04/21/2008 - Packet Mir
lig City of Tigard
. .
Planning Commission — Agenda
TIGARD
. „ . . . .
MEETING DATE: April 21, 2008, 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard—Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.rn.
3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m.
4. APPROVE MINUTES 7:10 p.m.
5. PUBLIC HEARING 7:15 p.m.
5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00002
Tigard Comprehensive Plan Update Pertaining to Tigard's Urban Forest
REQUEST: To amend the current Comprehensive Plan to include goals, policies, and recommended
action measures to reflect current community conditions and values relating to Tigard's Urban Forest..
The complete text of the proposed Amendment can be viewed on the City's website at
http://www.tigard-or.gov/code_ amendments. LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: All City Zoning
Districts. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and
18.390; Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen Involvement, Environmental Quality, Hazards, Public
Facilities and Services, and Natural Features and Open Spaces; Metro Functional Plan Titles 3 and 13; and
Statewide Planning Goals 1,2, 5, 6,and 11.
6. OTHER BUSINESS 8:30 p.m.
7. ADJOURNMENT 8:35 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA-APRIL 21, 2008
City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1
•
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
April 21,2008
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:05p.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: Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman,
Muldoon,Vermilyea, and Walsh
Commissioners Absent: Anderson
Staff Present: Ron Bunch,Assistant Community Development Director;Darren Wyss,
Associate Planner;John Floyd,Associate Planner;Todd Prager, City Arborist; Doreen
Laughlin,Administrative Specialist II
3. COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Caffall reported that he'd attended the CCI [Committee for Citizen
Involvement] meeting earlier in the month and that the City now has four neighborhoods up
and running with their"neighborhood website." He said the City webpage has detoils on these
neighborhood websites and that more are to come. He encouraged people to check out the
website to see if their neighborhood has a webpage.
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
There was a motion by Commissioner Caffall, seconded by Commissioner Doherty, to approve
the April 7, 2008 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Caffall, Doherty, Fishel,Hasman, Inman,Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: Muldoon,Vermilyea
EXCUSED: Anderson
5. PUBLIC HEARING
5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA)2008-00002
Tigard Comprehensive Plan Update Pertaining to Tigard's Urban Forest
PLANNING COMMISSION INAFFTING MINUTES—April 21,2008—Page 1
1:11.RPLNIDoteenIPCAPC Minutes 2008%4-21-08 Planning Commission Minutes.doc
• 1110
REQUEST: To amend the current Comprehensive Plan to include goals, policies, and
recommended action measures to reflect current community conditions and values
relating to Tigard's Urban Forest. The complete text of the proposed Amendment can
be viewed on the City's website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/code_ amendments.
LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: All City Zoning Districts. APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390;
Comprehensive Plan Chapters Citizen Involvement, Environmental Quality, Hazards,
Public Facilities and Services, and Natural Features and Open Spaces; Metro Functional
Plan Titles 3 and 13; and Statewide Planning Goals 1,2, 5, 6, and 11.
President Inman opened the public hearing, explained that this meeting was a continuation
from the last heating, and went on to explain the process. She noted that public testimony
would be reopened and that there is a 3-minute limit for individuals and a 20-minute limit for
people speaking on behalf of a group.
John Floyd,Assistant Planner, gave his report on behalf of the City. He went over changes that
had been made by staff since the April 7 meeting. He noted that there were basically four
changes and that his Power Point presentation would cover those changes.
Following are the changes (in brief):
1. Eight (8) policies and recommended action measures were amended, rewritten, or
recreated as a result of direction from the Planning Commission at the last meeting;
2. Two definitions were changed—one is new, one is substantially rewritten;
3. Staff wanted greater clarification as to Planning Commission's preference in policy 2.2.9
(which he would explain in more detail later in his presentation); and
4. Two pieces of public comment had been received by staff since the last hearing
[Attachments 1 & 2] for the Planning Commission's consideration.
Floyd explained these changes in detail in his PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 3).
After Floyd's report, President Inman asked the commissioners if they had any questions of
staff regarding this. There were none.
At this point,President Inman opened up the meeting for public testimony.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY-IN FAVOR:
Janet Gillis, 13711 SW Essex Drive, Tigard, OR 97223 (Chair of the Tree Board) said the
Tree Board had met again since the last Planning Commission meeting and went over the
issues that they considered particularly important [Listed in attachment 2].
John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, spoke in support of the policies
and action items - specifically, recommended action measure 2.2.v (page 5 of Floyd's memo
of 4/14) where the word "removals"is replaced by the words "permitted removals." He also
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 21,2008—Page 2
1:1LRP114%Doreen1PC1PC Minutes 2008%4-21-08 Plannhp Comirassion Minutes.doc
•
spoke about the definition of "understory" — that it should say "immediately under, or
immediately adjacent to, trees or canopies."
Kandace Horlings, 14525 SW Chesterfield Ln., Tigard, OR 97224, identified herself as a
Tree Board member. She said that committees can never make everyone happy. She said she
works as a landscaper and she spoke about rules. She said, even as a landscaper, she has to
get permits at times. She does not believe the Tree Board is working against developers. She
commented that what is in place now is not going to work 30 or 40 years from now. She
noted that this is a broad document, by design. She would like to see the HBA (Home
Builders Association) members and interested public citizens sit down with the Tree Board.
She reiterated that this is a starting point and the Tree Board is willing to listen.
Tony Tycer, 10655 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223, spoke about understory vegetation.
He said his concern is more aimed towards the soil, as he believes that is more relevant. He
commented that these policies are deliberately very broad.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY- IN OPPOSITION:
Alan Deharpport, 5740 SW Arrowwood Lane, Beaverton, OR 97225, was concerned
about the wording.. He wants to add to the following language as a recommendation on
2.3.4: "...while minimizing the financial impact to the property owner." He said there are
hundreds of thousands of dollars in tree mitigation fees that the underlying property owner
typically pays. He said that's a straightforward addition to the language that would allow the
writers of the code to come up with a mitigation standard that would not be onerous to the
underlying property owner. In addition, he was concerned that the definition of mitigation
came within a week's notice of the vote — he thought that was too fast for everyone affected
by this to make a judgment. He requested another continuance to take into account the
many people who would be affected by these policies. He expressed concern about
mitigation fees. He noted his concern that citizens were not notified. He also noted that the
wording "proportional to the loss" is nebulous. He wondered what proportional means...
does it mean tree for tree? Inch for inch?" He expressed concern about the wording of the
document. He said the code writers should have leeway.
Bill McMonagle, 8740 SW Scoffins St., Tigard, OR 97223, gave a scenario where a
property was devalued simply because it had trees on it. He believes that's wrong. He said
trees are going to be the dictator of the functional use of land. He was concerned about the
understory issue. He believes the City should not be "in their backyard."
Kevin Luby, 16497 SW 103 ,Tigard, OR 97223, said there is a dichotomy between
developers and subsequent occupancy. He discussed the developer's side. He agreed with
previous testimony that the mitigation fee schedule is unfair. It doesn't take into account the
realistic life expectancy of trees. As far as "subsequent occupancy"—he said his ability to
decide when the useful life of his own trees is done and when he wants to replace those trees
should be his own decision. He was further concerned about requiring permits to take down
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 21,2008—Page 3
IALRPUADoreenV,ClPC Minutes 20084-21-08 Planning Commission Minutes doc
4110
trees, he said the City would have the right to deny that permit and he has a problem with the
City having that kind of control over his property. Among other things, he expressed
concern over the vagueness of the definition "understory vegetation" and was concerned
about the idea of mitigation fees on private property. The question was asked if he had any
suggestions on how to improve on the idea of"understory." He said, 'Delete it."
Walt Knapp, 7615 SW Dunsmuir, Beaverton, OR 97007, identified himself as an arborist
& forester of 47 years. He spoke specifically to the question of "understory". He
encouraged the City to drop all references to it because it has no "handles" that can be
scientifically supported.
Ken Gerts, 19200 SW 46th Tualatin OR,introduced himself as a long-time Oregonian. The
written form of his comments is Attachment 4.
James McCauley, 15555 Barley Rd., Lake Oswego, OR 97035, of the HBA
(Homebuilders Association) stated that he believes a major error regarding the Tree Board is
that there does not appear to be a broad range of interests represented. He said he believes
policy 2.3.1 is a horrible piece of language from a private landowner's point of view. He
spoke to the issue of"understory" — he agreed that there is no scientific evidence regarding
this. On policy 2.3.4—he believes "balance" is a better word than "minimize."
Craig Brown, 16074 SW 103rd, Tigard, OR 97224 expressed concern over policy 2.2.4. He
said the intent was not clear. In recommended action measure 1.1.iv—he wondered whether
the City will be doing our landscaping now. He does not understand what the provision
implies. 2.3.1 —believes it's overreaching.As to 2.3.1a—he wonders whose standard this is
going to be. What is proportional impact? It's very subjective and he's concerned how that
will be applied. 2.3.2 with regard to "subsequent occupancy." He's concerned about the City
going into people's yards changing things. He questioned the definition of mitigation. He
questioned the term "understory vegetation". He said if property is zoned residential,it's
residential. If you add penalties and punitive policies, that keeps it from being developed that
way, and you are not providing for reasonable development.
Jeff Caines,8196 SW Hall Blvd.,#232,Beaverton, OR 97008,identified himself as a land-
use planner and said he was speaking in support of the changes of the builders. He
encouraged the City to be very careful in adopting policies and to pay attention to the fact
that these policies have a great effect on the citizens. When you adopt policies be very careful
—it may start to infringe on private property owners rights.
Roger Anderson, 10120 SW Kable, Tigard, OR 97223, said he'd only heard a week or so
ago that the City was working on this tree thing and that it would affect every citizen in
Tigard who own houses and trees. He was especially concerned about "non-development
trees" and "subsequent occupancy". He suggested the City take these two phrases
completely out of the policy wording. He said he believes this is overkill. He wondered why
the City cares about private homeowners trees. He believes the ordinance is ridiculous. He
thinks it would actually cause people to hate trees since they will have no control over them.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 21,2008—Page 4
IALRPLIADoreen‘PC\PC Minutes 2008W-21-08 Planning Commission Minutes doc
•
And then they'd have to pay for a permit to take trees down on their own property. He
believes if the City wants to control his property, then they should buy it.
Steve Roper, 196 SW Hall Blvd. #232,Beaverton, OR 97008, said the others who had
spoken in opposition had pretty much said what he believes as well. He spoke about
affordable housing. He said adding tree mitigation adds to the price of those homes. He
spoke about the lack of developer input into the Tree Board. He felt the Tree Board wasn't
really interested in his take on things.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED
There was a 5-minute break.
DELIBERATION: 9:53PM
President Inman explained that the deliberation time is a time for the Planning
Commissioners to deliberate and that, at this point, they would not be entertaining questions
or comments from the audience. The public testimony time had officially closed.
After much deliberation, the Planning Commission came up with the following revisions (not
in order of the text) to be taken into consideration of the motion that follows:
1. Strike all reference to the term "understory vegetation" throughout the
document and remove the definition.
2. 2.3.1—strike reference to "all development and non-development related tree
removal" and substitute the language "The City shall develop and implement
standards and procedures designed to minimize impacts on existing tree
cover,with priority given to native trees and non-native varietals that are long
lived and/or provide a broad canopy spread."
3. 2.3.1a—"In prescribing the mitigation of the impacts of development, the City
shall give priority to preservation of existing trees and shall consider the
financial impacts of mitigation."
4. Changed definition of mitigation. Everything is the same except after the
word compensated—strike everything—and put "as appropriate".
5. 2.3.2 changed to "The City shall develop policies and procedures designed to
protect trees,including root systems, selected for preservation during land
development."
6. 2.3.4—remove the word "require" and substitute "develop."
7. 2.2.9—use the word "discourage."
8. 2.2.v—The word "removals"was struck but will be reinstated as "permitted
removals."
9. Definition of a "hazard tree"will be reviewed in the ISA definition and will be
held open until the next meeting for potential amendment at that time.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 21,2008—Page 5
1:11APINIDoreen1PC1PC Minutes 2008W-21-08 Planning Cornmssion Minutes doc
• •
Commissioner Walsh made the following motion, seconded by Commissioner Doherty:
"I move that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to
the City Council on application case number CPA2008-00002 for the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan update pertaining to Tigard Urban Forest and adoption of the
revisions that the group just reviewed [above] and approval of the staff report and
public testimony presented and received. I further move that the definition of
"hazardous tree" be revised based upon ISA definition and that that issue be left
open for future review and approval by the Planning Commission."
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, Inman,Muldoon,Vermilyea, and Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
EXCUSED: Anderson
6. OTHER BUSINESS -
President Inman reminded the commissioners that this issue would go to City Council for a
May 6 workshop and a June 3 hearing.
7. ADJOURNMENT
President Inman adjourned the meeting at 11:48p.m.
Doreen Laughlin,Administrativ'epecialist II
ATTEST: President Jodie Inman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 21,2008—Page 6
IALRPLNDoreeMPCIPC Minutes 20084-21-08 Planning Commission Minutes.doc
John Floyd •
From: John Frewing [jfrewing@teleport.com] ATTACHMENT 1
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 5:12 PM
To: John Floyd
Cc: SBeilke@europa.comm; Gillis, Janet
Subject: April 10 Comments on Urban Forest Comp Plan Amendment
John,
The comments in the next paragraph below are intended to supplement the comments which I made at the Planning
Commission hearing on April 7; I understand that the public hearing was continued until April 21 to allow parties and
interested persons additional time to review the recently received proposed changes. Recall that at the April 7 phase of
the hearing, I emphasized several issues as follows: 1) make development of the Urban Forestry Master Plan (action
measure 2.2i) a policy rather than an action measure, 2) provide a legislative basis for regulation of trees outside the
development approval process (covered by policy 2.3.1, which I did not notice until later in the meeting), 3) clarify the
definition of'understory' vegetation to clearly include buffer areas around trees or tree groves where important for the
protection of tree health and associated healthy soil conditions, 4) include in policy 2.2.1 a mandate to create overlay
zones where important tree species or tree groves currently exist which should be more stringently preserved for the
beneficial development of a heritage urban forest for Tigard, 5) provide in policy 2.2.7 a legislative basis for broader uses•
of tree fines and migigation funds to protect and develop our urban forest(an idea first put forth by Tony Tycer at most
recent workshop between Tree Board and Planning Commission) and 6) extend policy 2.2.2 to include the concepts
discussed in the City of Portland discussion draft regarding interdepartmental coordination of permitting actions necessary
to protect trees.
