HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2003-02-24 Al
00 E osk fco City of Lake Oswego
LI. Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force
—� Monday, February 24, 2003
���� 7:00—9:00 pm
°4EC'�" Human Resources Conference Room
380 A Avenue
Members: Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Scott Rubel,Chair Christine Roth,VC
Michael Buck David Cory For Information: 503-699-7473 or singalls@ci.oswego.or.us
Terrence Flanagan Richard Pross
Laura Rybowiak
Agenda
This meeting is in a handicapped accessible location. For any special accommodations, please contact
Sandy Ingalls at 503-699-7473, 48 hours before the meeting.
I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
II. MINUTES
December 17, 2002
January 27, 2003
III REGULAR BUSINESS
1. 7:00 - 9:00—Review workshop recommendations
IV ADJOURNMENT
ATTACHMENTS:
Minutes
Letter—dated February 10, 2003
Letter—dated February 11, 2003
NEXT MEETING DATE:
vFDp„y, fr"
-JS
FEB = 2003
february 10, 2003 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
Dept.of Planning&Development
RE: PROPOSED NEW TREE ORDINANCES
PLEASE DO NOT DICTATE TO HOME OWNERS WHAT THEY CAN OR CANNOT
PRUNE OR CUT BY WAY OF TREES OR SHRUBS ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY.
DO GIVE HOME OWNERS THE CREDIT FOR THE USE OF DISCRETION IN DEAL-
ING WITH SUCH IMPORTANT ISSUES.
I DO BELIEVE IN SOME TYPES OF PERMITS FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDING .
ALSO, IT DOES NOT TAKE A PROFESSIONAL ARBORIST TO DETERMINE WHETH-
ER OR NOT A TREE IS DISEASED OR / DYING.
NO TREE-CUTTING PERMITS FOR HOMEOWNERS, PLEASE.
NO REQUIREMENT NEEDED TO INFORM NEIGHBORS OF INTENT TO CUT OR
PRUNE TREES. AFTER ALL, WHO LEGALLY OWNS WHAT?!
My husband and I have been Lake Oswego residents for 35 years at the same
location and appreciate the efforts made on behalf of many to continue the livea-
bility of our city but not an infringement on our homeowners' rights in this regard.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Elaine Stevens 1099 Cherry Circle, Lake Oswego, Oregon
RECEIVED
r EB 1 2 2003
February 11, 2003 CITY O LA E OSW€G
Dept of Planning Dsuslopment
Tree Code Task Force
380 A Ave.
P.O. Box 369
Lake Oswego, Or 97034
ATTN: Sandy Ingalls
Dear Task Force Members:
May I offer one citizen's random thoughts on our tree code:
• Some would argue, with validity, that the code infringes on individual property rights;
others see the code as enlightened public policy. I encourage you to incorporate
modifications that strike a reasonable and thoughtful balance.
• In its current form,the code arguably imposes bureaucracy;that is, the process is
unnecessarily restrictive and expensive. From press reports,it appears that you are
sensitive to process issues, but with a"budget crunch", deservedly lower fees may be
difficult to implement. I would argue that the current fee structure unfairly impacts
senior citizens, many of who defer property improvements in order to conserve
financial resources.
• It is likely that our abundance of trees are cherished by most in the community, but I
would submit that upon closer inspection, we would recognize substantial numbers of
trees throughout the community in need of thinning, trimming, or removal.
• Our most abundant of species, Douglas fir, are inherently dirty trees, generously
providing needles, cones, sap, hydrocarbons, and for those who recall ice storms,
sometimes dangerous (when over or adjacent to dwellings) ice-laden branches.
Moreover, Douglas fires are shallow rooted and, when particularly when standing
alone, are a high wind hazard. Further, as evergreens, they limit access to seasonal
sunlight They are also thirsty!
• In the writer's opinion, many, many properties are shaded by an over-abundance of
firs, and to a much lesser extent, other native species (alder, maple, oak). And Nature,
unaided, does not provide for the benefit of shade from siting shade trees on our
West/Northwest property boundaries to mitigate summer afternoon sun intensity,
• The adoption of a tree code 50 years ago, one that encouraged attractive non-native
species, perhaps with more deciduous varieties, would have rewarded us with more
variety today. Provisions for an arborist and appropriate replacement provisions may
be beneficial toward this end.
