01/09/2012 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
January 9, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
President Walsh called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
ROLL CALL
Present: President Walsh
Vice President Anderson
Commissioner Doherty
Commissioner Fitzgerald
Commissioner Muldoon
Commissioner Rogers
Commissioner Ryan
Commissioner Schmidt
Commissioner Shavey
Alt. Commissioner Armstrong
Alt. Commissioner Miller
Absent: None
Staff Present: Susan Hartnett, Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen
Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Tom McGuire, Principal Planner; Todd
Prager, Associate Planner/Arborist; Marissa Daniels, Associate Planner;
Darren Wyss, Senior Planner; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner
Also Present: Adrienne DaDona,JLA Public Involvement;John Frewing, CAC
Member
COMMUNICATIONS —President Walsh acknowledged the new commissioners present. One
voting member, Commissioner Fitzgerald; and two alternates, Commissioner Armstrong and
Commissioner Miller. He asked all the commissioners to introduce themselves,which they did.
President Walsh welcomed everyone and, particularly, the new commissioners.
CONSIDER MINUTES
December 19th Meeting Minutes: President Walsh asked if there were any additions,
deletions, or corrections to the December 19th minutes; there being none, Walsh declared the
minutes approved as submitted.
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\010912-WS-UFCR;BRIEFING\TPC;;\Inner,I-9.12 do, Page 1 of 5
WORKSHOP—URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISIONS
•
Susan Hartnett,Assistant Community Development Director, gave a brief overview of what was
scheduled for the evening. She noted the purpose of the meeting was to give the commission
the opportunity to ask questions of staff on the concepts or content of the Urban Forestry Code
Revisions and request any additional information that may be needed to help them make a
decision at the public hearing, scheduled for February 6, 2012. She introduced the staff present
who had been working on the project.
Hartnett then introduced Adrienne DeDona, with JLA Public Involvement- a consulting
organization that staff brought on board to help plan the community involvement in the
process, and to facilitate the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meetings that had taken place
(11 meetings between June, 2010 and September, 2011).
Ms. DeDona gave an overview of the CAC process. She acknowledged staff, saying they did an
excellent job putting together a CAC that ensured a broad spectrum of interests were
represented during the process —including those from the development community, residents,
tree specialists, and more. She noted two Planning Commissioners, Don Schmidt and Dave
Walsh, had served on the CAC to serve as liaisons to the Planning Commission throughout the
process.
DeDona explained that because the code revisions process covered a lot of information and a
number of subjects, the meetings were structured so the group touched on topics at least three
times before making a group recommendation, based upon consensus. The committee
deliberated over issues though a variety of activities including individual questionnaires,
brainstorming sessions, and small and large group discussions. Overall, there was a high level of
agreement amongst the committee members related to the code revisions. For example, in
order to effectively communicate and convey the outcomes of the code revision process and the
deliberations of the committee, the group developed a set of guiding principles that summarize
the various sections of the code into four main topic areas: Standards for Development, Tree
Grove Preservation Incentives, Tree Permit Requirements, and Hazard Trees. The committee
unanimously supported the guiding principles and indicated so with their signatures. These
meetings were open to the public and a number of community members attended and provided
testimony during public comment.
President Walsh commended Ms. DeDona's good work with the CAC. He noted the group was
very diverse and that she had done an excellent job facilitating it.
Marissa Daniels, Associate Planner, walked the commissioners through the documents that had
been distributed to them. She gave a general description of Volumes I, II, and III for the Urban
Forestry Code Revisions. Volume I is the project description. It tells the story of the Urban
Forestry Code Revisions project. Volume II is the staff proposed Draft Code Amendments. It
contains the draft code and Urban Forestry Manual. Volume III contains technical reports and
research that contributed to the draft code amendments. The sections included in each of these
documents are outlined at the beginning of each volume. Daniels noted there was an "Executive
Summary" (Exhibit A) in front of them to give a general, "easily digestible" overview.
