic vitality and the economic, ecological,
and social benefit of trees and other vegetation.
2. To avoid prevent a net loss of trees while accommodating the City's ongoing,
population growth and the achievement of other goals of the City.
John Floyd
August 13,2007
Paae1nf1
DRAFT POLICIES
1. No changes to the July 31 revision. I do have a question, though. Is the inventory going
to be done by the City arborist or private party? If the latter, is this in the budget?
2. No changes to 7/31/07 proposed changes.
3. The City shall require all development to minimize impacts on existing trees and
associated vegetation to be retained as part of the City development approval process
before, during and after construction. Removal of trees shall be mitigated, with priority
pre given to the preservation of existing trees over mitigation.
4.No changes to 7/31/07 proposed changes.
5. The City shall address public safety concerns by ensuring ways to prevent and resolve
verified tree related hazards verified by a certified arborist in a timely manner.
6. For properties that have future development potential,regulations exist in the City
Development Code that require dedication of public rights-of-way for public amenities
including streets, sidewalks, planter strips, and bike lanes. In addition, regulations exist
within the City development code that require clearing to accommodate structures on
building sites on properties zoned for future development. Therefore,Tthe City shall
...- -.. . _ .•=not require tree mitigation of for aesthetic and environmental
impacts of impervious surfaces such as paved areas and rooftops right of way dedications
and for the clearing of building footprints as required by the City Development Code.
Note: Understanding this is going to be controversial, I propose to offer both options to
planning commission and voice both sides of the issue at the public hearings in front of
planning commission and city council.
7.No changes to 7/31/07 proposed changes.
8. No changes to 7/31/07 proposed changes.
9.No changes to 7/31/07 proposed changes. We have to do this already.
10.Note: I'm not sure you really want to say this here. Typically, the City has developers
and builders install the street trees. Please clarify if the intent is to have the City require
developers and builders to plant trees, or if the intent is truly to have the City do the planting.
11.No changes to 7/31/07 proposed changes.
12. The City shall protect and preserve trees and other vegetation when it designs and
constructs public works projects. Mitigation and restoration of removed vegetation shall
occur as required by the City Development Code.
13.No changes to 7/31/07 proposed changes.
14.No changes to 7/31/07 proposed changes.
15.No changes to 7/31/07 proposed changes.
16.No changes to 7/31/07 proposed changes.
17.No changes to 7/31/07 proposed changes.
18.No changes to 7/31/07 proposed changes.
19.Note: This one confuses me. In the italic text at the bottom, it says "the City should
actively promote, rather than just encourage, the use and retention of these plants. " The
policy suggests removal of these invasive species. Is this a typo? Also, do we have a list of
what's considered "invasive"?
20. Require development to Enhance the cohesive quality of tree groves as required by the
City Development Code.
Note:I have a couple of thoughts here. Beaverton actually inventoried and assigned
numbers to each Significant Grove of trees located within the City limits. Property owners
where SG's were proposed were notified that their properties were being considered for SG
status, and public hearings were held. Personally, I think this is a much better way of
John Floyd
August 13,2007
Paae7of7
handling this issue since there is not definition of a "tree grove". Is that 3 trees? 30 trees?
100 trees? I think this section definitely needs work. If it's linked to the Development Code
and the Development Code identifies SG's, then there is a clear and objective path to follow
for anyone interested in purchasing properties where SG's are located.
21. Note: "Require"seems a bit strong here to me. Broad spreading trees typically require
larger areas of exposed soil beneath them, which is not typically conducive to parking areas.
If the goal is to buffer properties that do not share the same zoning,perhaps something like
this: "Promote the use of broad spreading trees and vegetation that will create or
preserve vegetative buffers between adjacent properties that do not share the same
zoning"
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES
1. No changes to 7/27/07 recommended changes.
2. No changes to 7/27/07 recommended changes.
3. No changes to 7/27/07 recommended changes.
4. The City shall dDevelop,and-implement, and rewire promote consideration of
wed-regulations, standards, penalties and incentives that will may to allow
developers to transfer density, seek variances or adjustments, or utilize the Type 3
planned Ddevelopment procedure to allow for habitat-friendly design standards,
preserve trees and/or maintain natural open space."
Note: I believe there are potential legal issues for this one as originally drafted. The
Type 3 process was always intended to be an alternative process that the applicant
could choose to implement. It was never intended to be a requirement that all
applicants be forced to submit a Type 3 alternative plan. My understanding is that if
an application meets the approval criteria set forth in the zoning code, state law
requires that the jurisdiction approve it. Perhaps a clarification from the City
attorney is needed.