Additionally, I would comment:
a) Policy 2.3.2. Modify to read 'The City shall require preservation, planting, aned/or replacement of understory vegetation
when it is important to protecting nearby existing trees before, during and after construction and occupancy; priority shall
be given to the preservation of native or existing understory vegetation that performs the following functions: . . . ' This
wording ('when it is important to') provides some definition for the purpose and extent of understory protections.
b)Action Measure 2.2.v. This action measure should be raised up to the importance of a policy. It is a key part of the
Urban Forest Management Plan, which would be impossible without an inventory.
c) The word 'removals' should be replaced by the words 'permitted approvals'. Such an inventory simply provides in one
place the already public record of tree removals, thereby not invading any person's privacy. This clarification need not
include the number/name of each tree removed, but simply the Tigard permit number under which one or more trees are
permitted to be removed.
d)Action Measure 2.2.v. The prior comp plan included protection for'timbered areas', which were shown on a comp plan
map but never used in development approval processes. The current plan omits any reference to'timibered areas' but
should --this inventory action measure is a good place to include this concept, perhaps as part of'the state of the City's
urban forest'.
e) Policy 2.3.4 should remain as it stands. Questions were raised on April 7 as to whether this could be applied to single
family residential development or whether street, sidewalk and building pad areas should be excluded. Concepts such as
ecoroofs, permeable pavers, etc are among the design features which could reduce impacts in residential developments.
f)General processes. As a Type IV proceeding, it seems that 390.060A requires a pre-application conference, which I do
not see in the record, which includes a number of Tree Board meetings. The procedural steps of 390.060 should all be
followed as well as the general requirements of 390.080.
g) Consistency Review(page 12/19 in staff report). The existing comp plan at policy 3.4.2.b requires that development
proposals in designated timbered or tree areas be reviewed through the planned development process to minimize the
number of trees removed. The current proposed comp plan policies do not comply with these former provisions. The
exact location of designated timbered or tree areas was shown on a map as part of the old comp plan, but new areas are
•
not updated and identified. The new cc plan provisions should at least give the 11 le protection as the old comp plan
for the (fewer) remaining treed areas in Milliard.
h) Consistency Review (page 12/19 in staff report). The existing comp plan at policy 3.4.2.c requires that cluster type
development be used in areas having important wildlife habitat value. It is widely acknowledged (eg METRO Goal 5
materials) that treed areas are important for wildlife habitat. The proposed comp plan policies do not comply with the
requirement for cluster type development in these treed areas. The new comp plan provisions should at least give the
same protection as the old comp plan for the (fewer) remaining treed areas in Tigard.
i) Consistency Review(page 12/19 in staff report). The existing comp plan at policy 3.4.2.a requires that trees and natural
vegetation along natural drainage courses be maintained to the'maximum extent possible'. The proposed comp plan
policies do not comply with this requirement to maintain these trees and natural vegetation to the'maximum extent
possible.' In fact, some have suggested that the new comp plan should only require'consideration' of saving such trees.
The new comp plan provisions should at least give the same protection of these trees as the old comp plan for the (fewer)
remaining treed areas in Tigard.
j) Consistency Review(page 18/19 in staff report). Staff response to Frewing's first comment re the observed practice of
thinning, and waiting the required year or two before removing all trees and then applying for development with no burden
of preserving trees says that the legislative basis is in policy 2.2.1 and 2.3.3. Policy 2.2.1 simply says that Tigard
regulations will be periodically reviewed/updated and 2.3.3 relates to hazard trees -- neither relates to the practice
Frewing referenced and which has been widely seen and dealt with by other jurisdictions in the METRO area. The
findings by staff are not based on any facts. A new policy should be added which clearly states that from the date of this
comp plan amendment adoption, Tigard will not tolerate the use of specified time wait periods to avoid tree protection
regulations at the time of development in the city.
k) Consistency Review (page 18/19 in staff report). The same objection to staff response as noted in comment j above is
made for the staff response for Frewing comment three (wording should provide basis for later development of regulations
requiring alternative analyses). The findings by staff are not based on any facts and do not address the subject of the
comment.
Please contact me if you have clarification questions on these commehts. Thank you.
John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 503-245-5760
2
411 111 ATTACHMENT 2
IIICity of Tigard
TIGARD Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: John Floyd,Associate Planner
Re: Recommendations from Tree Board for the April 21 Public Hearing
Date: April 18, 2008
On April 17th the Tree Board held a special meeting to discuss the Urban Forest Comprehensive
Plan Amendment currently under consideration by the Planning Commission. After discussing the
April 7 public hearing, and reviewing the packet distributed for the upcoming April 21st hearing, the
Tree Board directed staff to deliver the following recommendations for the Planning Commission's
consideration:
> The Board approves of the new definition for"Mitigation" as drafted by staff, and
recommends its adoption by the Planning Commission.
> The Board recommends the definition of"Understory Vegetation" be expanded to read as
follows: "Any tree, shrub or groundcover growing under a tree or forest canopy that
contributes to tree health and vitality."
> The Board recommends Policy 2.3.1a more closely resemble Policy 2.3.1,with the following
language inserted: "The City shall require mitigation for all development and non-
development related tree removal that is proportional to the impact,with priority given to
the preservation of existing trees over mitigation."
> The Board recommends the following word change in Policy 2.3.4: "The City shall require
develop and enforce site design and landscape requirements to reduce the aesthetic and
environmental impacts of impervious surfaces through the use of trees and other
vegetation."
•
ATTACHMENT 3
Tigard's Urban Forest
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
2008-00002
April 21 , 2008
John Floyd, Associate Planner
Todd Prager, Arborist
Changes from April 7
The following Policies and Recommended Action
Measures were amended or added: 2.2.1 , 2.2.2,
• 2.2.11, 2.2.i, 2.3.1, 2.3.1a, 2.3.2, 2.3.5
Two definitions were created or amended:
Mitigation and Understory
Staff requests clarification on Policy 2.2.9
regarding which option the Commission prefers
Additional comments were received from John
Frewing and the Tree Board (Public Comment
must be reopened to accept)
1
• •
Mitigation Defined
A process, standard, compensatory action,
or any other mechanism by which adverse
impacts can be avoided, minimized,
restored, or compensated at a level
proportional to the impact.
Unders_tory Defined
Any trees, shrubs or groundcover growing
under a tree or forest canopy.
Tree Board recommends:
Any trees, shrubs or groundcover growing
under a tree or forest canopy that
contributes to tree health and vitality.
2
z .
• •
,
Policy 2.2. 1
The City shall maintain and periodically
update policies, regulations and standards
to inventory, manage, preserve, mitigate the
loss of and enhance the community's tree
and vegetation resources to promote their
environmental, aesthetic and economic
benefits.
Policy 2.2.2
The City's various codes, regulations,
standards and programs relating to
landscaping, site development, mitigation,
and tree management shall be consistent
with, and supportive of, one another;
administration and enforcement shall be
regulated and coordinated by the variously
impacted departments.
3
• •
Policy 2.2.9
When possible and appropriate, the City shall
prohibit the use or retention of invasive trees and
other plants through the development review
process.
The Tree Board recommends:
•
The City shall discourage the use or retention of
invasive trees and other plants through the
development review process.
Policy 2.2. 11 (new)
The City shall develop and implement a
citywide Urban Forestry Management
Master Plan.
4
'
S 0
,
Recommended Action Measure 2.2.i
Develop and implement a comprehensive,
coordinated update and enhancement of all .
tree and associated understory vegetation
related regulations, standards, programs,
and plans.
Policy 2.3. 1 (split in two)
The City shall require all development and
non-development related tree removal to
minimize impacts on existing tree cover, with
priority given to native trees and non-native
varietals that are long lived and/or provide a
broad canopy spread before, during and
after construction and subsequent
occupancy. .
5
Policy 2.3. 1a (new)
The City shall require mitigation that is proportional
to the impact, with priority given to the preservation
of existing trees over mitigation.
Tree Board recommends:
The City shall require mitigation for all
development and non-development related tree
removal that is proportional to the impact, with
priority given to the preservation of existing trees
over mitigation.
Policy 2.3.2 (rewritten)
The City shall, in order to protect trees
during land development and subsequent
occupancy, ensure the protection or
installation of compatible understory
vegetation.
•
6
,
• •
Policy 2.3.5 (rewritten)
The City shall, in order to preserve existing
trees and ensure new trees will thrive, allow
and encourage flexibility in site design
through all aspects of development review.
Next Steps if Staff Recommendation
Accepted Tonight
Council Workshop: May 6, 2008
Council Hearing: June 3, 2008
7
• ATTACHMENT 4
Dear Ms. Jody Inman
Planning Commission
Et All.
RE: Memorandum to Planning Commission dated April 14, 2008
Thank you all for all your hard work on this sensitive matter. I have
reviewed the 4/4/08 Supplemental Comments and have the following
questions and comments.
Goal 2.2
.9 I agree with the Tree Board's recommendation to change "prohibit" to
"discourage".
.11 "The City shall develop and implement a citywide Urban Forestry
Master Plan. What exactly will the Management Master Plan do? Is it a
planting plan? It is not clear what is required of this plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES
I suggest adding the following item
xi: Develop a list of trees etc that do not need to be included in the tree
plan, including Ornamental low growing trees, like Japanese and lace leaf
maples and the like, Poplars, Arborvitae, Cotton Wood, and Alder that have
short lives and others that do not make a significant impact to warrant
protection in development areas. Obviously stream corridors and the like
could be treated differently if it makes sense to do so.
Goal 2.3
1. The City shall require all development and non-development related tree -e 5joe
removal etc. #0 .s tw___--( ,r) 14..)
Just a question, does this add mitigation to private individual lot owners?
Won't that restrict remodeling? Is that the intention? The opportunities to
mitigate on individual lots are limited at best. I think this is overkill, and too
much Big Brother. Exclusions should be made for the individual
homeowner.
1. What exactly does Minimize mean? Does it mean don't cut any trees,
half the trees, or we can add after "on existing tree cover" that can be
• •
reasonably expected to survive after improvements have been done and will
present no hazard to public or property.
1. Non-native varietals? Are these trees or shrubs & bushes? What
exactly do you mean? If shrubs and bushes or anything other than trees are
to be included, I suggest you postpone that for a future opportunity to give
the public a chance to study that.
yt‘A.k.ac Oa st
2. UNDERSTORY VEGITATION: do not understand this one. Can
e
you imagine a residential or commercial building with preserved understory
vegetation in their front yard? That's not a yard, it's an eyesore. Nobody
wants Salal, Goose Berries and Hawthorn and the like in their landscape. CC _
Please add "In ecological corridors," The City shall... and keep the
developable property out of it or add provisions for traditional landscaping
people want. k 4/1„(p ..ak
4. This is open ended. ADD: and provide clear achievable goals given id hir=
the type of development proposed.
8. I view this as a threat to all development, with the potential to stop any
development with more than one tree on it. A provision needs to be in place /
-
that balances tree preservation with the right of the property owners to 4 cf5,t)
develop their property to the current zoning standard for that property. An
owner should not be denied the complete use of their land to save trees that
can be replanted without complete compensation for their loss,just as in
eminent domain cases. There is no difference between taking a person's
property for a road or taking it to save trees. It is injurious to the landowner
in either case.
Please add the following: and groves instead of isolated specimens",
while allowing for the full development of the property to its legal
potential."
The HBA has made it clear that the property owner's rights need to be
protected as well as the trees.
I would like to give you an example:
Your 75-year-old mother has 2/3 of an acre and an old house that can
be developed into 3 lots, she could sell it for $300,000 to $400,000,
which she could use to pay for her living at a nice retirement apartment.
However, if there were a grove of trees on it, she would have just one lot
• •
and an old house with little value. Don't you think she deserves
compensation for her property? I do.
Hazard Tree definition: The wording of this definition does not meet
accepted International Society of Arboriculture Standards. Additionally, as
we are dealing with future improvements to be constructed around any tree,
please replace "the tree or any part of the tree is likely to fall and injure
persons or property etc." with "the tree is likely to fall fail and injure persons
or damage property either existing or potential, and where pruning or other
commonly accepted arboriculture practices treatments will not significantly
alleviate the hazard."
An Observation:
What has not been addressed is the vast expense to the county and
state of urban sprawl caused by inefficient use of property within the Urban
Growth Boundary. A great deal of expertise, time and money has been spent
to develop the current zoning and limit urban sprawl. The current thought
seems bent on throwing this work out and adding to Urban Sprawl. Every
building, parking spot, home or apartment unit that is not developed to plan,
is another unit that needs to be built on farm land at the edge of the UGB,
and results in a greater distance people have to commute. The demand for
growth does not stop. This is contrary to the logical plan of the UGB and of
both energy and natural resource consumption. The more we spread out, the
more farming land, forest, watershed and wildlife are impacted.
It takes a great deal more resources, both current and future to develop
outlying properties than it does to develop infill property.
In conclusion:
I
• •
I suggest including as one of the primary goals under Goal 2.2
.12 The City shall require mandatory developing of urban property to its
reasonable maximum potential.