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\010912-WS-UFCR;BRIEFING\TPC\[inu:ci 1-9-12.doc Page 2 of 5
Todd Prager, Project Manager& City Arborist, gave a code overview. He first gave a brief
refresher of the high points of the code. He then went over a PowerPoint presentation that went
into more depth (Exhibit B).
In response to the Planning Commission's request for digestible information, staff had prepared
a "Quick Reference Sheet"which was included in Attachment 2 of the Planning Commission
packet that had been sent out a week ahead of the meeting. The quick reference sheet
summarizes the main issues raised, how these issues have been addressed, how the draft code
differs from the existing code, and cross references to more detailed information for each of the
issues. This is not a complete list of all of the issues raised. It is focused on those issues that
required special attention and that staff anticipates will be topics of discussion during the
adoption process.
Prager went over the portion of the quick reference sheet regarding the Urban Forestry
Standards for Development (Exhibit C).
Darren Wyss, Senior Planner, went over the portion of the quick reference sheet that dealt with
the Tree Grove Preservation Incentives (Exhibit D).
He noted tree grove preservation incentives fall into three general categories:
1 —Providing incentives that would be attractive to developers & allow them to preserve all or a
portion of a mapped significant tree grove
o Waiver for minimum density requirements —code requires min 80% of zoned
capacity min lot size— significant habitat allows waiver—gave tree groves same
option
o Density transfer— currently not allowed in the code. Option for saving a portion
of tree grove and transferring allowed zoned density to non-grove portion of site.
o Wanted to ensure neighborhood compatibility
• No multi-family in single-family zones
• Perimeter lots blend in with adjacent properties (75% of base zone min lot
size)
o Commercial /Industrial density transfer not applicable—increased building height
was the option agreed upon (20 additional ft from zoned max height)
o Discussed transfer of excess canopy cover required as part of standards for
development to another development
• Record tracking issues
• Inequity to receiving neighborhood—potentially lose canopy cover
• Decided to table and not include
2—Require a minimum level of tree grove preservation
o Community must receive a benefit in exchange for incentives/flexible standards
o Larger tree grove preserved the greater the benefit
o Portion preserved must be outside currently protected areas (Sensitive lands such
as wetlands, stream corridors, floodplain & steep slopes)
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\010912-WS-UFCR;BRIEFING\TPC\Iinures 1 9-12.doc Page 3 of 5
o Considered varying levels of preservation but settled on:
• 10,000 sq ft min
• 50% saved for minimum density waiver or commercial/industrial
increased height
• Residential properties subject to Table 18.790.1 —greater percentage
saved, the smaller the lot allowed & more options allowed in type of
housing unit (attached units & duplex on smaller lot)
o Tree grove must be protected in perpetuity through an instrument or action
3 —Ensure health & connectivity of the grove
o Concern over health of remaining grove if portion is removed
• Blow-down is an issue when interior of grove is exposed
o Maintaining as much connectivity as possible is important for wildlife habitat&
contributes to health of the grove
o Each grove is unique, so setting a standard in the code did not make sense
Prager briefly reviewed the Municipal Code issues, Tree Permit Requirements and Hazard Trees.
QUESTIONS
There were some general questions about the format of the upcoming public hearing. There
were questions also, about the extent of public engagement. Marissa Daniels explained the
public engagement thus far and advised the commissioners that soon a Measure 56 notice
would be going out to all Tigard residents.