5. No changes to 7/27/07 recommended changes.
6. No changes to 7/27/07 recommended changes.
7. No changes to 7/27/07 recommended changes.
8. No changes to 7/27/07 recommended changes.
9. No changes to 7/27/07 recommended changes.
10. No changes to 7/27/07 recommended changes.
11. No changes to 7/27/07 recommended changes.
Again, I want to thank you for continuing to keep me posted during this process. The
developer/builder community's highest priority is to exempt mitigation from public rights
of way and building pads for property zoned for future development. As I have
mentioned before, requiring mitigation for improvements required by the City's own
Development Code is a punitive policy that decreases property values on developable
parcels with trees. I look forward to working with you and the Policy Interest Team in
creating a balanced approach to tree preservation in Tigard.
Yours truly,
Alan DeHarpport
John Floyd
August 13,2007
PaaP1nf1
Jerree Lewis- Re: Questions on Public Facilities and Services Report Page 1
From: Darren Wyss G
To: Lewis, Jerree
Date: 10/1/2007 12:15:44 PM
Subject: Re: Questions on Public Facilities and Services Report
Jerree,
Can you please forward this to all of the Planning Commissioners. Thanks.
Darren Wyss
Associate Planner/GIS
Long Range Planning Division
City of Tigard
503-718-2442
>>> <Mdohertyor @aol.com> 09/30 1:24 PM >>>
Hi Darren--thought I'd ask these questions rather than waste time on Monday-
1. pg 3--1.A. Is there a formula used to determine the developers "fair
share"of costs?
Answer: Yes. The current process uses Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards to
determine the stormwater infrastructure needed for new development. At that point, the developer will
normally pay for and construct the required infrastructure. If they choose not to or cannot construct the
required infrastructure, they pay a System Development Charge that is calculated based on the Clean
Water Services Rates and Charges (Resolution and Ordinance No. 07-31).
2. pg 4-With all the press the Water Board has been getting lately
regarding their fight with the City, do they have any say, power or input on the Comp
Plan or the water supply and distribution?
Answer: The Tigard Water Board, which represents the interests of unincorporated Washington County
residents who are within the Tigard Water Service Area, has had the opportunity to participate on the
Policy Interest Teams. The proposed policies within the Comp Plan update address the need for proper
planning, funding, and protection of the water supply infrastructure. The disagreement with the City and
the other members of the Intergovernmental Water Board (City of Durham, City of King City, at-large-
member) is over ownership of assets and some transactions that were recently made. The IGWB
advises the Tigard City Council on issues relating to rate setting and water supply, so yes, the Tigard
Water Board does have a voice in water supply issues.
3. pg 5-Is the availability of water a serious consideration when a planned
development or development application comes in ?
Answer: Yes, Tigard Public Works coordinates with developers to ensure adequate supply and pressure
is available and the Engineering Dept coordinates the connection location, pipe size, and any needs to
extend infrastructure to property boundaries.
4. pg 6-10. What kinds of activities would fall under this policy?
Answer: Personal wells in the vicinity of ASR wells could possibly lead to their contamination. The City
has spent a significant amount of financial resources on the ASR program and wants to protect their
investment. Secondly, certain types of connections to the water infrastructure (i.e. irrigation systems)
need to have a backflow device to ensure no possibility of contamination.
5. References to annexation..does this mean that an area that is governed
by the Washington County Planning Commission must be a part of the COT to get
water and sewer services?
Jerree Lewis - Re: Questions on Public Facilities and Services Report Page 2
Answer: No, the City of Tigard would not be providing stormwater/wastewater servies to a development
that is not contiguous to the City. If the development is contiguous and would need to connect to City
owned stormwater or wastewater infrastructure, then we would require annexation. This is based on the
equity principle that if you are receiving City services, you should be paying your fair share (i.e. City
taxes).
6. pg 11--Key Findings--is an insurance rating of 2 good? What scale do
they use?
Answer: Yes, a rating of 2 is excellent. The Insurance Services Office uses a rating system of 1 (superb
protection)to 10 (no protection). There are no ratings of 1 in Oregon and only 50 nationwide, and 15
communities in Oregon have a rating of 2.
That's it...for awhile there you probably thought I had a question on every
page!
See you Monday-
Margaret
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
CC: Bunch, Ron