Ken Gertz
Tigard Planning Commission - Roll Call
Hearing Date:
Starting Time: 1:0 < fitk
COMMISSIONERS: Jodie Inman (President)
Tom Anderson
Rex Cattail
Margaret Doherty
Z. Karen Fishel
Stuart Hasman
Matthew Muldoon
Jeremy Vermilyea
David Walsh
STAFF PRESENT:
Dick Bewersdorff Tom Coffee
Gary Pagenstecher i- 'Ron Bunch
Cheryl Caines V John Floyd
Emily Eng Duane Roberts
Kim McMillan Sean Farrelly
Gus Duenas 1/Darren Wyss
Phil Nachbar Maxissa Daniels
ck cky
• •
2/7
Tigard Planning Commission 6\tAn
Agenda Item # S. I Page of 3 Date of Hearing 1-+ t -02
Case Number(s) 0000 2,
Case Name • , or - a• r\
Location
If you would like to speak on this item, please PRINT your name,
address, and zip code below:
Proponent (for the proposal): Opponent (against the proposal):
Name: -0-atj4- 6 ,(-( Name:
Address: t .711 4d` 1)A.Ci-e-- Address:76 IS SAWA
City, State, Zip:17 ?7213 City, State, Zip:tokediin Ok 407
Name:
6e74-"E
Address: 1 10 ..fo t--01--1=4 Address: / C
r
City, State, Zip: f\ 449 City, State, Zip: rce_c, 0C9f)=,
(
Name. A Name:
WOO D E/-1 AR-
Address: qi ti-0 Ap,rbou.44)0:043 ou Address:
City, State, Zip: Dc)(07-1,14.4, 4172,2 City, State, Zip:
Name:,)//,,,10/42/1a-4C Name:
Address87940 Address:
City, State, Zip:/7- 64VA_ , City, State, Zip:
Name: Name:
Address: ((.4 rei SLA.) ) 6 200-A Address:
City, State, Zip: 1/4-•(""\. .9 cr7 `77, City, State, Zip:
. .•
0
•
Fi
Tigard Planning Commission
_
Agenda Item # S. I Page of. 3 Date of Hearing 'Li
Case Number(s) CPA'? -ono02__
Case Name CO d\&_ c--)\o cte cJc
Location CAk-- bin\
If you would like to speak on this item, please PRINT your name,
address, and zip code below:
Proponent (for the proposal): Opponent (against the proposal):
Name: le as 7/1 6,-7 Name:
Address:
Address:
City, State, Zip. City State Zip:4k_ iy
Name: Name:
6/21-/G ito
Address: (co 7.4 cf ()
City, State, Zip: _.nc City, State, Zip:
1-1 Z-V
Name: cre ca 45, Name:
Address: e,„ 131v. h/2_52, Addr,
City, State, Zip: 8e,, q20(76 City, State, Zip:
Name: Name:
Address: 1Iiã 5 :VI, \Kc.),)
City, State, Zip: s City, State, Zip:
)-1D
Name: scize, 2f2,„ Name:
OLVD412
Address: IP/Do SO
City, State, Zip: • XV068 City, State, Zip:
"%■116$
•
Tigard Planning Commission „
Agenda Item # . I Page of_3_ Date of Hearing 2-4 -a -01
Case Number(s) C 2-00'g — 0 0
Case Name C_b aVA-coAe--7\--"ceK_4\3 (-1.r‘Oat-eN CC--,S A--
Location C,c-OAs (As ■.
If you would like to speak on this item, please PRINT your name,
address, and zip code below:
Proponent (for the proposal): Opponent (against the proposal):
Name: 7-0 Name:
Address: t G 144-" Address:
City, State, Zip: -TA eviA-11 ON- oil City, State, Zip:
Name:
‘4 n) Name:
Address:/9s-2 to a-161 je.„/„4.614/24/ Address:
City, State, Zip: V-774,44,6 dx: 972 y City, State, Zip:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
•
City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip:
•
• 5
111 . City of Tigard
TIGARD Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: John Floyd, Associate Planner
Re: Supplemental Memorandum regarding Urban Forest Comprehensive Plan
Amendment CPA2008-00002
Date: April 14, 2008
BACKGROUND
On April 7th the Planning Commission opened a Public Hearing to consider CPA2008-00002
(Tigard's Urban Forest). Rather than take final action, the Planning Commission continued the
item until April 21st to allow staff time to respond to comments and suggestions provided by the
Commission. Recommended changes, as prepared by Staff, are below. For a full discussion of this
item, please refer to the Staff Report presented to the Planning Commission on April 7, 2008. A
copy of the packet material has been included for the your reference.
REQUESTED CHANGES
Requested language changes have been made to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
attached to this memorandum as Exhibit "A", and are summarized below for quick reference.
Recommended deletions are indicated with a striketkreugh and new language bolded and
underlined. Please note that policy numbers were changed between the March 17th workshop and
the April 7th public hearing due to a reformatting of the document, the text remains the same unless
identified by the markings discussed above.
POLICIES AND ACTION MEASURES
2.2.1 The City shall maintain and periodically update policies, regulations and standards to
inventory, manage, preserve, mitigate the loss of, and enhance the community's tree
and vegetation resources to promote their environmental, aesthetic and economic
benefits.
Staff Commentag: Language was inserted to Jpecfically require the CO, to maintain and
periodically update mitigation policies, regulations and standards as requested ly the Planning
Commission.
„.
• •
2.2.2 The City's various codes, regulations, standards and programs relating to landscaping,
site development, mitigation, and tree management shall be consistent with, and
supportive of, one another; administration and enforcement shall be regulated and
coordinated by the variously impacted departments.
Staff Commentag: Language was inserted to specifically reference mitigation.
2.2.11. The City shall develop and implement a citywide Urban Forestry Management
Master Plan.
Staff Commentag: This language was removed from Polig 2.2.i and incorporated into a new Polig
as requested by the Planning Commission.
2.2.i. Develop and implement a comprehensive, coordinated update and enhancement of
all tree and its-seeiateel understory vegetation related regulations, standards,
programs, and plans, including the development of a citywide Urban Forestry
- - - ; - - - •- -- ; : - - - - - ; - - -
• •;
City action3 regarding the Urban Forc3t.
Staff Commentag: This language was removed and incorporated into a new Polig as requested by
the Planning Commission
2.3.1 The City shall require all development and non-development related tree removal to
minimize impacts on existing tree cover, with priority given to native trees and non-
native varietals that are long lived and/or provide a broad canopy spread before,
during and after construction and subsequent occupancy; removal of trees shall be
mitigated, with priority given to the preservation of existing trees over mitigation.
Staff Commentag: For purposes of clarification, this language was removed from Polig 2.3.1 and
incorporated into a new Polig as requested by the Planning Commission.
2.3.1a The City shall require mitigation that is proportional to the impact, with
priority given to the preservation of existing trees over mitigation.
Staff Commentag: For purposes of clarification, this language was removed from Polig 2.3.1 and
incorporated into a new Polig as requested by the Planning Commission.
1110 •
2.3.2 Thc City shall protect majer require preservation, planting, and/or replacement of
undcrstory vegetation associated with protected trees i3 protected in order to protect
existing trees before, during, and after construction and occupancy; This protection
a. Maintenance of soil health, plant communities, and hydrologic regimes necessary
for the associated trees to thrive;
b. Habitat for fish and wildlife;
c. Water quality enhancement; and
d. Soil and Erosion Control.
The City shall, in order to protect trees during land development and
subsquent occupancy, ensure the protection or installation of compatible
understory vegetation.
Staff Commentary: There was substantial debate at the April 7 hearing regarding the meaning and
intent of this polig. Staff recommends the above language for it's clarity of meaning and purpose.
2.3.5 The City shall allow and encourage consideration of appropriate flexibility in site
occur and where better tree cover and canopy will result, particularly for through the
.-- • - - •- ; ••-.. ; - • -; . • - • ; - - ; - ; -
deciduous varieties.
The City shall, in order to preserve existing trees and ensure new trees will
thrive, allow and encourage flexibility in site design through all aspects of
development review.
Staff Commentary: This polig was restructured by staff to accomplish two purposes. The first was to
clearly state the purpose of the polig. The second is to broadly include flexible in all aspects of
development review as the Planning Commission requested language ipect:fring the availability of such
flexibility in both Type II and Type III procedures.
DEFINITIONS
Mitigation - A process, standard, compensatory action, or any other mechanism by
which adverse impacts can be avoided, minimized, restored, or compensated at a level
proportional to the impact.
Staff Commentary: This language was added at the request of the Commission. It is broadly inclusive
regarding means while better defining the intent.
•
• 40
Understory Vegetation — Any plants trees, shrubs or groundcover growing under a tree or
forest canopy.
Staff Commentag: The original and revised language is adapted from a broad spectrum of academic
and scientific sources that generally demonstrate a consistent simplicio and broadness. As a result
staff recommends a broadly inclusive definition or more direction from the Commission regarding their
concerns or desired applicability.
ERRATA
Please note the presence of a typo on page 18 of the Staff Report for the April 7 hearing. On page
18 several responses to comments reference policies 2.2.1 and 2.3.3; this should in fact reference
Draft Policies 2.2.1 and 2.3.1 instead.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Staff received an email from John Frewing on April 10, 2008 which both summarizes and
supplements verbal comments made at the April 7 hearing. Excerpts of this email and staff
responses are below:
"1) make development of the Urban Forestry Master Plan (action measure 2.2i) a policy
rather than an action measure"
Staff Response: Exhibit "A"has been revised in a manner consistent with this comment.
"2) provide a legislative basis for regulation of trees outside the development approval
process (covered by policy 2.3.1, which I did not notice until later in the meeting)"
Staff Response: Comment noted.
"3) clarify the definition of'understory' vegetation to clearly include buffer areas around
trees or tree groves where important for the protection of tree health and associated healthy
soil conditions"
Staff Response: Comment noted. Research by staff has found the term understog to generally refer to plants
under tree canopy, and not around it. In addition, the area under a trees canopy is that part of the root zone
most sensitive to change and as a result is most critically in need of protection. Areas beyond the understog
will remain subject to review under landscape plans required in Draft Polig 2.3.6
"4) include in policy 2.2.1 a mandate to create overlay zones where important tree species or
tree groves currently exist which should be more stringently preserved for the beneficial
development of a heritage urban forest for Tigard"
I 1111
Staff Response:Staff recommends against the inclusion of such specificity as many regulatog choices are
available to the City, with no one particular method evaluated for its appropriateness to Tigard.
"5) provide in policy 2.2.7 a legislative basis for broader uses of tree fines and mitigation
funds to protect and develop our urban forest (an idea first put forth by Tony Tycer at most
recent workshop between Tree Board and Planning Commission)"
Staff Response: See response to comment#4 above.
"6) extend policy 2.2.2 to include the concepts discussed in the City of Portland discussion
draft regarding interdepartmental coordination of permitting actions necessary to protect
trees."
Staff Response: This request is generally satiOed through Polig 2.2.2 and staffs response to comment#4
above. These concepts are included in documents included in this packet as Attachment 3 to this
Supplemental Memorandum.
"a) Policy 2.3.2. Modify to read 'The City shall require preservation, planting, and/or
replacement of understory vegetation when it is important to protecting nearby existing trees
before, during and after construction and occupancy; priority shall be given to the
preservation of native or existing understory vegetation that performs the following
functions: . . . ' This wording ('when it is important to') provides some definition for the
purpose and extent of understory protections."
Staff Reiponse: Comment noted. Staff has provided alternative language for the Board's review, though
encourages the Commission to consider the suggested language.
"b) Action Measure 2.2.v. This action measure should be raised up to the importance of a
policy. It is a key part of the Urban Forest Management Plan,which would be impossible
without an inventory."
Staff Response: Comment noted. Staff recommends against such JpeaficOr at the Polig level, with the scope
of the Master Plan left to future deliberation 1g the Cig.
"c) The word 'removals' should be replaced by the words 'permitted approvals'. Such an
inventory simply provides in one place the already public record of tree removals, thereby
not invading any person's privacy. This clarification need not include the number/name of
each tree removed, but simply the Tigard permit number under which one or more trees are
permitted to be removed."
Staff Response: Comment noted. Should the Planning Commission wish to consider this alternative
language, it would not change the underlying concern expressed by the Planning Commission on March 17th
and April 7th as permit information is already public record.
•
"d) Action Measure 2.2.v. The prior comp plan included protection for 'timbered areas',
which were shown on a comp plan map but never used in development approval processes.
The current plan omits any reference to 'timbered areas' but should -- this inventory action
measure is a good place to include this concept, perhaps as part of'the state of the City's
urban forest'."
Staff Response: The draft Goals and Policies in Exhibit 'A"do not conflict with existingpolig 3.4.2.b.
"e) Policy 2.3.4 should remain as it stands. Questions were raised on April 7 as to whether
this could be applied to single family residential development or whether street, sidewalk and
building pad areas should be excluded. Concepts such as ecoroofs, permeable pavers, etc are
among the design features which could reduce impacts in residential developments."
staffReiponse: Comment noted
"f) General processes. As a Type IV proceeding, it seems that 390.060A requires a pre-
application conference, which I do not see in the record, which includes a number of Tree
Board meetings. The procedural steps of 390.060 should all be followed as well as the
general requirements of 390.080."
StaffReiponse:A pre-application meeting was held on Februag 21, 2008 as required by the Development
Code. Staff has made a good faith effort to comply with procedural steps outlined in 18.390.060 and
18.390.080.
c`g) Consistency Review (page 12/19 in staff report). The existing comp plan at policy
3.4.2.b requires that development proposals in designated timbered or tree areas be reviewed
through the planned development process to minimize the number of trees removed. The
current proposed comp plan policies do not comply with these former provisions. The
exact location of designated timbered or tree areas was shown on a map as part of the old
comp plan, but new areas are not updated and identified. The new comp plan provisions
should at least give the same protection as the old comp plan for the (fewer) remaining treed
areas in Tigard."
Staff Reiponse: The proposed Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies, and Recommended Action Measures do
not conflict with existing Comprehensive Plan Polig 3.4.2.b referenced above.
"h) Consistency Review (page 12/19 in staff report). The existing comp plan at policy
3.4.2.c requires that cluster type development be used in areas having important wildlife
habitat value. It is widely acknowledged (eg METRO Goal 5 materials) that treed areas are
important for wildlife habitat. The proposed comp plan policies do not comply with the
requirement for cluster type development in these treed areas. The new comp plan
provisions should at least give the same protection as the old comp plan for the (fewer)
remaining treed areas in Tigard."
,
Staff Reiponse: Please refer to staff reponse to comment r above.
i) Consistency Review (page 12/19 in staff report). The existing comp plan at policy 3.4.2.a
requires that trees and natural vegetation along natural drainage courses be maintained to the
'maximum extent possible'. The proposed comp plan policies do not comply with this
requirement to maintain these trees and natural vegetation to the 'maximum extent
possible.' In fact, some have suggested that the new comp plan should only require
'consideration' of saving such trees. "The new comp plan provisions should at least give the
same protection of these trees as the old comp plan for the (fewer) remaining treed areas in
Tigard."