"What do you think would be the most contentious issues that might come up at the
public hearing?" Prager answered: "There could be miscommunication of what's in the
code... for instance, the tree permit requirements could be misperceived. People may think
"Now the city's going to require me to get permits to cut down trees on my private property—
take my property rights. If that misperception is out there I think that could be a contentious
thing we'd have to address. We'd let people know that the city's not looking at regulating more
situations, it's just changing where it is in the code and changing the process for approving
those regulated trees. So that would be one that could come up, but I think so far we've done
a good job of letting people know that that's not the case. It could make sense to address this
right at the very beginning of the hearing. I think the real issue is going to be with the
Development Code —and it will probably be from the Homebuilders Association. They're
actually very happy with the draft code —they support it; they just feel that the canopy
standards are a little bit too aggressive and they'd like to see them lowered a bit. So they will
probably come to you and ask that those be reduced. The canopy fee is another possible issue
- possibly changing the methodology of setting those fees. That's a council decision however."
Next Steps
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on February 6, 2012 and consider
recommending council adoption of the UFCR.
I:\LRPLN\Plannng Commission\7012 Packets\010912-WS UFCR;BRIEFING\FPC? nutcs 1-9-12 doc Page 4 of 5
On March 20, 2012, staff is tentatively scheduled to present on the UFCR project at a council
workshop. The workshop will be council's opportunity to learn more and provide preliminary
feedback to staff in advance of the hearing. Following the workshop, council is scheduled to
hold a public hearing on the adoption of the UFCR on April 24, 2012. If additional dates are
needed, the timeline will shift by at least a month.
BRIEFING —DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS OVERVIEW/STAFF
REPORT ENHANCEMENTS
Tom McGuire, Principal Planner, explained that he is looking into streamlining processes and
procedures. He said staff would be looking into utilizing automation systems that are already
in place, i.e. software called "Accela" which he believes at this point, is underutilized. He said
they are looking at ways on a land-use side to make planners more efficient and save money.
For example, boilerplates, automated notifications, paperwork, etc. could be automated using
Accela. He said he is interested in the commission's comments and thoughts on this and on
hearing their ideas as to what they believe would be helpful in how information on the staff
report is organized. The suggestion was made by President Walsh that perhaps Tom could
send out a typical staff report to everyone and use a "survey monkey" to get ideas from the
commissioners. Tom will look into this and get back to them.
OTHER BUSINESS - None
ADJOURNMENT
President Walsh adjourned the meeting at 9:33 p.m.
•
Doreen Laughlin, Planning Comusion Secretary
ATTEST: resi.ent Dave Wal
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\010912-w5-UFCR;BRIEFING\TPC,l 1‘11urcs 1-9-l2.dru Page 5 of 5
•
•
k of Tigari
. Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project
SUMMARY I DISCUSSION DRAF OVEMBER 2011
City of Tigard
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT "
13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223
TIGARD
wwtigard-or.gov/trees
w
DISCUSSION DRAFT I SUMMARY I Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project
Project Summary
BACKGROUND
The City of Tigard has a proud history of commitment to preserving,
enhancing and maintaining its urban forest. The city's trees provide an
important backdrop for life in Tigard. Unlike natural forests or managed
timberland,Tigard's urban forest is a mosaic of native forest remnants
and planted landscapes interspersed with buildings, roads and other
elements of the urban environment. Tigard's 2009 Urban Forestry
Master Plan set forth a vision that "Tigard's urban forest is valued and
protected by city residents as a thriving,interconnected ecosystem
managed to improve quality of life,increase community identity, and Tigard's urban forest is
valued and protected by
In pursuit of this vision, City Council directed staff to undertake a major city residents as a thriving
update of Tigard's urban forest related code provisions. Council intends
interconnected ecosystem
of our changing and growing community. managed to improve quality
of life, increase community
PROBLEM STATEMENT identity, and maximize
A wide range of stakeholders,including community groups, developers aesthetic, economic and
ecological benefits.
Key concerns include:
The code does not promote the preservation of high quality trees. 99
The mitigation structure encourages overplanting and the
preservation of large diameter trees that are often less likely to
survive development impacts.
The fees for tree removal are excessive.
The code unfairly penalizes those property owners with existing
trees more than those owners without trees.
challenging to track protected and replacement trees in the years
and decades following development.
provisions,which presents administrative challenges for the city.