• Dwellings substantially in shade are abundant throughout the City and benefit less
from available solar energy and are far more likely to incur cumulative deterioration
from rot and problems related to dampness.
• In summary, rather than preserve a code which limits owner initiative through process
(including application, review, comment, approval, and fees), why not re-craft or
modify the code to encourage property owners to thin, trim and remove trees that 1)
adversely impact access to sunlight (particularly Winter sun), 2) may be a potential
fire or wind hazard, or 3) are oversized, mature,topped, or otherwise unattractive.
Odds are, we would remain a"leafy" community, a community more attractive to the
beholder, and, with replacement incentives, one with more diversity.
Very trul ,yours,
D. ony Marqui
1703 Kelok Rd.
Lake Oswego 97034
cc: City Councilors
f DRAFT
,,‘,",,,, ,,,,,,-- 0
City of Lake Oswego
Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Minutes
December 17, 2002
I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Chair Scott Rubel convened the Ad Hoc Tree Code Task Force at 7:09 p.m. on December
17,2002 in the Conference Room of the Main Fire Station at 300 B Avenue, Lake
Oswego, Oregon.
Task Force members present were Chair Rubel, Vice Chair Christine Roth, Michael
Buck, David Cory, Terrance Flanagan, Richard Pross and Laura Rybowiak. May Wiley
was absent.
Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; and Sandy Ingalls,
Code Enforcement Specialist.
II. MINUTES
None.
III. REGULAR BUSINESS
Guest presentation
Mr. and Mrs. Gary and Betty Buford explained to the Task Force that they own property
in the City. Mr. Buford asked the group to consider changes to the Type I Removal
Permit that would base the maximum number of Type I trees that could be removed under
this permit each year on the size of the parcel and allow an owner of a multi-acre parcel to
remove more than two trees. He suggested that property owners should get a credit from
the City for planting trees. Mrs. Buford, a certified master gardener, encouraged the City
to educate the public about how to properly prune and maintain trees. She was prompted
to suggest this because some property owners have been afraid to prune their trees for
fear their neighbors would report that as a violation of the Tree Code.
Review work session recommendations
The Task Force discussed a suggestion to insert a"grandfather clause"that would apply
to sites where the tree removal applicant could prove they originally planted the tree.
They also considered the issue of the"wrong tree in the wrong place." They discussed
the role of a City Arborist in these situations.
City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 1 of 7
Minutes of December 17,2002
Mr. Pross suggested making a provision in the Code to allow for removal of trees by the
person who planted them without any problems. Although once that property is sold to a
different owner,then the new property owner would have to go through a regular tree
removal permit process, since they didn't plant trees.
Mr. Flanagan responded he's facing that situation now. The previous owner planted 18
spruce trees in the space where there should be one. There is no easy way to deal with
this problem, even if you could take out 2 per year it would take 9 years to finish the
removal project.
Mr. Pross asked how much it cost to remove your trees?
Mr. Flanagan replied approximately$1,500.
Mr. Pishvaie stated there have been situations where trees were planted, that are now
considered a hedge under the current Code, staff has approved permits for removing trees
which grew into a hedge. Staff has also taken landscaping related cases to the
Development Review Commission(DRC).
Mr. Ruble asked Mr. Flanagan if there had been a grandfather clause in the Code,would
you have asked the former property owner to remove the trees before you bought the
house.
Mr. Flanagan replied, "yes".
Mr. Cory suggested adding a special review permit for situations like"wrong tree,wrong
place". A good solution to this growing problem would be a"wrong tree, wrong place"
removal permit,which would take other situations into consideration.
The TF discussed the different type of permits which are required to remove trees in the
wrong place.
Mr. Pishvaie replied staff had cases where applicants wanted to remove the tree because
the wrong type of tree was planted in the wrong place. Sometimes staff can review these
situations, other times the DRC has made the decision.
Mr. Ruble added the homeowner will have to bear the burden of proof,however, and
would still need an arborist report. Can we write this Code without an arborist?
Mr. Pishvaie concluded there is a certain part of the tree removal process that can be done
without an arborist,but hazard trees require the expertise of an arborist.
Mr. Ruble asked the task force if there had been a vote taken last week at the Council
meeting, what do you think the Council would do?
City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force' Page 2 of 7
Minutes of December 17,2002
p
Mr. Flanagan cautioned Mr. Ruble,this is a new thing to the Council and we need to be
careful how we present this to them with the shortfall in budget.