Staff Reiponse: The proposed language is consistent with existing polig 3.4.2 through Draft Polig 2.2.3
that supports existing regulations that enforce land use standards along natural drainage courses as required
in the existing Comprehensive Plan, and Draft Polig 2.3.1 that requires all development and non-
development related tree to removal to minimize impacts to tree cover.
"j) Consistency Review (page 18/19 in staff report). Staff response to Frewing's first
comment re the observed practice of thinning, and waiting the required year or two before
removing all trees and then applying for development with no burden of preserving trees
says that the legislative basis is in policy 2.2.1 and 2.3.3. Policy 2.2.1 simply says that Tigard
regulations will be periodically reviewed/updated and 2.3.3 relates to hazard trees -- neither
relates to the practice Frewing referenced and which has been widely seen and dealt with by
other jurisdictions in the METRO area. The findings by staff are not based on any facts. A
new policy should be added which clearly states that from the date of this comp plan
amendment adoption, Tigard will not tolerate the use of specified time wait periods to avoid
tree protection regulations at the time of development in the city."
Staff Reiponse: Staff recommends against such specificity, as noted in previous staff roponses above.
Additionally, this scenario would be prohibited under existing draft policies, if not specifically mentioned.
As stated in the Staff Report prepared for the April 21g meeting, Policies 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 provide the
legislative basis by which existing codes can be implemented and/or amended to prevent clearcutting prior to
development. In addition, Polig 2.3.1 requires development related tree removal to minimize impacts on
existing tree cover, while Policies 2.3.6 and 2.3.9 requires all developments to prepare and implement a tree
preservation plan that must be reviewed and approved by a City employed arborists.. As a result of this
polig, clearcutting would not be allowed until the property owner had demonstrated that tree removal had
been minimized
k) Consistency Review (page 18/19 in staff report). The same objection to staff response as
noted in comment j above is made for the staff response for Frewing comment three
(wording should provide basis for later development of regulations requiring alternative
analyses). The findings by staff are not based on any facts and do not address the subject of
the comment.
, .
0'
Staff Response: Comment noted. Staff recommends against such specificio, as noted in previous staff
responses above and that existing policies such as 2.2.1 and 2.3.1 provide sufficient legislative basis should
the City choose this regulatog option. It should be noted that to require the submission of multiple
alternatives may be inconsistent with state law requiring the availability of clear and objective approval
criteria, and as a result this implementation option should be carefully deliberated and crafted at the time of
implementation.
ATTACHMENT:
EXHIBIT A: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN (REVISED APRIL 14, 2008)
EXHIBIT B: WRITTEN MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY JOHN FREWING AT THE
APRIL 7, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING (2 ISSUE PAPERS AND CITY OF
PORTLAND MEMORANDUM OF APRIL 3, 2008)
EXHIBIT C: WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY JOHN FREWING
FOLLOWING THE APRIL 7 PUBLIC HEARING (APRIL 10,2008)
• •
EXHIBIT "A"
Revised April 14, 2008
Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Tigard's Urban Forest
Background Statement and Goals, Policies, and Action Measures
Statewide Planning Goal 2: Community Design - Trees and Other Vegetation
A defining community feature of Tigard is its trees and the urban forest they create. Unlike
natural forests or managed timberland, Tigard's urban forest is a mosaic of native forest
remnants and planted landscape elements interspersed with buildings, roads and other
elements of the urban environment. The protection, management, and enhancement of this
resource is important not only for Tigard's aesthetic identify and sense of place, but for the
social, ecological, and economic services it provides to the community.
Overview
Trees and other types of vegetation are integral to the quality of Tigard's aesthetic,
economic, and natural environments. Plants provide variation in color, texture,line and form
that softens the hard geometry of the built environment. They also enhance the public and
private realm through the provision of shade from the sun and wind, providing habitat for
birds and wildlife, enhancing community attractiveness and investment, improving water
quality and soil stability, and promoting human health and well-being.
Tigard's trees and native plant communities have experienced significant disruption and
displacement, first by agriculture and logging in the 19th century, and by increasingly dense
urban development in the 20th Century. Competition from introduced invasive species such
as English ivy, reed canary grass, and Himalayan blackberries has made it difficult for
remaining native plant communities to thrive. However, remnant stands of native tree and
associated plant communities still remain within the City Limits. Trees are important
members and contributors to natural resource systems including upland habitat areas and
plant communities, and functioning riparian corridors including the Tualatin River, Fanno
Creek and its tributaries, and their adjacent flood plains and wetlands.
In addition to remnants of the native forest, Tigard possesses a large number of mature and
outstanding specimens of native and non-native trees planted when the area was rural
country-side in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Aerial photos demonstrate that
increasingly more trees were planted on both public and private property during a period of
large lot residential subdivision development from the late 1940's through the 1970's, many
of which survive to this day.
Community Values
Community attitude surveys reveal that Tigard Citizens place high value on the protection of
trees and are concerned about the impact of development upon existing tree resources.
Community surveys conducted in 2004 and 2006 show that residents value their
neighborhood as a suburban retreat, a place that allows for views of trees and other natural
areas. The 2006 Community Attitudes Survey found "the protection of trees and natural
resource areas" as rating the highest of all "livability" characteristics posed to the
CP12008-0002 Tigard's Urban Forest Public I featinj;Date:April 2 2008
1
11, •
EXHIBIT "A"
respondents, scoring 8.4 out of 10 points. Preservation of trees and other natural resources
scored higher on resident's livability index than neighborhood traffic (8.2), maintaining
existing lot sizes (7.8), pedestrian and bike paths (7.7), and compatibility between existing
and new development (7.6). A follow-up question contained in the 2007 survey revealed
that 84% of Tigard Residents supported regulations to protect existing trees, with only 6%
strongly disagreeing and 9% somewhat disagreeing. In addition, 90% of Tigard residents
thought the City should take the lead in preserving open space. These values are also shared
by residents of adjoining jurisdictions who maintain, or have begun significant updates to,
their tree protection ordinances.
Existing Tree Planting and Management Programs
The City of Tigard has been a Tree City, USA since 2001 because of aggressive programs to
plant trees on public property. In partnership with Clean Water Services, the City of Tigard
is in the early stages of a series of stream restoration and enhancement projects intended to
improve water quality, reduce erosion, and provide shade, structure and food sources to fish
and other wildlife. Projects currently underway within the City's floodplains and riparian
areas will result in the planting of approximately 100,000 native trees over a 10 year period
(Fiscal Years 2001-2011). Through volunteer projects, cooperative efforts with non-profits,
contract services, and the labor of Public Works crews, thousands of young trees are
annually planted on public property.
Not including restoration projects, the City's Public Works Department annually plants
approximately 250 new or replacement trees on public lands, distributes approximately 50
street trees each year to private property owners through the Street Tree Program, and plants
an addition 25 trees in celebration of arbor day. Native species are given preference and are
regularly planted along trails, riparian areas, and in new park and green space areas. The
objective is to increase the total number of trees, particularly in areas where summer shade is
desired such as picnic areas and next to sidewalks. Money is budgeted each year to maintain
new trees being established and to remove hazard trees located on public property. As more
public property is added and trees grow older, the number of hazard trees pruned or
removed each year will continue to grow. The level of new tree planting is limited by the
maintenance capacity of City work crews.
Existing Regulatory Environment
Conditions and circumstances have significantly changed since the adoption of Tigard's
Comprehensive Plan in 1983. Rapid urban development has resulted in a general perception
that the City has experienced a significant loss of tree canopy, and other vegetation essential
for wildlife habitat, erosion control, slope stability, water quality, air-quality, and community
aesthetics. Driving this perception are METRO land use regulations, failed annexation
efforts and changing market conditions resulting in higher density development than was
anticipated in 1983, further challenging the City to protect trees and canopy cover while
accommodating new development. Additionally, the City does not currently have a
comprehensive tree management and urban forest enhancement program to address these
issues in a unified and consistent manner. As a result there is general feeling among
residents, developers, and other stakeholders that the existing regulatory structure is not
adequate and hinders both the strategic protection of trees and the orderly urbanization of
the City.
CP/12008-0002 Tiganr.t. t_W2all I7orest Pub 1 leatin); Dale: ,.:ipni 21, 2008
2
. -
• 410 EXHIBIT "A"
The City has historically relied upon its Development Code to manage and protect trees on
private property, particularly heritage trees and those located within steep slopes, wetlands,
and other sensitive lands. Existing regulations require new development to protect and/or
replace existing trees wherever possible, to pay into a mitigation fund when trees are
removed, and to plant new street trees and landscape trees as part of all new construction.
In addition, trees within vegetated corridors surrounding wetlands, riparian corridors, and
other natural bodies of water are also protected by Clean Water Services as part of their
stormwater management program. These regulatory structures do not recognize or protect
existing trees outside of those areas, and offer little protection unless a development action is
pending, or prior conditions of development approval designated the affected tree(s) for
future protection. As a result, the existing regulatory structure does not encompass a
significant number of trees across the city, which may be removed by the property owner
without City consultation or permit. Additionally, because the City does not have a
comprehensive tree removal consultation or permit system, protected trees (such as street
trees) have been removed despite existing regulations or restrictions in force.
.- " a -- , " " ""•• - : - :a" : •': -
: - • - aa - - - : ": - •- - .-•
- •- - a — , - - - --.• - a • - - • : - -, :a: ; - -;-•
- :- • - a : -- - - ; :'; .; - - - -•• - ' "
etiltaftc-effiefit-rtregrafris,
KEY FINDINGS
• A defining community feature is Tigard's urban forest, a mosaic of native forest
remnants and planted landscape elements interspersed throughout the City.
• This urban forest provides social, economic, and ecological services that create
public and private value to residents,businesses, and visitors.
• Mature and well-managed trees provide the maximum public benefits.
• The City continues to allocate staff and resources to tree planting, tree maintenance,
and outreach activities. Additionally, new development is required to install street
trees,landscape trees, and trees for mitigation purposes.
• The existing urban forest continues to experience significant disruption and
displacement through the conversion of land to more intense urban land uses and
competition from invasive species.
• Existing tree regulations are dispersed throughout the code; applied by multiple
divisions in a non-unified and inconsistent manner; and sometimes conflicting
between different code sections.
• The City does not presently have a comprehensive and unified process to monitor
tree removal and enforce existing tree protections outside of development permit
review. Furthermore, landowners are not always aware of regulatory protections
applicable to their property or street trees adjacent to their property.
• Community attitude surveys reveal that Tigard residents place high value on the
protection of trees within the community, that they are concerned about the impact
of development upon existing tree resources, and are strongly in favor of a regulatory
structure that would protect additional trees.
03_42008-0002 Tigard's Urban Forest Public I lean* Date: Apr1121, 2008
3
411 • .
EXHIBIT "A"
GOAL 2.2: To enlarge, improve and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the
economic, ecological, and social benefits of trees and fraseeiateel understory vegetation.
POLICIES
1. The City shall maintain and periodically update policies, regulations and
standards to inventory, manage, preserve, mitigate the loss of and enhance
the community's tree and vegetation resources to promote their
environmental, aesthetic and economic benefits.
2. The City's various codes, regulations, standards and programs relating to
landscaping, site development, mitigation, and tree management shall be
consistent with, and supportive of, one another; administration and
enforcement shall be regulated and coordinated by the variously impacted
departments.
5, 3. The City shall continue to regulate the removal of trees, within
environmentally sensitive lands and on lands subject to natural hazards.
8, 4. The City shall ensure that street design and land use standards provide ample
room for the planting of trees and other vegetation, including the use of
flexible and incentive based development standards.
44 5. The City shall require the replacement and/or installation of new street trees,
unless demonstrated infeasible, on all new roads or road enhancement
projects. Trees should be planted within planter strips, or at the back of
sidewalks if planter strips are not feasible or would prohibit the preservation
of existing trees.
4-1 6. The City shall establish and enforce regulations to protect the public's
investment in trees and vegetation located in parks, within right-of-ways, and
on other public lands and easements.
44, 7. The City shall conduct an ongoing tree and urban forest enhancement
program to improve the aesthetic experience, environmental quality, and
economic value of Tigard's streets and neighborhoods.
4-5, 8. The City shall continue to maintain and periodically update approved tree lists
for specific applications and site conditions, such as street trees, parking lot
trees, and trees for wetland and riparian areas.
4-6, 9. When possible and appropriate,the City shall prohibit the use or retention
of invasive trees and other plants through the development review process.
CR42008-0002 Tiganl's Urban Foresi Public I leariltt; Date: Alm./21, 2008
4
. .
• EXHIBIT "A"
The Tree Board recommended the following language change as preferable to staff's
recommendation above.
The City shall prohibit discourage the use or retention of invasive trees and
other plants through the development review process.
4-87 10.The City shall require, as appropriate, the use of trees and other vegetation as
buffering and screening between incompatible uses.
11. The City shall develop and implement a citywide Urban Forestry
Management Master Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES
Develop and implement a comprehensive, coordinated update and
enhancement of all tree and associated understory vegetation related
regulations, standards, programs, and plans, including the development of a
citywide Urban Forestry Management Master Plan that will establish
Forest.
Develop and implement an inspection and enforcement program that will
ensure ongoing maintenance of trees and other vegetation required by
development approval, with particular attention to challenges introduced by
the change of ownership of affected properties.
Develop and implement an inspection and enforcement program that will
ensure non-development related tree management and removal complies with
the City's tree protection ordinances such as heritage trees, street trees, and
trees on sensitive lands.
iv. Inventory and evaluate street tree, parking lot and landscape area plantings
that have failed to thrive, and determine if 3trcet site conditions or
management practices can be modified, and/or if trees can be planted
elsewhere in the right of way, or on private property in order to satisfy
conditions of development approval or provide the benefits expected of
the original planting..
Develop and maintain, as part of the City's GIS and permit systems, a publicly
accessible inventory of tree plantings, removals, and the state of the City's
urban forest.
vi. Develop and distribute educational materials and programs regarding City
policies, regulations, and good arboricultural practices for the general public,
developers and city staff regarding tree planting, maintenance, and protection.