0
Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project SUMMARY I DISCUSSION DRAFT
The code does not require sustainable installation and maintenance
methods for trees.
preserving native tree groves.
PROJECT PURPOSE STATEMENT
Would you strongly support,support,
oppose, or strongly oppose city
The Urban Forestry Master Plan calls for the project to: regulations that would provide some
level of protection for large, health
1. Update Tigard's urban forestry standards for development. trees on developed private property?
2. Ensure urban forestrystandardspromote sustainable designand This would apply to all current private
property.
maintenance of the urban forest.
80
3. Establish an incentive-based program to preserve Tigard's
remaining groves of native trees. 70
4. 60 •
abatement program.
50
5. Improve management of the urban forest by ensuring information
is readily available for both the city and the public when making 40 •
decisions.
30
6. Promote community-wide participation in urban forest
stewardship. 20 •
10 . ■
To implement the recommendations in the Urban Forestry Master Plan,
Tigard's Urban Forestry Code Revisions project will: 0
Support Oppose
FOCUS on large groves and important trees.
INVITE extensive public participation.
EMPHASIZE and incentivize preservation before mitigation.
SHARE responsibility for urban forestry across the city.
PROTECT the public with new standards for hazard trees.
INCORPORATE methods for increasing tree canopy and
improving stormwater management.
INVOLVE private arborists and/or landscape architects
throughout the development process.
CREATE resources for effective implementation:
Tree manual.
DISCUSSION DRAFT I SUMMARY I Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project
Permit activity tracking.
Publicly accessible inventory of protected trees.
CLARIFY jurisdictional requirements.
DETERMINE appropriate code placement.
INCLUDE enforcement standards and procedures.
COLLABORATIVE PROCESS
The Urban Forestry Code Revisions project represents the convergence
of community collaboration on several urban forestry related projects.
Community input was integral to the completion of both the Urban
Forestry section of the Comprehensive Plan and the Urban Forestry
Master Plan. Public involvement for the Urban Forestry Code Revisions
has built on these previous efforts.
r
•
:vk
Urban Forestry Code Revisions
UFCR Citizens Advisory Committee
Technical Advisory Committee
• x
• , Peer Review
+.;. City Council
a" Planning Commission
%N. .f a
`. .' Urban Forestry Master Plan
UFMP Citizens Advisory Committee
City Council
Planning Commission
41104e -Comprehensive Plan
•w Policy Interest Team/Tree Board
City Council
Planning Commission
p
Led by the Community Development Department, the Urban Forestry
Code Revisions Project has involved ongoing, extensive collaboration
with city residents and stakeholders, internal city departments such as
Public Works and Risk Management, and outside agencies like Clean
Water Services.
Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project SUMMARY I DISCUSSION DRAFT
A Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was appointed by council in
February 2010 to ensure representation of a broad set of viewpoints
during the update process. This committee included two planning
commissioners, two tree board members, two parks board members,
two developers (including a representative for the Home Builder's
one at-large citizen. In January 2011, the CAC timeline was extended
to ensure ample time for the committee to discuss code topics. In
principles for each of the four code topics.
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed at the same time as
the CAC. The TAC included city staff and representatives from outside
agencies to advise the project management team on the technical aspects
of the code during the update process.
to provide enhanced opportunities for participation for the overall
community throughout the process. This plan included outreach at city
events like the Tigard Balloon Festival and Tigard Area Farmers Market, A public involvement plan
and other methods for community feedback. was developed specifically
for the project to provide
The draft urban forestry code was peer reviewed by outside
development and urban forestry experts in October 2011 to provide enhanced opportunities for
additional assurance of technical soundness. participation for the overall
From this collaborative process emerged the staff-proposed draft that community throughout
is presented in this report. The staff-proposed draft has been vetted for
consistency with community expectations,principles of urban forest
the process.
science and compliance with applicable legal requirements.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER CITY GOALS,
PROGRAMS AND REGULATORY MANDATES
There are several policies and laws that create a framework for
implementation of Tigard's urban forestry program.
