Loading...
04/21/2008 - Minutes 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 details 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 MEETING MINUTES—April 21,2008—Page 1 I\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Minutes 2008\4-2t-08 Planning Commission Minutes doe 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 hearing, 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 PowerPoint 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 I\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Minutes 2008\4-21-08 Planning Commission 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 103rd, 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 I:\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Minutes 2008\4-21-08 Planning Commission Minutes doe 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 "understoiy". 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 teen "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 I:\LRPLN\Dnreen\PC\PC Minutes 2008\4-21-08 Planning Commission Minutes.doc And then they'd have to pay for a pelunit to take trees down on the 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 I:\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Minutes 2008\4-21-08 Planning Commission 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,Administrative Specialist II ATTEST: President Jodie Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 21,2008—Page 6 I:\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Minutes 2008\4-21-08 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 1 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 ATTACHMENT 2 111 " City of Tigard TOAD 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. Understory 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 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 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 removal etc. ( ( (00 r,� ��..�%z4,m��� 4-7i:: 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. y_ 2. UNDERSTORY VEGITATION: f do not understand this one. Can 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. — Please add "In ecological corridors," The City shall... and keep the developable property out of it or add provisions for traditional landscaping Cy' people want. z-c 4 / 4. This is open ended. ADD: and provide clear achievable goals given 717c-,-Ci 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 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 fail fail and injure persons or damage property either existing or potential, and where pruning or other commonly accepted arboriculture practices 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 infrll property. In conclusion: 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