CP/12008-0002 Tigard's Urban Forest Pub&11 earinsDate: 21, 2008
5
• .
EXHIBIT "A"
Materials should be published in both paper and electronic media and in
multiple languages. Particular focus should be given to new property owners
who may be unfamiliar with the City's regulations and development related
restrictions affecting their property.
iii vii.Encourage and promote the removal of nuisance/invasive plants, and the
installation of trees and vegetation that are low maintenance, drought tolerant,
site appropriate, and require minimal chemical applications. Strategies could
include the production and distribution of approved tree lists to area nurseries,
landscaping companies, libraries and similar businesses and public resources.
xii viii.Utilize approved tree and plant lists that emphasize long lived evergreens,
broad-spreading deciduous varieties, and native species, but allow flexibility to
choose a wide variety of species that are proven suitable for local climate
conditions and for specific uses and locations.
iii ix. Encourage efforts by community groups and neighborhoods to plant trees
and undertake other projects, such as restoration of wetlands and stream
corridors.
xiv. x. Maintain a list of invasive plants, discourage the sale and propagation of these
plant materials within the City, promote their removal, and prevent their
reestablishment or expansion.
GOAL 2.3: To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-
designed urban development that minimizes the loss of existing trees and associated
understory vegetation, and to creates a living legacy for future generations.
POLICIES
3, 1. The City shall require all development and non-development related tree
removal to minimize impacts on existing tree cover, with priority given to
native trees and non-native v. arietals that are long lived and/or provide a
broad canopy spread before, during and after construction and subsequent
occupancy; removal of trees shall be mitigated, with priority given to the
preservation of existing trees over mitigation.
la. The City shall require mitigation that is proportional to the impact,with
priority given to the preservation of existing trees over mitigation.
4, 2. The City shall protect major require preservation, planting, and/or
replacement of undcrstory vegetation a3sociate€1 with protected trees is
protected in order to protect existing trees before, during, and after
construction and occupancy; Thi3 protection shall occur in such a manner that
CP,12008-0002 "1- ar1'.%. Urban Forest Public I I earing Dale: 2008
6
• . •
EXHIBIT "A"
the following functions shall be preserved: priority shall be given to the
preservation of native or existing tinders-tory vegetation that performs the
following functions:
. 6 - - - - - - - , - --.-- • -: - - - • a• - --
necessary for the associated trees to thrive;
b. Habitat for fish and wildlife;
c. Water quality enhancement; and
d. Soil and Erosion Control.
The City shall, in order to protect trees during land development and
subsquent occupancy, ensure the protection or installation of
compatible understory vegetation.
6, 3. The City shall address public safety concerns by ensuring ways to prevent and
resolve verified tree related hazards in a timely manner.
7, 4. The City shall require and enforce the mitigation of the aesthetic and
environmental impacts of impervious surfaces such as paved areas and
rooftops through the use of trees and other vegetation. The City shall
require and enforce site design and landscape requirements to reduce
the aesthetic and environmental impacts of impervious surfaces
through the use of trees and other vegetation.
9, 5. The City shall allow and encourage consideration of appropriate flexibility in
site design to allow tree preservation and planting in areas where survival will
more likely occur and where better trcc cover and canopy will result,
particularly for through the usc of trees that will grow large, including long
The City shall, in order to preserve existing trees and ensure new trees
will thrive, allow and encourage flexibility in site design through all
aspects of development review.
4-07 6. The City shall require all development, including City projects, to prepare and
implement a tree preservation and landscaping plan, with the chosen trees and
other plant materials appropriate for site conditions.
44 7. The City shall continue to cooperate with property owners, businesses, other
jurisdictions, agencies, utilities, and non-governmental entities to manage and
preserve street trees, wetlands, stream corridors, riparian areas, tree groves,
specimen and heritage trees, and other vegetation.
4-7, 8. The City shall require, as appropriate, tree preservation strategies that
prioritize the retention of trees in cohesive and viable stands and groves
instead of isolated specimens.
CP42008-0002 Tigard's Urban Fore.si Public I learinx Dale:April 21, 2008
7
• • .
EXHIBIT "A"
4-9,-9. Applications for tree removal and tree management plans shall be reviewed by
a certified arborist employed or under contract to the City.
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES
Develop and implement regulations, standards, and incentives to encourage
developers to transfer density, seek variances and adjustments necessary to
preserve trees and natural open space in a manner that exceeds the
requirements of the Development Code.
ii. Develop tree-mitigation regulations and standards to guide the City in
assessing fees or compelling compensatory action resulting from violation of
its tree protection standards and/or conditions of development approval.
Consideration shall be given to off-site mitigation on both public and private
lands, and the maintenance of a publicly accessible registry of mitigation sites
both historical and potential.
iii. Conduct surveys, workshops, and/or other public outreach strategies to
identify and implement an appropriate strategy and form for tree protection
regulations outside of the development review process.
iv. Encourage other jurisdictions operating within and adjacent to Tigard to
prepare and implement a tree preservation and landscaping plan as part of all
development and infrastructure projects.
Draft Comprehensive Plan Definitions
Hazardous Tree - a tree that is dead, declining, cracked, split, leaning, structurally
unsound, suffering from infestation or infection, or otherwise physically damaged or
impaired to the degree that it is clear the tree is likely to fall and injure persons or
property and where pruning or other treatments will not significantly alleviate the
hazard.
Invasive Species - Plants, animals, and microbes not native to a region, which when
introduced either accidentally or intentionally, out-compete native species for
available resources, reproduce prolifically, and dominate regions and ecosystems.
Because they often arrive in new areas unaccompanied by their native predators, they
can be difficult to control. Left unchecked, many have the potential to transform
entire ecosystems, as native species and those that depend on them for food, shelter,
and habitat disappear.
Mitigation - A process, standard, compensatory action, or any other
mechanism by which adverse impacts can be avoided, minimized, restored, or
compensated at a level proportional to the impact.
CP/12008-0002 Tigard's Urban Forest Publie flearing Date: 21, 2008
8
• • EXHIBIT "A"
Understory Vegetation — Any plants trees, shrubs or groundcover growing under a
tree or forest canopy.
Urban Forest - Broadly defined as all the trees within the City collectively.
Urban Forest, Diverse - An urban forest that contains a variety and abundance of
differing composition, structure, and function. Diversity in composition means
variation in species, genetics, abundance and age. Diversity in structure means
variation and abundance of vertical and horizontal arrangement, heterogeneity, forest
density, micro-climates, and visual quality. Diversity in function means variation and
abundance of ecological services, stages of succession, and value as green
infrastructure.
CP.-12008-0002 rign-ers Urban Forest Public I learinj;Date:April 21. 2008
9
•
Citywide Tree Project A
Policy Review and Regulatory Improvement
Issue Paper %61%1I EXHIBIT B
Trees, Utilities, and Infrastructure
ISSUE SUMMARY
The placement, installation, and maintenance of new or upgraded utility and infrastructure
facilities often occurs without sufficient regard to the location of existing trees. These activities
can potentially damage and destroy trees. In addition, trees are sometimes planted too close to
existing utility and infrastructure facilities which can result in root or branch encroachment.
Such damage could require removal of the tree and/or utility in the future.
BACKGROUND
New development requires installation of utilities and infrastructure facilities. Besides traditional
elements such as electric and telephone lines, water and sewer pipes, sidewalks and pavement,
room must be found for newer elements such as bike lanes, stormwater swales and cable. Due
to the limited space available, it may not be feasible to preserve trees. In addition, utilities can
be installed too close to trees that are supposed to be preserved.
Repairing or retrofitting infrastructure and utilities in existing neighborhoods can harm trees.
Installation or expansion of utilities and rights-of-ways for inf ill development also has the
potential to affect trees. Road or sidewalk widening, stormwater swale construction,
replacement of water mains and clogged sewers can damage tree roots or lead to tree removal.
As trees grow, they can pose a risk to adjacent utilities and a cost to the city and private
property owners. At the same time, larger trees become more valuable as they provide greater
stormwater and other environmental functions. Tree root growth and the ultimate maximum tree
height are not always considered before new trees are installed in the right-of-way or on private
property. Branches can entangle overhead power lines and roots can enter and/or break sewer
pipes. Growing roots can buckle sidewalks and roadways. The ongoing clean-up of leaves,
fruit and nuts become responsibilities for the Bureau of Maintenance and the adjacent property
owners. The aesthetic values and environmental services that trees provide increase
dramatically with size, as do potential conflicts with existing or planned infrastructure and
utilities.
Finally, a lack of coordination during development review can exacerbate the conflicts between
trees and utility and infrastructure installation, maintenance and improvement. This lack of
coordination is examined in the Issue Paper entitled Coordinating Plan Review of Public/Private
Infrastructure.
DISCUSSION
The next section of this paper explores a number of situations where conflicts between trees,
utilities, and infrastructure facilities can occur.
Trees and Existing Infrastructure Improvements
Improvements to existing right-of-ways can result in removal of trees or construction-related
damage if utility and street work are not coordinated properly. A number of bureaus work in the
right-of-way and each issues its own permit. Therefore several different contractors may be
working around a tree at the same time, but each is subject to different requirements. Utility
work on private property does not typically address tree protection.
One common scenario is the need for incremental improvements in established neighborhoods
with substandard streets. New development and land divisions are the primary opportunity for
..
• • ,
the city to obtain frontage improvements. These frontage improvements can include sidewalks,
curbs, stormwater systems and planting strips. Upgrading streets to meet current standards for
frontage improvements often takes precedence over retaining trees. In some instances,
however, the Portland Office of Transportation (PDOT) has allowed alternative materials or
construction techniques to avoid damage to significant trees.
_
1 .
4
I 1 ,
*
•. - I
',.....-----...s.,.'r I:,■-•-,---,?.... I 1-- -
' .. --------
,-.
. ' II I I ' .. , i - ■
a;
It, 1 Di in
. .
_
, I . ..,....„--....- ,..,-„,:._ . • , . , ,_ _ _ ,., ,.. . k
t ,,r. .. 1 .4 TV: . •"-1--44:1....
#
I ; • ., , . . -
. # .,- •.4444 ' - -,,, ,----77-- --.. ,7--i-L-- , I'-
t- ' i
la 1 ' - 1 •----------T sT' - . v•
-1 ' 1' il'ai. , —, ' • ' ... 1
"' ..1A14.7 '41'4'.''II;
I ''''''17 -
:a ‘,/ .,71 ' 110":. ` ' ettPi.':
1. '1 i. 1 - . 1 ; ...t r.
P.
I , 0••
1
u- — 1
--- '
fir
H „ Om 4
1 - ' t
, . 1 -
. ,
—`iii; ..
Figure 1: Aerial view of SE Schiller-an unimproved roadway with extensive tree canopy
giving way to an improved right-of-way without trees.
As inf ill development continues, it becomes more challenging to meet utility and infrastructure
requirements while simultaneously protecting existing trees. This is, in part, due to the limited
space available for the new infrastructure. Figures 1 and 2 show an example on SE Schiller
where new development has resulted in a widened roadway, with sidewalks, planter strip and
driveways. The continuation of these improvements onto adjacent properties will require
substantial additional tree removal. It is worth noting that even though the land division review
process does not address off-site trees, PDOT's permitting process does require that trees
within 15 feet of the right of way to be identified on the plans, but not necessarily preserved.
`..",
1 OD
, r-a
4.
4. Illr *
.00 • '
-I- - r _ ..; .
,
. .. .
..
V. kf
I' .
. • , . _
,..., .,
P .... 0.: .....- ..., ..
;--
- -;.
. •, • .
. . .
-..
,
.......iimem." .."
alliborz, "'"-
-o-
Schiller St E - ' .... .:44%•.164,414, '''
' -
_ ■•14....".74.0t4,1.. '..:'':. ` ' =
,
2 Trees, Utilities and Infrastructure 4/3/08
•
Figure 2: SE Schiller looking east towards the unimproved section with a number of trees
adjacent to the roadway that will likely be removed as the properties are developed due
to street frontage improvements and the installation of utilities.
Street Trees and Sidewalks
Street trees planted in the public right-of-way are regulated by the Urban Forester in
coordination with PDOT. Maintenance costs, however, are borne by the adjacent property
owner who must obtain permits to plant, trim or remove a street tree. Where street
improvements and maintenance projects require the removal of tree branches to allow access
for road construction equipment, the adjacent land owner is responsible for the costs of the
actual pruning work.
If a public sidewalk is affected by roots from a tree, then a PDOT sidewalk inspector will require
the homeowner to repair the sidewalk. Unless the Portland Parks - Urban Forester requires
additional measures to protect street trees, roots may be cut and the new
sidewalk repaired without tree preservation in mind. If the Urban Forester limits
root cutting, the sidewalk will need to be formed around it. In some cases,
changes in sidewalk or driveway design (such as width, location, or alternate ,
use of materials) may occur if the Urban Forester does not allow the tree roots •
to be cut. The roots from trees on private property that cause buckling or other -
damage to public right-of-way features may be cut and removed without
consulting the Urban Forester.'
Trees and Overhead Utilities
Large trees near power lines can cause problems as falling limbs are the
primary cause of power outages. PGE operates its own extensive tree-
maintenance program2 that contracts with tree crews to prune trees along --
power line rights-of-way every three years or as required by state mandate. PGE's crews
examine trees on a block-by-block basis and look for trees or limbs that could fail and hit a
power line3. Their crews will work on any tree that poses a possible threat to power lines.
Usually, these are trees that are planted directly below the lines in a public planting strip, but
can also include private trees that overhang the right-of-way. PGE's practice is not to top a tree;
instead PGE prunes out a U-section in the middle of the tree to provide clearance for lines. This
practice is a type of selective crown reduction. This represents an emerging trend in powerline
clearing maintenance from years past, when harmful effects of topping trees was not yet known.
Trees and Sewer& Water Systems
The Water Bureau and Bureau of Environmental Services
(B ES) each has a number of facilities that can be affected by .■ -tree roots roots. The majority of these are sewers and mains „le
t
located in public rights-of-way. Tree roots can enter sewage - -• -
. _•
lines and crack or break the pipes causing water to flow into '
the pipe, decreasing its capacity. Sewage can flow out of . -
1- b'
damaged pipes into the soil which can create health
-
t •
problems. Additionally, tree roots can block sewer lines
—
causing a backup. Most tree root problems in sewer mains
:24.20 C70: TO Ca.