The city's commitment to urban forestry is underscored in the city's
Comprehensive Plan.Adopted in 2008, an Urban Forest section was
values for Tigard's trees. Developed in partnership with members of the
community, this section contains two goals, 22 policies and 11 action
0
DISCUSSION DRAFT I SUMMARY I Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project
20-7
2.2 To enlarge,improve and sustain a diverse urban forest to Comprehensive Plan
2.3 To balance the diverse and changing needs of the city through 11
well-designed urban development that minimizes the loss of
existing trees to create a living legacy for future generations. ® ta
Tigard may not take any action that is contradictory to a Comprehensive
Plan goal.
Urban Forestry Master Plan
The Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP) sets a recommended course
of action for the City of Tigard's urban forestry program from the
time of its acceptance by council in 2009 until the year 2016.The plan ,a:'
was developed through a public process involving community outreach
and surveys,urban forestry stakeholder interviews, departmental
coordination meetings, and review of current city policies and
for implementation detailed in an implementation matrix. Urban Forest
ry
MANUAL
REGULATORY MANDATES
The city's urban forestry program is required to comply with various
federal, state and regional requirements. Outside agencies with
regulatory requirements include the state Departments of Forestry,
Transportation, Land Conservation and Development, State Lands,
and Environmental Quality; the Oregon Public Utility Commission;
Metro and Clean Water Services.
Key Elements of Proposal
URBAN FORESTRY STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT
Requires all major developments to plant or preserve a certain
number of trees to support citywide tree canopy cover goals.
Tree canopy cover standards will be tiered based on zoning. For
example, development in low density residential areas will be
required to have more trees than in areas of dense zoning, such
as downtown Tigard.
Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project SUMMARY I DISCUSSION DRAFT
TREE GROVE PRESERVATION INCENTIVES
of native trees during development. This includes the option to
have fewer housing units than the code would otherwise require or
increase housing units on one part of a property to preserve trees
on another part.
To see if you have inventoried tree groves on your property visit
TREE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
Consolidates existing tree permit requirements for ease of use.
Streamlines the decision-making process without regulating
additional tree situations.
To see if tree permits will continue to be required for your
property visit
HAZARD TREES Tigard's goal is 40 percent citywide
tree canopy by the year 2047.
Creates a process for resolving hazard tree issues in a more 100
90
80
Tree Canopy Approach 70
60
50
The city's Urban Forestry Master Plan calls for 40 percent tree canopy
40
because tree canopy relates directly to environmental quality (air, 30
water,wildlife) and can be readily mapped and monitored over time.
Many cities throughout the nation have surpassed the 40 percent goal, 20
including the cities of Lake Oswego (47 percent) and Durham (54
percent). West Linn is approaching the goal with 39 percent tree canopy. '10
The Urban Forestry Code Revisions project proposes using canopy °
Where we are. Where we want
to be.
targets to support achievement of the city's long-term urban forestry
0
DISCUSSION DRAFT I SUMMARY I Urban Forestry Code Revisions Project
goals and to promote sound urban forestry practices such as appropriate
tree selection and placement. Residents serving on the Urban Forestry
Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee worked with staff to set
achievable canopy targets for future development projects. These goals
could be met through planting new trees or preserving existing trees.
In the proposal, the preservation of existing trees will receive double
canopy credit to incentivize preservation and reward the incorporation
of mature trees in new development. Alternatives to planting or ... tree canopy relates
directly to environmental
building techniques or paying into an urban forestry fund.
quality (air, water,
It is important to recognize that the Urban Forestry Code Revisions
project alone is not designed or intended to meet the 40 percent citywide wildlife) and can be
tree canopy goal. The Urban Forestry Code Revisions project does readily mapped and
require a contribution of canopy toward the citywide goal through
code provisions that are equitable and achievable. However, other monitored over time.
non-regulatory strategies such as investment in planting,preservation,
management and outreach are essential elements in progressing towards 41
the citywide goal. The Urban Forestry Master Plan (not the Urban
Forestry Code Revisions) provides the overall framework for periodic
review, evaluation and necessary adjustments towards the 40 percent
citywide goal.