Mr. Pross noted by only making slight variations to the Code we won't fix anything,we'll
just patch it together again. The TF needs to concentrate on the end result,which will be
a comprehensive code, including an on staff arborist, easy interpretation for the public
and clear cut guidelines for everyone to follow.
Mr. Pishvaie noted the Task Force has to be ready for Council to be gun-shy to add a
City Arborist position. Everyone on staff answers questions and gives suggestions to
people who don't know that they could just prune a tree, rather than remove it sometimes,
although this education if it came from an arborist, would be more realistic. You may
want to provide the Council with two ordinances, one with and one without an arborist.
Mr. Buck noted if you don't have an arborist, staff will have a more open, less restrictive
Code to deal with.
Mr. Pishvaie noted if you do that,then staff will need to be educated in all situations with
regard to the health of trees. He mentioned that staff gets second guessed all the time
since it's hard for a layperson to identify hazard trees sometimes.
Mr. Flanagan noted it seems like some of the Council wanted the Code rewritten to
become a more radical instrument to implement.
Mr. Pishvaie noted any time you come up with a code, you have questions at some point.
You have to be ready to explain which species of trees are important to retain and which
species aren't an asset to the community.
Ms. Roth stated they originally were talking about a Type I being 8 inches. Anything
bigger than 8 inches would be a Type II.
Mr. Roth stated this is the standard that's been set, we decided to relax that in keeping
with our general thrust, we just picked a number.
Mr. Cory stated 6 inches is more in keeping with other jurisdictions in the Metropolitan
area.
Mr. Flanagan asked, is it worth spending some time to see how the arborist position can
be funded?
Mr. Cory noted we have worked very hard on this project for 14 months and then to have
one meeting with the Council only to be told to drop the arborist from the Code,because
there is no money in the budget for one isn't fair to the TF and the community. We have
worked hard on the new code, steadily moving in the direction that Council asked of us,
just to be told at the last minute to make radical changes to the code,which would render
City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 3 of 7
Minutes of December 17,2002
the new code ineffective and confusing. It would be better to stick with what we
currently have, if that's the decision the Council makes.
Mr. Cory stated at present the City doesn't have the background to examine a tree to say
if it's a hazard or not. What if we recommended Sandy be trained as an arborist.
Mr. Pishvaie responded to be a qualified arborist you need 5-8 years of experience to be
comfortable making these decisions.
Mr. Roth suggested the legal time and staff time to defend decisions that are made by
untrained staff is very costly,that's why with a comprehensive program including a staff
arborist, the City would actually save money.
Mr. Roth asked how many maintenance arborists are on the City's maintenance staff
Mr. Pishvaie said two full time employees who are certified arborists,but they don't have
the time to look at tree permits.
Mr. Flanagan noted with an efficient system,it doesn't take a full blown arborist report to
convince staff about the hazard condition of the tree.
Ms. Rybowiak asked how much of a load is being taken off a current staff person by
hiring a City Arborist.
Mr. Pishvaie noted the number of hazard trees would decrease with a staff arborist.
Mr. Cory stated he's been the contracted arborist on three different occasions for the City
of Lake Oswego.
The TF asked Mr. Pishvaie how many hazard trees were approved last year? He
responded there were 129 hazard tree permits approved. Typically if the application
comes back and the hazard rating is over 9 points staff would typically approve the
permit.
Mr. Pross asked how much time would it take if we had a part-time arborist?
Mr. Pishvaie, for the City Arborist to go out and do the assessment,maybe 50%would be
approved, since an arborist would have the background and experience to allow for
removal, if necessary.
The TF discussed hazard trees in general and noted instances where property owners have
applied to clear cut lots under the opuses of"hazard tree". Mr. Cory noted that one
application asked for removal of 35 trees, all of which were hazards. Mr. Flanagan
interjected, if the City hired an arborist, cases like this wouldn't come up. Mr. Pishvaie
noted that with an arborist probably 40%of the applications for hazard trees would be
denied.
City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 4 of 7
Minutes of December 17,2002
Mr. Ruble noted sometimes if an arborist tells a customer something they don't want to
hear,the citizen will seek out a different arborist who will tell them what they want to
hear.