7 • if
' There is a gap between Forestry and Development Services on the status of trees that straddle a
property line between a parcel and the street. Development Services considers a tree in the right-of-way
if any part of the trunk is on the property line,while Forestry looks at the likely placement at time of
planting. The result is that trees that have grown into the Right-of-Way are not subject to review by
Development Services, and Forestry continues to consider them as private trees.
2 Title 20.40.080.E authorizes the Forester to contract with utilities to prune trees that interfere with any
component of the utility system. Notification of the owner can be waived at the discretion of the Forester.
3 PGE's website provide information to the public on tree pruning, utility safety and their own tree
maintenance operations. They also provide a list of trees suitable to different planter strip placements.
3 Trees, Utilities and Infrastructure 4/3/08
are discovered during routine video taping of sewer lines. But problems can occur quickly and
are not limited to old pipes. Sewers constructed in the mid to late1990's are beginning to
experience root intrusion. The city addresses roots in city sewer mains and the public portion of
service laterals. Private property owners are responsible for lateral sewer pipes on private
property. In Portland, approximately 8,000 sewer mains or 2 million linear feet of public sewer
lines have some degree of root damage'. Damage from tree roots also affects water pressure
in public mains and can affect fire service. In these situations, the trees are generally removed.
However, in some cases the roots that are causing the problem could potentially be removed
without removing the tree. When permits are obtained to install or repair sewer and water pipes
on private or public property, there is no requirement for a site plan that identifies adjacent trees.
A number of historic water conduits, such as pipes from Bull Run, cross private lands which
have easements to restrict development or tree planting that might interfere with pipes and their
maintenance. Similarly, sewer laterals that connect buildings to sewer mains in streets are
often placed in easements that serve a similar purpose. Enforcing these easements is
problematic because pipes and their easements are often not shown on maps in the
Development Services Center and most owners are not aware of the location of utility lines on
their property. Since no permit is required to plant a tree, there often is no process to check
whether trees are placed above utilities.
Trees and Storm water Facilities
The City of Portland's approach to stormwater management emphasizes the use of vegetated
surface facilities to treat and infiltrate stormwater on the property where the stormwater runoff is
created5. Managing stormwater onsite is required of all new and redevelopment as specified in
the Stormwater Management Manual developed by the Bureau of Environmental Services
(BES)6. These stormwater facilities are intended to reduce demand on combined sanitary-storm
and separated storm sewer systems, promote on-site infiltration of stormwater and reduce
polluted runoff as development occurs. Because the right-of-way may need to be expanded to
accommodate stormwater facilities,trees are sometimes removed. Ironically, the facilities are
designed to provide similar environmental services to those that mature trees already provide.
Site planning on private property does not always take into account conditions in the right-of-
way or adjacent properties. Trees on adjacent parcels or on the property line are not included in
site plans or subject to tree preservation requirements of that development. Stormwater
facilities on private property may be placed without regard to trees on adjacent property.
For example, a large swale for a private street might be dug into the roots of neighboring tree
that is not part of the development. Designed to detain and store stormwater, the swale will be
inundated with each rain and may subject an adjacent tree's roots to long periods of heavy soil
saturation that may not be appropriate for the species and may contribute to tree windfall.
Conversely, swale and stormwater planter landscaping designed without considering proximity
to neighboring trees may be adversely affected by shading, leaf litter, etc.
4 Each year, approximately 250,000 linear feet of high and medium priority sewer lines are treated by the
City at a cost of approximately$230,000.
5 The Bureau of Environmental Services has also established an administrative rule to protect surface
features that convey water across private property outside of existing Environmental Overlay Zones. A
thirty foot no disturbance'buffer called a'drainage reserve' is placed across drainage ways through the
development review process. The rules offer some protection for existing trees in this'reserve' area,
although tree preservation is not the primary intent of the administrative rule.
6 Infiltrating stormwater onsite with landscaped facilities meets a number of stormwater requirements,
including pollution reduction, volume and peak flow reduction, and groundwater recharge. Landscaped
facilities also improve air quality, reduce heat island affect, add visual appeal to neighborhoods that can
increase property values, as well as provide valuable urban wildlife habitat.
4 Trees, Utilities and Infrastructure 4/3/08
•
As stormwater facilities are installed on both public and private streets, they require monitoring
and maintenance to perform effectively. For public streets, the contractor provides a two year
"establishment period"during which they are required to monitor and maintain the facilities they
construct. After the establishment period, BES monitors and maintains the facilities. Trees
planted in a facility are monitored to ensure they are thriving. Private stormwater facilities are
supposed to be managed by adjacent land owners via maintenance agreements that run with
the land, however, it is not clear how this is being enforced. The increasing number of
stormwater facilities has made it difficult to tell if stormwater facilities for either private or public
streets are being monitored as frequently as originally intended.
Trees and New Subdivisions
Mature trees can be adversely affected by road building, sidewalks, driveways, public and
private utility installation and stormwater facilities in new subdivisions. The City processes only
a few new large subdivision applications (10+ lots) each year;the majority of land division
applications are for 2-10 new lots. It can be challenging for developers to meet requirements for
utilities, infrastructure, and tree preservation on the smaller sites. Due to the site constraints
associated with smaller partitions, the tree mitigation option is frequently requested because
standard tree preservation requirements typically reduce the area available for development and
routing of roads and utilities.
In addition,the site design process and land division review primarily focus on the area within
the development site alone. As a result, proposed infrastructure improvements are generally
located without regard to possible effects to trees on neighboring properties. For example, on
narrow long parcels, a private street, including a required sidewalk and stormwater swale, is
often placed at the edge of the site. Although this construction can harm trees on adjacent
parcels or on the property line, these trees are not subject to tree preservation requirements and
are not typically shown on site plans. The construction damage to trees that straddle property
lines is a frequent cause of disputes between neighbors.
During the final step in residential development, new plantings (including trees), are installed to
vegetate stormwater facilities and to meet City landscaping requirements. There is not sufficient
review or inspection by City staff with expertise in landscaping or arboriculture to verify those
trees and other plantings are placed properly. Problems can also result when soils, sunlight
availability, and other conditions are not suited to the selected species of tree. Trees placed
above, below or next to vulnerable utilities and infrastructure can result in future conflicts.
POTENTIAL SOLUTION CONCEPTS
The following criteria are intended to guide the design and
evaluation of potential solution concepts.
Criteria for Solutions:
• Encourage preservation of existing trees in development
and redevelopment
• Optimize placement and minimize conflicts between trees, , ' -
utilities and infrastructure facilities.
• Increase the area and health of the urban canopy
• Foster proper maintenance of trees and utilities
• Foster proper installation of trees and utilities
The following is an initial list of potential solutions to address
the issues described above. The intent of this section is to
examine a range of possible solutions to help inform --
discussion and the development of staff recommendations
and future decisions.
5 Trees, Utilities and Infrastructure 4/3/08
,
• •
1. RECOGNIZE AND MANAGE TREES AS INFRASTRUCTURE
The City could adopt clear policies and regulations establishing the role of trees as
infrastructure to be planned and managed on a"level playing field"with other infrastructure
and utility facilities. The City could also consider capitalizing the installation of street trees
and/or establish programs to maintain street trees as public assets. This is listed as an item
to be considered in the Urban Forestry Action Plan.
Pros:
• This would explicitly recognize the social and ecological functions of trees within the
equation of utility and infrastructure design and replacement.
• This would shift the decision making process around designing utilities to consider trees
• This could potentially reduce the responsibility of private property owners to maintain
street trees, fix sidewalks, etc. and could increase public interest in having more trees in
their neighborhoods.
• This would provide a more equitable solution for tree trimming work required for other
public infrastructure needs.
• This could potentially provide greater public oversight of street tree management.
• In conjunction with other potential solution concepts identified, could help achieve Urban
Forestry canopy targets.
Cons:
• Would require significant funding and staffing.
• Will need to evaluate liability issues
2. REQUIRE INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITS TO ADDRESS TREES
Require site plans that show the location of trees within a certain distance of the proposed
work for all utility permits. Establish provisions to prevent conflicts between proposed
utilities and infrastructure facilities, and trees/tree roots.
Pros:
• This would ensure that trees are identified on plans and are considered as part of a
utility or infrastructure permit.
• In conjunction with other potential solution concepts identified, could help achieve Urban
Forestry canopy targets and other desired outcomes.
Cons:
• Addressing trees during utility permitting could add time, cost, or possibly hamper the
utility work.
• Utility work permits on private land are issued over-the-counter. A site plan (with or
without trees) is not required, nor is there a review by Planning & Zoning that apply
conditions of approval or a Tree Protection Plan.
• Inspections are a current problem —who would be responsible?
3. INCLUDE OFF-SITE TREES ON PLANS
Require site plans submitted for all infrastructure designs to also include off-site trees up to
a certain distance. Establish provisions to prevent conflicts between proposed utilities and
infrastructure facilities, and neighboring trees.
Pros:
• This would require consideration of the effects of placing utilities and stormwater
facilities in close proximity to neighboring trees.
6 Trees, Utilities and Infrastructure 4/3/08
• •
• This would help address cumulative impacts by addressing trees on adjacent sites.
• In conjunction with other potential solution concepts, could help achieve Urban Forestry
canopy targets.
• Would reduce ambiguity in the current regulations pertaining to trees on or near property
lines.
• Recognize trees as an organic feature that is not limited by parcel boundaries and that
construction impacts can affect trees on other properties.
Cons:
• Access to adjacent parcels to survey tree locations and assess health is not always
available.
4. ENHANCE REVIEWS OF LANDSCAPE PLANS
Assign an internal landscape architect or arborist to review landscape and stormwater
facility landscaping plans and conduct field inspections to capture 3-dimensional features
and development elements (retaining walls, grade changes, slopes, footings, etc.).
Pros:
• This would focus additional expertise on putting the right tree in the right place
... • In conjunction with other potential solution concepts identified, could help achieve Urban
Forestry canopy targets
• This would verify that trees and plants are installed properly—providing the greatest
chance of survival.
Cons:
• Could potentially increase the timeline of review
• • Additional costs for a new position
• Quantity of work may not be manageable
5. EDUCATE PROPERTY OWNERS AND DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY
Educate property owners and the development community regarding proper species and
planting locations, tree maintenance and removal procedures. An education program that
addresses landscaping design and utilities for property owners, builders, contractors and
landscapers might help reduce conflicts associated with new developments and activities in
existing neighborhoods. Nurseries, utility companies, and neighborhood tree liaisons could
participate in the development and distribution of information and trainings. Community
groups could also monitor tree infrastructure, either through a data gathering program or an
adopt-a-tree program.
Pros:
• The dissemination of information about trees, infrastructure and utilities would help
prevent conflicts and promote successful mitigation of existing problems.
• In conjunction with other potential solution concepts, could help achieve Urban Forestry
canopy targets
Cons:
• Making information available does not guarantee that it is used.
• Additional public cost to fund and implement this program
• Success is dependent on the quality of information and would need sufficient oversight.
•
7 Trees, Utilities and Infrastructure 4/3/08
•
6. PROVIDE UTILITY INFORMATION ON TREE PLANTING PERMITS
When obtaining a permit to plant a street tree, include information about the height of power
lines and the location of water and sewer lines on the property, and direct the property
owner to avoid planting in those areas. Also include a list of acceptable trees based on
planter strip width, presence of overhead lines, etc.
Pros:
• Coordinating street tree placement with existing utilities would help to reduce future
conflicts.
• In conjunction with other potential solution concepts identified, could help achieve Urban
Forestry canopy targets
Cons:
• The location of laterals is uncertain on many properties in the City.
7. CALL BEFORE YOU PLANT
Publicize the Call 811 program (http://www.digsafelyoregon.com/) for utility locates before
planting trees especially in the public rights of way. Portland Maps does provide some
information on utility location, but is not always accurate or precise.
Pros:
• Coordinating new tree planting with existing utilities would help to reduce future conflicts.
• In conjunction with other potential solution concepts identified, could help achieve Urban
Forestry canopy targets
Cons:
• Most tree planting on private property does not currently require a permit which might
reduce participation in such a program.
• Accuracy of known locations may not be sufficient to make informed tree location
choices.
8. PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE FOR SEWER AND WATER PIPES
For new construction or when a sewer or water pipe is exposed, require the joints between
the lateral and the main to be sealed or wrapped in a material that protects against root
intrusion.
Pros:
• The up-front investment can reduce maintenance costs in the future.
Cons:
• Recapturing costs—who pays?
• Would need to check for conflicts with the plumbing code.
• Uncertain if the long term performance of these methods has been tested.
9. ENHANCE STORM WATER FACILITY MAINTENANCE AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAM
Create a BES inspection and compliance program for stormwater facilities in order to ensure
private stormwater facilities are effectively maintained, and to improve routine inspections of
increasing number of public and private stormwater facilities in the city
Pros:
• The long-term performance of these facilities is dependent on oversight and education of
both the public and City bureaus.
8 Trees, Utilities and Infrastructure 4/3/08
O •
Cons:
• Cost for additional staff and associated inspection/enforcement resources.
10. COORDINATE RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMITTING
Designate a single permitting body to coordinate work within or adjacent to public rights-of-
way.
Pros:
• This would allow work plans to be checked against best practices for tree preservation
and avoid successive utility work in the same location.
• Would prevent conflicts and inadvertent violations in the field.
• In conjunction with other potential solution concepts identified, could help achieve Urban
Forestry canopy targets
Cons:
• Agencies that currently issue their own permit would have to take additional time to
coordinate with other bureaus before conducting their work.
• Specialized knowledge within each bureau makes consolidating functions difficult.
Questions:
1. Do other utility companies have authority similar to that of PGE?
2. How does Urban Forestry respond to permit applications to remove private trees
(subject to Title 20) if it is argued that they are buckling a sidewalk or infiltrating sewer
lines?