2/10/2012
CITY OF TIGARD I 'I 1 n l I I (, ( 1(
•
Urban Forestry Code Revisions
Summary of Draft Code .r.
comma.iq 0..4..1 I January 1012 .a.j. - .
C: 11 1 (( 1 1 1 (1 1 I( II (. 1 1 1 (r I I I ( 1 N U
Urban ForeStry Standards for.Deve1op t . , Urban Forestry Standards forDevelopment
Tiered canopy targets based on Ieuiing •Tiered canopy targets basest en zoning
Bettis credits for preserving healthy;mature trees ►:Twr i-.ts5 to 40%canopy
.ince€ltives for planting targe stature tY:eS 1 re to re zs zan v
incentives for tiaxinriung street trees
A Standards fol tree planting in parking lots
.Piembilityfor alternative proposals
1
2/10/2012
1 , 1 ..
,� , i
1 �. f, ; i, •i 'E. r
,_...
_,
_ __,., __ -__ ,
.t.vi.
...._
_........,,, ,,. ,.....
_r_, , ii ,1
, 1 ","_.
_.
j , -1*/
Example of Meeting Tier 1 Canopy Requirement by
Combination of Planting and Preservation Example of Meeting Tier 2 Canopy Requirement for Pacific Hwy Drive-Thrsi.
_ 1 I , r: I FIG 5 It I) I : Y ,, I 3 I G 9 I1 U
'Inlir[1:-4,:E'.-----'''---11: . ,,
is r
o',
i t - \ N'
- = -: {
Example of Meeting Tier 3 Canopy Requirement for ° ,. .,
-. .
The Knoll in Downtown Tigard
2
2/10/2012
,.. I i S" u I 'I- I G t ,i ,, 1. 1 '1 1' I. I 'I' I C 1 Ii U
Tree Grove Preservation Incenti s 1'*- '. F s ' i
+..Retluctiop in minimum rldtisit'-reciuiierftetlts • i, '! 7' •- ,..r" ..... K
nsltyttansf&r writttsri a l rt' ' ,
Reduction in dimensions ttot srae;siFitivack,etc} f
►Attacher!units-(pot mul sn+ly)
01
+ A&htiottal.buildfr►g height-fig g cr i er is/industrial „� --;Plat
101 i
Example Site
CIIV 0 1- 1- 1 G 4 1t U �I
H I I I -I , [ i p ^ r1 r -- ' _
f
_ • -
c .
L.� 1 � .� option l-Mondani Lot SU6dF.islon
Rptlon7-Standard tot Subdivision Norm GrurePrcerred No Tree Grove Preserved ■ill
Areagelot Sire-73-8SWSF-1x(I-nib ®®
3
2/10/2012
t: 1 'I' S 0 1. L 1 t :,,, Ik I)
a i
i I'
--- - s-
-
i . r— ' F j I
P., Jw�w....w.bn.` .
Option 2-Standoff(totSubdivihion Al(Tree Grove Preserved Oonon x-Standard Lot SabUirision ,
Aro p:latStre7S-65OOSF-15 Units halm.,Derrik,Watrel
®IN All Tree Grove Preserved MINI
. 1 1 1 I1 1 I I ti; ', Ii I) .. I I 1 , I
I I -.`__I I i n177_ - _
. 1!111111111.11111111P1
•
FI 'L '�
- •
-, aa'rr — - se.
Option 3-Standard end SmontotSubdirisian 4a%oflitre LionoFrowned Option 3-Standard and 5roall Lot Subdivision
Avengni tAie-Stadard7S-B504SF(IV-SnufLot i5-45000f(17) N ne 40%of Tree Grove Preserved IN Al
4
2/10/2012
C I T Y O 1' I' 1 . A It I) C I T Y O I, TIG AR I)
Tree Permit Requirements...