Mr. Pishvaie reminded the TF that the citizens of Lake Oswego care about trees and we
frequently get calls about permits for a tree that's being cut down. He continued that the
TF needs to have some number for Council,how much would each option cost and where
is the funding for the City Arborist going to come from?
Mr. Ruble discussed the option of a tree review that could pay for the City Arborist.
Charge a flat fee for the City Arborist to come out and take a look at the tree, then the
citizen who wants to complete the permit for removal, could do so, submit the arborist
report, which is required. Mr. Cory noted that type of review wouldn't take that long.
Mr. Ruble continued establishing a City Arborist position would provide a service to the
community at a reduced rate,the citizen gets the arborist report needed for a removal
permit, and the City arborist position is funded. There is an added benefit to the City, in
that trends for the health of trees, and an inventory of all the trees could be gathered over
time.
Ms. Rybowiak asked if any of the tree fund money could be used to pay for an arborist.
Mr. Pishvaie responded that the tree fund can't be used to pay for the arborist.
Ms. Ingalls suggested looking for grants to fund that position.
Ms. Roth cautioned if you plan your program with a grant, you may not always get grant
money to keep the program going.
Ms. Rybowiak suggested having a plan for funding in place before we talk with Council.
Mr. Cory noted we're not supposed to find funding for an arborist, we were asked to write
the new Tree Code.
Mr. Ruble suggested identifying our best effort and charge forward with it.
Mr. Cory noted OSU and ISC have grants. You could build a beautiful research program
on the tree technical manual. Ms. Ingalls proposed using monies from the tree fund to
write the tree technical manual. Mr. Pross suggested an intern could certainly help with
that task. Ms. Roth suggested an Americor volunteer. Mr. Cory suggested checking with
the Urban Forestry Center to see if they could help the City with this project at all.
Mr. Ruble asked how much staff time will be saved once an arborist is on staff?
Mr. Pishvaie replied current staff is buried and with the additional tree permit duties,by
hiring an arborist, then they will just be able to start digging themselves out. He
City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 5 of 7
Minutes of December 17,2002
suggested that a staff arborist will provide consistency,reliability and may reduce the
number of applications for hazard trees.
Mr. Pross noted many citizens have brought up concerns with the current Code, and the
TF was formed to address those concerns. It is the opinion of the TF that to solve these
problems, the City needs to have an arborist on staff, to implement the new code as we
have written it.
Ms. Roth suggested that possibly a levy could be passed to maintain the open space,
which would be very small,however, it may be big enough to piggy back an arborist with
it.
Mr. Cory noted USDA and Dept. of Interior also have grant applications from time to
time. They have obligations to public owned facilities and they have accented their
efforts into forestry and some of these other issues.
Mr. Pishvaie noted staff met after the Council meeting. There are a couple of small items
that we need to include in the Code, such as changing the definition of Development
instead of"man made"to say"human made".
Change Topping to read as follows:
Topping- a pruning practice that results in removal of terminal growth leaving a stub cut
end.
Ms. Roth asked if the trees at Wizers are considered topped since they have been pruned
back so far?
Mr. Flanagan responded, they've been pollarded, they're not topped. He continued that
those trees aren't an appropriate species to do that to,however, if that trimming had been
started when the branches were no more than 2 inches, it would be an accepted practice.
Mr. Cory noted pollarding has become very popular.
Mr. Pishvaie asked if you want to change the topping definition.
It was the consensus of the TF to change the definition for Tree, as follows:
Tree -means any woody plant having a trunk six inches or larger in DBH. If a tree
visibly forks into multiple trunks below 4.5 feet, the trunk is measured at its most narrow
point beneath the fork(s), and is considered one tree. For the purposes of this section, a
tree is considered to fork where multiple trunks are physically separated to the degree that
light passes between them. English laurel(Prunus laurocerasus),photinia(All Photinia),
arborvitae (Thuja orientalis),holly(All Ilex),Portuguese laurel (Prunus lusitanica),
poison oak(Rhus diversiloba), and English ivy(Hedera helix) shall not be considered a
tree.
City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 6 of 7
Minutes of December 17,2002
Ms. Ingalls pointed out that the wrong code number was referenced and to fix it we need
to change it to: LOC 55.02.082.