3. What clearance around tree branches is necessary to protect power lines?
4. Does Forestry currently consider utility placement in recommendations for street trees?
9 Trees, Utilities and Infrastructure 4/3/08
• 0
Cityvvide Tree Project
Policy Review and Regulatory Improvement
Issue Paper 0
Coordinating Plan Review — Public/Private Infrastructure
and Tree Preservation Requirements
ISSUE DESCRIPTION
Trees that are planned to be preserved in conjunction with new development are at risk from
lack of coordination during permit review and construction-related issues.
BACKGROUND
The City applies a number of specific requirements for utility and other infrastructure
improvements at the time new development is proposed. Depending on the scale of the
development, requirements may be limited for private and public utility connections for simple
"trade" permits (i.e. electrical, plumbing, mechanical trades), or may involve more complex
requirements for sewer and water connections, stormwater disposal, street tree preservation or
planting, and some level of tree preservation or planting on the site. For large scale
developments, public street and sidewalk widening or improvements may also be required.
For very simple utility connections (a new sewer lateral for an existing house as an example),
the permit application does not include a site plan. The application includes no information to
determine if trees or tree roots will be affected. Further, these trade permits are typically not
reviewed by planners to determine whether any tree preservation requirements apply to the site.
Where a land division review precedes new development, the City requires that proposed
infrastructure improvements are reviewed so that utilities are planned, coordinated, and
designed for the entire subdivision rather than on a lot-by-lot basis. During preliminary plat
review, the location of streets, sidewalks, sewers, water mains, storm drain lines and drainage
swales are all considered together with the preservation of selected trees on the site. In some
cases, to accommodate the installation of needed infrastructure, significant grading may be
required, including the construction of retaining walls and carefully tapered slopes that meet
specific standards.
Following preliminary approval of the land division, the applicant submits a final plat for review.
The final plat is prepared in substantial conformance with the approved land division. The
preliminary approval may require specific easements and changes to rights of way dedications
to be shown on the final plat. If a roadway is to be widened, or a utility easement relocated,
impacts to the tree preservation plan are considered. Minor changes may not be deemed to
affect trees, however in some instances the location of utility easements is not considered in
light of the tree preservation plans. When a major change occurs, a review of amendments to
the preliminary approval is required and an adjustment must be filed with the final plat if the tree
preservation standards can no longer be met. These reviews can add several months of
additional time to the process. Frequently in these cases, the applicant submits revised arborist
reports that further reduce the root protection area, or acknowledge that the infrastructure
construction will not be detrimental to the tree.
Whether required as part of public and private street improvements or other site improvements,
site construction plans are prepared and submitted during the final plat process. The plans
detail how the required infrastructure will be built and provide enough information so that the
City's Infrastructure Bureaus can prepare bonds to assure their construction. The infrastructure
• •
plans are reviewed in two parallel tracks:
- Public infrastructure, such as streets, sidewalks, water lines, public sewer lines, and public
stormwater facilities are reviewed by the public works groups in the Portland Office of
Transportation (PDOT), the Water Bureau, and the Bureau of Environmental Services
(BES).
- Private infrastructure and on-site prep work such as site grading and retaining walls, erosion
control, tree protection measures (fencing), private streets, private sewers, and on site
stormwater facilities are reviewed by the private construction group of BES, as well as the
Site Development and Planning and Zoning Review sections of the Bureau of Development
services (BDS).
Under the current system, tree protection oversight is split between three disciplines: the Land
Division Planner for the preliminary and final plat reviews (which can sometimes be conducted
by two different planners), Planning and Zoning staff for Site Development Permit reviews, and
the Urban Forester for public works permit reviews. This is problematic since each reviewer will
have their own understanding of how the protection plan is supposed to work, none of the
reviewers has a comprehensive overview over the whole process and site, responsibility for
public and private trees is split between reviewers, and scrutiny of the tree protection is diluted
by the large amount of other considerations on the site.
Coordinating the reviews to ensure the tree protection measures are consistent and sufficient
proves to be a challenge. The Public Works permit and Site Development permit drawings are
contained in two separate independent sets of plans, and are sometimes prepared by different
consulting firms, depending on the size and complexity of the job.
Within each of the plan sets, site details will vary depending on the specific type of
improvements under review. For private infrastructure (Site Development permits), the tree
preservation information is typically shown on the site grading plan only. However, there is no
consistent requirement that trees on private property designated for preservation be shown on
the public works permit plans. Typically, tree protection for trees on private property is not
shown unless the Urban Forester reviewing the public works permit deems it necessary.
For both public and private development permit applications, it is rare to receive a composite
drawing that shows all the improvements, public and private, and tree preservation information
on one sheet. Moreover, since the public and private permits are reviewed separately and by
different groups of reviewers, both plans can be approved with elements that are in direct
conflict with each other'. Nowhere in any of these plans are private utilities, such as phone,
gas, cable, and electric identified (apart from their blanket public utility easement location). The
private utility companies are typically not aware of the tree protection requirements, and may
trench through a root zone, adding further stress to trees that was not contemplated.
If conflicts do arise and are discovered, there is no formal system of collaboration and no
established priorities to resolve those conflicts. For example, one reviewer may require
revisions to a sewer line or manhole location due to engineering requirements or constraints.
The change may be reflected on the sewer page for instance, but not shown on the grading
plan, although the change may have placed the excavation for the manhole within a root
protection zone (RPZ). Since only one reviewer is responsible for that change, this
encroachment into the RPZ would be missed since the other reviewers typically will not see the
' Spencer Meadows, LU 03-177491 and Site Development#04-038395 SD-This site had a tree required
to be preserved in the public stormwater facility and then a public works permit showed it being removed.
2 Coordination of Utility and Infrastructure Improvements 4/3/2008
and Tree Preservation Requirements
• •
plans again after they have approved their part.2 If such a change is found to impact another
reviewer's approval, then additional time is spent routing the plans around and conflicting details
in the plans are worked out through an ad-hoc conversation between reviewers, whose ultimate
solution may impact yet another reviewer.
Review of a Site Development permit is prone to the same types of oversights as can occur with
Public Works permit reviews. For example, the grading plan may require that a retaining wall be
constructed within the root protection area, but unless the retaining wall is called out on the tree
preservation plan, it is likely to be missed by the planner reviewing the preservation plan. Also,
during site preparation, issues often arise in the field that were not anticipated on the plans,
such as adjusting the location of an on site stormwater facility to account for unforeseen grading
issues. The resulting field adjustments can adversely affect trees on site. These"on the fly"
changes also cause concern and consternation for the public since they were not part of the
public review process.
Finally, when the lots have been platted and prepared and the basic utility infrastructure has
been installed, the trees to be preserved undergo one final test through the development phase:
the building permit. During the building permit review, sometimes the applicant will omit the
trees that are required to be preserved from the site plan. Often, trees to be preserved are
shown in the wrong location (either due to inaccurate site plan preparation, or inaccurate
information in the original land use application). The root protection zone may not be shown or
may be shown inaccurately. Frequently, the root protection zones are set to the edge of
buildings or driveways and don't account for the practicalities of construction and the excavation
required to set foundation or flatwork forms. Utility conflicts with trees can also arise when the
final connections to the house need to pass through a root protection zone. Also, if the initial
building permit submittal does not show all the required utilities and/or the required root
protection zones accurately, independent reviewers may redline these corrections on their copy
of the plans, which can cause conflicts that may not be reconciled before the permit is issued.
Where conflicts between the building or utilities and the tree preservation arise,the conflict is
typically remedied by requiring the applicant to submit an arborist report explaining that the
arborist has approved the specified methods of construction, and that the activities will be
performed under his supervision. (This will be addressed in greater detail in the Tree
Preservation topic papers)
SUMMARY
The infrastructure improvements proposed in conjunction with land divisions are reviewed in
several stages, beginning with the preliminary land use approval, and followed by the final plat
which establishes the location of utility easements and rights of way. Specific site and public
works plans are submitted and reviewed concurrently with the final plat review. The final stage
is the building permit review. Each stage of the reviews is performed by several different review
agencies and personnel. At numerous points in that process a single inadvertent oversight,
error or omission will lead to conflicts between trees to be protected and development.
Construction issues that were not initially contemplated during the plan preparation or review
can also harm trees that were required to be preserved. In those cases, the results are lost
time, and lost trees.
2
Cambridge Creek Subdivision, LU 02-127947 PU EN AD,00-00486 PU SU EN, and Site Development
Permit#20 01-144781 SD-there were other reviews that had to happen due to trees needing to be
removed due to public sanitary/storm easements.
3 Coordination of Utility and Infrastructure Improvements 4/3/2008
and Tree Preservation Requirements
•
• •
POTENTIAL SOLUTION CONCEPTS
The following criteria are intended to guide the design and evaluation of potential solution
concepts.
Criteria for Solutions:
• Tree preservation planning and protections are efficient and effective.
• Tree preservation and utility/infrastructure planning should be optimized through early and
creative site design.
• Site design and tree preservation plans should take into account the real impacts
associated with construction and excavation.
• The plan and permit review process should be designed and coordinated to minimize
unforeseen conflicts between utilities, infrastructure and trees at all stages of the process
• The solution should provide certainty to applicants and the public.
• The solution should improve coordination between infrastructure construction and tree
protection.
• The solution should result in greater overall efficiency in timely reviews and downstream
cost reduction.
The following is an initial list of potential solutions to address the issues described above. The
intent of this section is to examine a range of possible solutions to help inform discussion with
stakeholders and the development of staff recommendations and future decisions.
1. COLLABORATION MEETINGS
Hold collaboration meetings between public and private works permit reviewers to discuss
major or complicated projects. The meetings would be set at regular intervals and the
purpose would be to include all relevant reviewers in the discussion to resolve conflicts or
raise concerns related to proposed methods of construction. The meeting room would
include the necessary tools, codes, admin procedures and computer access for the
reviewers to get their answers and approve the plans on the spot. Meetings could also
serve as cross training opportunities if there were gaps in the meeting agenda.
Pros:
• Could be initiated currently with existing resources and minimal added cost.
• Provides a forum for the reviewers to share their interests and to discuss and resolve
issues and utility conflicts. This also helps to prevent changes required by one
reviewer that inadvertently impact another reviewer's requirements.
• Reduces time invested in running permits and corrections back and forth between
reviewers.
• Reduces the potential for applicants to get conflicting direction from various city staff.
Increases certainty for applicant.
Cons:
• Attendance on similar sorts of meetings has not been consistent. Without a means to
compel a particular reviewer or group of reviewers to attend, the meetings are likely to
be discontinued.
• If there are few issues to discuss, the meetings could be an inefficient use of staff
time. Would need to be cognizant of developing a productive agenda.
2. ASSIGN A TREE SPECIALIST TO REVIEW PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLATS
A staff person, familiar with the building and construction process, city requirements, and
4 Coordination of Utility and Infrastructure Improvements 4/3/2008
and Tree Preservation Requirements
•
tree health and mechanics should be involved in the preliminary land division and final plat
review to ensure that proposed and required infrastructure improvements and easement
locations will specifically not conflict with trees to be preserved. This reviewer could also be
utilized in initial site assessment of preferred trees for preservation, and as a result would
have on the ground familiarity with the specifics of the trees and other site constraints. This
would enable quicker responses to situations that arise.
Pros:
• Assigning an internal reviewer who is familiar with city standards and requirements for
infrastructure construction, private utility company practices, and tree issues early in
the process will prevent unforeseen and inadvertent conflicts between tree
preservation, and the location of utilities and other infrastructure facilities.
• If issues arise later, there is a single review authority who can respond to the problem,
reducing delays in determining which reviewer will need to respond. Provides more
certainty to both the public and applicant of how the issue will be resolved.
• Creates a single accountable person whose responsibility it is to look out for the tree
preservation on site. This function is currently split between the land use planner for
on site trees and the urban forester for street trees.
Cons:
• Assigning an additional reviewer requires staffing adding up front expense to the
process.
• Does not, in itself, fully resolve conflicts during the permitting process (see next
solution concept)
3. ASSIGN A TREE SPECIALIST TO THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT PROCESS.
As an alternative to, or along with the solution concept above, a tree specialist would be
involved primarily in the permit review stages. A single reviewer would assess the tree
preservation plan for both public and private trees at the first and last stages of plan review,
visit the site and sign off for both public and private works permits. The first stage of review
would be to determine that the root protection zones are all shown in the correct location,
and are sized correctly. The final stage would be to review all the changes that have
occurred to all (i.e. BDS, PDOT, BES,Water, PGE, Gas, Phone, Cable, Power) sets of
permits and reconcile any conflicts prior to permit issuance.
Pros:
• Ensures that conflicts between the parallel permit tracks are addressed early and
resolved, and helps ensure that any revisions to site plans that occur through the
review process do not create problems and delays in the field.
• Since the trees to be preserved are a fixed point on the site, resolving conflicts
between proposed improvements and root protection zones requires an engineering
solution to relocate the facility. Once those changes have been designed, the tree
specialist can verify that the trees will not be impacted. This serves to maximize the
tree preservation and minimize conflicts and associated delays during site preparation
or development.
• Establishes a single contact for tree issues which will lead to quicker resolution of
conflict, and a more comprehensive and specific evaluation of tree protection issues
through the process.
5 Coordination of Utility and Infrastructure Improvements 4/3/2008
and Tree Preservation Requirements
• •
Cons:
• This solution would typically require that the private and public works permits be
issued simultaneously. In some cases, this could significantly delay permit issuance
and construction work on the project if one permit is ready to go while the other still
has unresolved issues. Alternatively, the permits could move independently, but with
a single eye on the tree preservation aspect, i.e. through use of collaboration
meetings as described later.
• Adds another step to the review process which means more up front time for review,
but may be offset by time savings during construction and avoiding further reviews.
• Involving the tree specialist only at the permit stage may be too late, as some conflicts
may be inherited by the initial site design reviewed during the preliminary plat phase.
4. DEVELOP COMPRENHENSIVE MANUAL TO GUIDE PLAN PREPARATION AND
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS.
Each bureau presently maintains its own list of submittal requirements for plan drawings.