•
`. +Consolidate existing-requirements=into new Title 8
•Two track decision making mss
Cit./Manager decisions are for simple suations anti.
made at a staff'level without public notice
• }City hoard or ttiriimission decisions sore for inore
•
-...✓
complex situations and rtu eirc ixubric notice-
• ,
1 ] 'I 1 I 1 E 5 O I. I 1 [: 5 It U
.Hazard Trees
Define hazard tress according to•internation l:
• Society of Arboriculture point,syst
•
*Require evidence that claimant and respondent
have tried to work out issues before invOlving city
When city becomes involved,a third pasts'arbor •
•
• ,� : completes evaluation to limitcity l;ability
. >Abatement required for verified hazards
5
Attachment 2
Quick Reference Sheet of the Main Issues Raised
Below is the "quick reference sheet"which summarizes the main issues raised,how these issues
have been addressed,how the draft code differs from the existing code, and cross references to
more detailed information for each of the issues. This is not a complete list of all of the issues
raised. It is focused on those issues that required special attention and that staff anticipates will be
topics of discussion during the adoption process.
Urban Forestry Standards for Development
Consensus Decision Deliberations How Decision Differs from References
the Existing Code
1. Create canopy • Base level of preservation • The existing code applies Volume I
targets tailored by was considered,but mitigation requirements -Guiding Principles
zone to be met consensus was to treat to property owners that Urban Forestry
through any owners with and without remove trees while those Standards for
combination of trees equitably. without trees are exempt. Development
planting and • Numerical planting • The existing code requires
preservation. requirement was planting a certain number Volume II
Preservation considered,but consensus of mitigation trees and -Code
receives bonuswas that canopy targets does not consider layout. Section 18.790.030
credits. allow for more thoughtful This often leads to -Urban Forestry
layout of trees during overplanting. Manual Section 10,
development. • There is often not enough Part 3.N
• Varying percentages of space on development
canopy were considered, sites to meet the Volume III
but consensus was reached mitigation requirements in -Canopy Standards
after testing on multiple the existing code. Memo
example sites. • The urban forestry
• Applying the canopy standards in the draft
targets to additional code would apply to the
development such as same scale of projects as
building additions was in the existing code.
considered,but consensus
was that these smaller scale
projects have minimal
impact on trees.
1
Attachment 2
Consensus Decision Deliberations How Decision Differs from References
the Existing Code
2. Require street trees • The cost of meeting soil • The existing code does Volume I
and parking lot trees volume standards were not require minimum soil -Guiding Principles
to meet minimum discussed as potentially volume standards. This Urban Forestry
soil volume prohibitive initially. For results in failure of trees Standards for
standards to support example,meeting soil and pavement damage Development
canopy growth to volumes with technologies due to limited space for
maturity. such as structural soils is roots. This has been a Volume II
more closely that planting particular problem for -Code
in open landscape areas. street trees and parking Section 18.745.040
• Consensus was reached lot trees. Section 18.745.050.E
that the draft code -Urban Forestry
provides enough options Manual Section 12
for meeting soil volume Section 13
standards. Flexibility in
sidewalk and parking Volume III
standards allows for -Soil Volume
planting in open landscape Standards Memo
areas.