Type I permits should be amended to include:
b. Any size and number of poplar, (cottonwood and willow), fruit or non-native
hawthorn trees.
c. Any tree not meeting Type I criteria shall be subject to requirements of LOC
55.02.042 (2)or(3)or(4)or(5)or(6)or(7).
Type II permits should be amended to include a subsection to item c:
i. Removal of the tree is not for providing or enhancement the views;
Renumber the subsequent sections following the insertion of"i",then remove the existing
number"iii" since it's replaced with a new"iii". Then add subsection"d" as follows:
d. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree
pursuant to LOC 55.02.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition
of approval of the permit. In circumstances where trees are removed for the
better Arboricultural interests of the remaining trees as determined by the City
Arborists,no mitigation will be required.
Mr. Ruble noted that many times the Code is at issue when someone wants to build on a
parcel.
Mr. Flanagan noted that unless we have a moratorium on building, you have no option
except to allow trees to be removed.
Ms. Roth concluded until the City is completely built out, there is a great potential to lose
bio-mass and there is no way to account for how many trees that are replanted.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Rubel adjourned the meeting at 8:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandy Ingalls
Code Enforcement Specialist
L:\treecodetaskforce\minutes\12-17-02_draft.doc
City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 7 of 7
Minutes of December 17,2002
r
DRAFT
Ai°1- KE--°st
City of Lake Oswego
7,140P we
Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Minutes
`'% � January 27, 2003
I. CALL TO ORDER&ROLL CALL
Chair Scott Rubel convened the Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force(TF) at 7:04 p.m.
on January 27, 2003 in the Human Resources Conference Room, City Hall, 380 A
Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon.
Task Force members present were Chair Scott Rubel, Vice Chair Christine Roth, David
Cory,Michael Buck, Terrence Flanagan,Richard Pross, Laura Rybowiak. Staff present
was Sandy Ingalls, Code Enforcement Specialist. Mr. &Mrs. Buford were guests.
II. MINUTES
The Minutes of December 3,2002,were approved as corrected by the TF passed
unanimous vote.
III. REGULAR BUSINESS
Ms. Ingalls announced the hearing before City Council has postponed to March 18th. The
Council would like to have a study session February 11th to review the work done by the
task force. She continued that in February they are scheduled to have a meeting on the
10th, however,the staff report has to be ready for the study session on the 5th of
February...so this is the last chance for the TF to decide on what changes still need to be
made,what needs to be in the staff report and if the TF wants to meet any other times
before we go to Council.
Ms. Roth stated we have made most of the changes, at this point, it's mostly
housekeeping,
Mr. Rubel noted what we're presenting isn't much different than what we presented last
time and we need to discuss the need for an arborist. We need to make sure that Council
understands it is entitled to fund an arborist position.
Mr. Cory pondered how we will get any further with the Council if we don't have the
funds for an arborist.
Mr. Rubel concluded that we need to make Council understand that the TF is firm in the
need for an arborist,that is why we have written the Code to allow for one.
City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 1 of 7
Minutes of January 27,2003
ti
Mr. Buck noted at one of our meetings, we suggested that we could contract with an
arborist to make decisions when we need one. Didn't we discuss the fact that the
homeowner would pay for the arborist,who worked part time and there would be a flat
fee, that we can call the arborist in when needed. That would fund the arborist, if we get
one to work on contract and that it would pay for itself. This wouldn't cost the City
anything, and the homeowner would be in a winning situation since he doesn't have to
independently find an arborist.
Mr. Flanagan noted that he wants to take out 22 trees at his property and that doesn't
include 3 fruit trees and 2 hazard trees. He's looking at$321 to take these trees out.
Looking at the trees, filling out the paper work and writing the report will probably take
3-4 hours. So a fee of$50 won't be enough when the case is larger than one tree. If we
have some flexibility in the Code,we can reduce the paperwork that is necessary and
allow the arborist to make the decision on a case by case basis it will be a winning
solution.
Mr. Rubel noted we don't usually see 23 trees, and we could charge on a case by case
basis, the fee is $50 a tree and we'll have the arborist come out on a certain day.
Mr. Rubel suggested finding an arborist to work on a part time contract basis and
allowing them to find similar work with other cities to fit into the schedule.
Mr. Cory offered his services for a short period of time, if the City wants to go in that
direction. He suggested that Bill Owen might do the same thing.
Mr. Flanagan suggested that if each case was less than an hour per case it would be
feasible,but with all the regulations we have now, it will take more than an hour per case.