To assist applicants, these requirements would all be compiled into a single resource and
updated in a coordinated fashion (PDOT currently has a similar manual for public works
projects, BES maintains the Stormwater Manual, and BDS has a Tree and Landscape
Manual for plant installation and Erosion Control Manual). The manual would likely be
adopted through administrative rule rather than code, similar to other manuals in the city
(e.g., Stormwater Management Manual, Erosion Control Manual). This would enable
greater flexibility and ability to update over time. Any changes would be reviewed by all
affected bureaus and stakeholders. A section on tree preservation and planting
requirements would be included. The manual could also include minimum standards for
trade permit submittals to address tree preservation issues.
Pros:
• Provides single source of information for applicants in preparing their site plans and
permit drawings.
• Consolidating various bureau requirements would encourage greater coordination
• Could achieve greater consistency between plan submittals which helps speed
reviews (less time spent trying to interpret plan symbols, or find particular information).
Cons:
• Unless actively updated and utilized, a manual would likely become obsolete and
generally ignored by applicants and reviewers alike.
• Duplicates much of what is already available (but in various locations)
5. SHOW TREE PRESERVATION INFORMATION ON ALL PLANS AND PLAN SHEETS
Require tree preservation and protection details and root protection zones to be shown on
each drawing page for all permit packages, public and private.
Pros:
• Would alert reviewers to presence of tree preservation priorities and tree protection
areas and highlight construction conflicts in these areas.
Cons:
• Reviewers may not feel compelled to take notice of conflicts on their plan sheets,
especially if they are reviewing for technical details like adequate pipe sizing and do
not see tree preservation as one of their priorities.
6 Coordination of Utility and Infrastructure Improvements 4/3/2008
and Tree Preservation Requirements
•
• Tree preservation areas may not be shown consistently or accurately from one sheet
to another.
6. COMPOSITE PLAN SHEET.
Require applicants for public works and site development projects to prepare a single
composite plan sheet showing proposed work to occur on a site (including grading, public
improvements, retaining walls, stormwater facilities, public and private utilities, private
streets and driveways, etc.) and the required root protection zones all on a single sheet.
This would indicate whether any work was going to occur in or adjacent to the root
protection areas. This information is in addition to the plans already submitted.
Pros:
• Would help reduce or eliminate conflicts between one approved set of plans and
another, as well as reduce or eliminate conflicts between different plan sheets for
different types of infrastructure improvements.
• Indicates at-a-glance if any proposed work is to happen in root protection areas. This
serves as a final check for an applicant prior to submittal, and a first check for staff
before getting deep into the review process.
• For complicated sites this solution would require basic and early coordination between
multiple consultants involved in the plan preparation.
Cons:
• Problems would likely continue to occur as reviewers require changes or redline
corrections that change the location of certain elements unless new composite plan
sheets were required as well.
• Could create a reliance on the composite plan on the part of staff to ensure that the
root protection zones do not have encroachments. For example, if a layer of
improvements (e.g. sewers) is left off the composite plan sheet but is reviewed and
approved separately on the sewer plan sheet, and the sewer line runs through a root
protection zone, then the existing coordination problem persists.
• There are additional costs to preparing this plan for applicants that don't produce
plans using automated programs such as CAD, and for projects where multiple
consultants are involved in the plan preparation (but such coordination may be even
more essential in these cases)
5. CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC AND PRIVATE WORKS PERMIT SUBMITTAL.
Combine public and private permitting into a single permit package for review. This is a
slightly different approach from the composite plan or single tree reviewer solution,
whereby all the information for the entire suite of infrastructure improvements is
represented in a single package rather than shown on a single sheet. The reviewers would
only review and approve their particular area of responsibility, but would have all the
information in one place for contextual reference. (Similar to current system of combined
Site and Building Permits)
Pros:
• Reviewers would be more aware of other related improvements that would not be part
of their normal purview.
• Reviewer responsible for tree preservation can cross reference proposed public and
private works activities with tree preservation/protection plans to ensure that there are
no conflicts with root protection zones.
7 Coordination of Utility and Infrastructure Improvements 4/3/2008
and Tree Preservation Requirements
• •
Cons:
• This solution, in some cases, could create large and unwieldy set of plans. Since
each reviewer would see the combined Site Development and Public Works plan sets,
the amount of paper used in the plan sets is increased significantly.
• Reviewers may not use the information contained on the other sheets. In other words
the additional cost is not leading to a direct benefit.
• Does not resolve the conflicts only makes them known. For instance, if a utility line is
shown through a tree preservation or environmental resource area, what forum exists
to resolve the conflict? Who specifically is charged with resolving the issue?
8 Coordination of Utility and Infrastructure Improvements 4/3/2008
and Tree Preservation Requirements
•
17o
CITY OF PORTLAND. OREGON
Plann BUREAU OF ing
April 3, 2008
Tom Potter,Mayor
MEMORANDUM
Gil Kelley,Director
1900 S.W.4th Ave.,Ste.7100 TO: Citywide Portland,OR 97201-5380 de Tree Project Stakeholder Discussion Group
Phone 503-823-7700
FAX 503-823-7800 FROM: Project staff team
TTY 503-823-6868
Email pdxplan@ci.portland.or.us SUBJECT: Preparation for April 11th Meeting
www.portlandonline.com/planning
Attached are materials to review before the Citywide Tree Project Stakeholder Discussion Group
meeting on Friday, April 11,9:00 a.m.to 12:00 noon. Included are:
• Meeting agenda
• Two papers entitled: Utility Plan Review Coordination and Trees and Utilities
This second meeting of the Stakeholder Discussion Group(SDG) will focus on trees and utility
and infrastructure facilities. The attached issue papers identify a number of situations in which
conflicts can occur, including during planning,permitting and implementation of development, infill
and redevelopment, infrastructure upgrades and tree planting generally.
The group will be invited to provide additional information and perspectives on the issues
described in the papers. As you review the issue papers please consider the following questions
as we will discuss them on April 11th•
1. What, if any additional steps should the City take to recognize the infrastructure and
ecosystem benefits that trees provide?
For example:
• To what degree would it be appropriate for the city to fund the planting and
maintenance of street trees (e.g., planting, pruning, sidewalk and curb repair,
removal)?On which types of streets—public, private, improved, etc.?)
• Where and to what extent do other municipalities manage street trees?
• What funding options exist? (Capital dollars,frontage fee, endowment,others?)
2. What trade-offs should be considered to ensure that infrastructure needs and tree
preservation are addressed and optimized? How can inadvertent conflicts between
utility/infrastructure siting,construction and maintenance be prevented?
3. How can the City better coordinate the multiple reviews that are necessary during project
review and permitting to help preserve trees and prevent conflicts between trees and
infrastructure?
4. What types of education and outreach to the public/development community/municipal or
private utilities would help to reduce utility-tree conflicts? What avenues for public outreach
would work best(Tree liaisons or other neighborhood outreach, TV, internet, print ads,flyers,
classes, other)?
The issue papers also present preliminary lists of measures to help prevent conflicts between
trees and utility/infrastructure facilities.These initial lists of"potential solution concepts"should not
be viewed as recommendations per se, but rather as ideas to generate and inform upcoming
discussions.The SDG will be asked to help continue brainstorming potential solutions, and to help
staff ensure that the pros and cons of the different options are represented.
As a'preview,'the initial solution concepts fall generally into several categories:
•
• 41/
Value/manage trees as infrastructure assets
Potential solutions:
• Establish policies valuing the role of trees as infrastructure and public assets
• Consider shifting the responsibility for managing street trees from property owners to the
City
Balance and integrate trees with competing infrastructure needs
Potential solutions:
• Provide greater flexibility in right-of-way design to help preserve trees
• Consider offsite and adjacent trees during site design
• Conduct preventive maintenance of water and sewer lines to prevent tree root damage
• Monitor stormwater swales to ensure they are maintained properly and to prevent tree
damage
• Analysis of alternative construction methods
Improve coordination/effectiveness of project reviews, permitting and inspections
Potential solutions:
• Coordinate and establish guidelines for preserving trees during utility/infrastructure
permitting and construction
• Ensure that trees,tree preservation, and tree protection requirements are consistently
represented on site plans along with utilities, infrastructure and other improvements (e.g.,
composite plan sheet)
• Combine review of private and public works to prevent unforeseen conflicts between
trees and other facilities
• Assign city landscape architects or arborists to conduct initial site assessments and
collaborate with developers throughout the project review,from initial and final plat
review, and through the permitting and construction process
Educate and provide key information to the public
Potential solutions:
• Include utility information on tree permits
• Establish 'call before you plant' program
• Require postings for tree work and preservation activities
Please come to the April 1 1 th meeting with your comments and ideas on the issues and potential
solutions. If you have questions prior to the meeting please call Chris Scarzello at 503-823-7716
or Roberta Jortner at 503-823-7855.
We look forward to seeing you on April 11th at 9:00 a.m.
4/3/2008
Page 2 of 2
• 4110
John Floyd
From: John Frewing Ufrewing@teleport.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 5:12 PM EXHIBIT C
To: John Floyd
Cc: SBeilke@europa.comm; Gillis, Janet
Subject: April 10 Comments on Urban Forest Comp Plan Amendment
John,
The comments in the next paragraph below are intended to supplement the comments which I made at the Planning
Commission hearing on April 7; I understand that the public hearing was continued until April 21 to allow parties and
interested persons additional time to review the recently received proposed changes. Recall that at the April 7 phase of
the hearing, I emphasized several issues as follows: 1) make development of the Urban Forestry Master Plan (action
measure 2.2i) a policy rather than an action measure, 2) provide a legislative basis for regulation of trees outside the
development approval process (covered by policy 2.3.1, which I did not notice until later in the meeting), 3)clarify the
definition of'understory' vegetation to clearly include buffer areas around trees or tree groves where important for the
protection of tree health and associated healthy soil conditions, 4) include in policy 2.2.1 a mandate to create overlay
zones where important tree species or tree groves currently exist which should be more stringently preserved for the
beneficial development of a heritage urban forest for Tigard, 5) provide in policy 2.2.7 a legislative basis for broader uses
of tree fines and migigation funds to protect and develop our urban forest(an idea first put forth by Tony Tycer at most
recent workshop between Tree Board and Planning Commission) and 6) extend policy 2.2.2 to include the concepts
discussed in the City of Portland discussion draft regarding interdepartmental coordination of permitting actions necessary
to protect trees.
Additionally, I would comment:
a) Policy 2.3.2. Modify to read 'The City shall require preservation, planting, aned/or replacement of understory vegetation
when it is important to protecting nearby existing trees before, during and after construction and occupancy; priority shall
be given to the preservation of native or existing understory vegetation that performs the following functions: . . . ' This
wording ('when it is important to') provides some definition for the purpose and extent of understory protections.
b)Action Measure 2.2.v. This action measure should be raised up to the importance of a policy. It is a key part of the
Urban Forest Management Plan, which would be impossible without an inventory.
c)The word 'removals' should be replaced by the words'permitted approvals'. Such an inventory simply provides in one
place the already public record of tree removals, thereby not invading any person's privacy. This clarification need not
include the number/name of each tree removed, but simply the Tigard permit number under which one or more trees are
permitted to be removed.
d)Action Measure 2.2.v. The prior comp plan included protection for'timbered areas', which were shown on a comp plan
map but never used in development approval processes. The current plan omits any reference to'timibered areas' but
should --this inventory action measure is a good place to include this concept, perhaps as part of'the state of the City's
urban forest'.
e) Policy 2.3.4 should remain as it stands. Questions were raised on April 7 as to whether this could be applied to single
family residential development or whether street, sidewalk and building pad areas should be excluded. Concepts such as
ecoroofs, permeable pavers, etc are among the design features which could reduce impacts in residential developments.
f) General processes. As a Type IV proceeding, it seems that 390.060A requires a pre-application conference, which I do
not see in the record, which includes a number of Tree Board meetings. The procedural steps of 390.060 should all be
followed as well as the general requirements of 390.080.
g) Consistency Review(page 12/19 in staff report). The existing comp plan at policy 3.4.2.b requires that development
proposals in designated timbered or tree areas be reviewed through the planned development process to minimize the
number of trees removed. The current proposed comp plan policies do not comply with these former provisions. The
exact location of designated timbered or tree areas was shown on a map as part of the old comp plan, but new areas are
1
O •
not updated and identified. The new comp plan provisions should at least give the same protection as the old comp plan
for the (fewer) remaining treed areas in Tigard.
h) Consistency Review(page 12/19 in staff report). The existing comp plan at policy 3.4.2.c requires that cluster type
development be used in areas having important wildlife habitat value. It is widely acknowledged (eg METRO Goal 5
materials)that treed areas are important for wildlife habitat. The proposed comp plan policies do not comply with the
requirement for cluster type development in these treed areas. The new comp plan provisions should at least give the
same protection as the old comp plan for the (fewer) remaining treed areas in Tigard.
i) Consistency Review(page 12/19 in staff report). The existing comp plan at policy 3.4.2.a requires that trees and natural
vegetation along natural drainage courses be maintained to the'maximum extent possible'. The proposed comp plan
policies do not comply with this requirement to maintain these trees and natural vegetation to the'maximum extent
possible.' In fact, some have suggested that the new comp plan should only require 'consideration' of saving such trees.
The new comp plan provisions should at least give the same protection of these trees as the old comp plan for the (fewer)
remaining treed areas in Tigard.
j) Consistency Review(page 18/19 in staff report). Staff response to Frewing's first comment re the observed practice of
thinning, and waiting the required year or two before removing all trees and then applying for development with no burden
of preserving trees says that the legislative basis is in policy 2.2.1 and 2.3.3. Policy 2.2.1 simply says that Tigard
regulations will be periodically reviewed/updated and 2.3.3 relates to hazard trees-- neither relates to the practice
Frewing referenced and which has been widely seen and dealt with by other jurisdictions in the METRO area. The
findings by staff are not based on any facts. A new policy should be added which clearly states that from the date of this
comp plan amendment adoption, Tigard will not tolerate the use of specified time wait periods to avoid tree protection
regulations at the time of development in the city.
k) Consistency Review(page 18/19 in staff report). The same objection to staff response as noted in comment j above is
made for the staff response for Frewing comment three (wording should provide basis for later development of regulations
requiring alternative analyses). The findings by staff are not based on any facts and do not address the subject of the
comment.
Please contact me if you have clarification questions on these comments. Thank you.
John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 503-245-5760
2