3. Allow a fee in lieu of • The existing code requires • The draft fee in lieu Volume I
meeting canopy mitigation based on the ($2.95 per square foot of -Guiding Principles
targets. trunk diameter of trees canopy) is different than Urban Forestry
removed. A fee in lieu is the existing fee ($250 per Standards for
allowed based on the city's new 2"tree). Development
cost to plant replacement • The draft fee is based on
diameter inches (cost of standard tree appraisal Volume II
City to plant new 2"trees x methodology by the -Code
replacement inches International Society of Section 18.790.030.B
required). Arboriculture. The -Urban Forestry
• The draft code requires methodology for the Manual Section 10,
percent canopy targets existing fee is not clear. Part 4
(square feet of canopy at • Based on peer review
maturing-square feet of results,most development Volume III
the development site). projects should be able to -Tree Canopy Fee
• The consensus was a fee in provide the required Memo
lieu of providing canopy canopy through planting
should be allowed when and preservation without
canopy is not possible or a fee in lieu. The
desirable. mitigation requirements in
• Various methods for the existing code often
creating a fee in lieu were result in significant fees in
discussed,but consensus lieu due to lack of space
was reached to use a for mitigation trees.
square foot value for
canopy based on standard
tree appraisal
methodology.
2
Attachment 2
II. Tree Grove Preservation Incentives
Consensus Deliberations How Decision Differs References
Decision from the Existing Code
1.Facilitate tree • Waiver of minimum density • The existing code does Volume I
grove should be available,as it not have any flexible -Guiding Principles
preservation by currently is with significant standards or incentives Tree Grove
allowing waiver habitat areas. for tree grove Preservation
of minimum • Density transfer should be preservation. Incentives
density,density allowed provided: • To facilitate tree grove
transfer,and ■ It does not result in multi- preservation: Volume II
additional family housing in single- ■ Waiver of minimum -Code
building height family zoned density is allowed. Section 18.790.050.D
while maintaining neighborhoods. ■ Density transfer is
compatibility ■ Lots on the perimeter of allowed.
with existing development blend in with • Increased building
neighborhoods. existing,adjacent height for
properties. commercial and
• Since density transfer is not industrial buildings is
applicable in allowed.
commercial/industrial zoning,
increased building height
would be greatest incentive
for those areas.
• Allowing preserved tree grove
canopy cover in excess of
required amount to be
transferred to another
development was considered,
but it was not incorporated
due to tracking issues for the
city and the inequity that
would result from
development in one
neighborhood receiving less
canopy due to preservation in
another.
4
Attachment 2
Consensus Deliberations How Decision Differs References
Decision from the Existing Code
2.Require a • The community must receive • The existing code does Volume I
minimum level some benefit in exchange for not have any flexible -Guiding Principles
of tree grove incentives/flexible standards. standards or incentives Tree Grove
preservation • The larger the tree grove for tree grove Preservation
before allowing preserved,the greater the preservation. Incentives
use of the community benefit. • Identified tree groves are
flexible standards To be eligible for eligible for Volume II
and incentives. -Codeincentives/flexible standards incentives/flexible
ibl
the portion of the tree grove standards if they meet Section 18.790.050.D
preserved must be outside of the following criteria:
currently protected sensitive • Minimum 10,000 sq.
lands. ft. of tree grove on
• Varying levels of tree grove the development site.
preservation were considered. • 50%must be
preserved for
reduction of
minimum density or
commercial/industria
1 incentives/flexible
standards.
■ Residential property
is subject to
percentages found in
Table 18.790.1.
3.Require • Concern was raised over the • The existing code does Volume I
maximization of health of the remaining grove not consider connectivity -Guiding Principles
the connectivity after a portion is removed for and viability of preserved Tree Grove
and viability of development. trees after development Preservation
the preserved • Tree stability is an issue when is complete. As a result, Incentives
portion of the interior of grove is exposed to failure of preserved trees
tree grove. the edge. is a significant issue. Volume II
• Maintaining connectivity is • The draft code would -Code
important for wildlife and require certification by Section 18.790.050.D
health of grove. the project arborist that -Urban Forestry
• The consensus was since the connectivity and viability Manual
circumstances of each grove of the preserved portion Section 10,Part 5
are unique,the project of the grove is
arborist must certify on a case maximized.
by case basis the preservation
is such that connectivity and
viability is maximized.
Considerations for tree grove
preservation were developed
to help guide decision making.
5