Ms. Ingalls noted an arborist could review the Type II, hazard trees, development sites
and tree protection and mitigation.
Ms. Roth asked if the development aspect would be done on a different fee structure.
Ms. Ingalls noted that's just a verification permit with a$15 fee plus $2 per tree most of
the time.
Ms. Roth noted you're looking mostly at infill development, there aren't that many large
lots left to develop.
Mr. Cory noted he's had different arrangements with many different municipalities over
the years. He has billed per hour for his time,per job however, his rates are less when it's
on a contract basis.
Ms. Roth asked what is the Council going to ask from us.
City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 2 of 7
Minutes of January 27,2003
7
Ms. Ingalls replied that the City Manager wants to have a study session before our
hearing, so can have more time to work on what we'll be presenting to the Council.
Mr. Flanagan suggested it's interesting they have asked for a study session before the
hearing at this point in time.
Ms. Ingalls ventured that the Council wants to understand the Code and probably wants to
see how we can make this new code work without an arborist.
Mr. Buck noted that an arborist allows the Code to go to the next step. Without an
arborist it's just trying to fix what's already broken by patching it together again.
The TF discussed what is the best way to approach the next step?
Mr. Rubel asked how do we support this without an arborist?
Mr. Cory replied, you can't,we need an arborist.
Ms. Roth asked do we change the Code and our view of the needs to make the Code
work?
The TF members all said no, we won't change the Code,we should present it as is,we
have worked on this for 14 months and there is no reason to change it now. This is what
the Council mission for the TF was,not to water the new code down and try to make it
work for the City.
Ms. Ingalls reiterated the TF needs to tell the Council why you wrote the Code the way
you did and explain that tweaking the existing Code won't fix anything.
Ms. Roth asked when it comes right down to it,how many hearings has the Community
Forestry Commission had in 2 years?
Mr. Cory replied I think there have been about 2.
Ms. Roth noted the existing code is inferior and making some minor changes,will not
make it work any better. If you have a program that has generated 2 contested hearings in
2 years, is it worth making the change? People may be unhappy with the Code,but
they're only unhappy with what they don't understand.
Mr. Rubel noted that there are many loopholes that pop up from time to time with the
existing code and then there are a lot of people who break the rules, since some citizens
view the rules as too many and restrictive.
Mr.Buck pondered if you simplified the Code,would it work?
Mr.Pross noted if you do that you will still have the same problems that you have today.
City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 3 of 7
Minutes of January 27,2003
Mr. Rubel considered this is an improvement over the old code without an arborist.
Mr. Cory stated that in six years of working in Lake Oswego, and many consulting
arborists have lied in their report in order to get a tree cutting permit with the existing
code and regulations that are in place. He suggested that there are even people who have
lied about being a consulting arborist. These are problems that we've creating with
requiring arborist reports.
The TF noted that many developers in this City know there is a lack of enforcement here,
so they just go ahead and do as they please anyway.
Mr. Flanagan noted if you were to fine people when they do not follow their tree
protection as they have stated they would,then once you have a few fines word will get
out that Lake Oswego means business and that won't happen.
Mr. Cory noted that Stephanie Fiereck, former Code Enforcement Specialist,was a real
good person to have on the job when she was looking for tree violations. He continued
that many people really didn't want to see her coming onto a site. He suggested it might
be a good idea for the City of Lake Oswego to have an arborist under contract. Just
having the idea that someone is in place to look at right-of-way trees on a regular basis,
with reasonable precautions taken, the liability of the City would be reduced
considerably.
Mr. Flanagan noted that with an arborist on staff it will take the Code to the next level.
Mr. Cory stated that this group is very cohesive and we feel strongly enough that the City
must have an arborist.
Mr. Flanagan suggested an opening statement for the Council report should include: the
charge statement given to the TF was to bring the Code to the next level. Hire a City
arborist to develop a Tree Technical Manual will complete the project.
Mr. Cory noted that another good point is that the planners are laymen and don't know
much about trees.
Ms. Roth suggested point by point going through the old code vs. the new code and
identifying the short comings of the old code and how these issues have been dealt with in
the new code.
The TF noted that species identification is an important thing to have also, and when you
have laymen who can barely tell a maple tree from an alder, you are at risk for losing
trees that you want to keep and keeping trees that aren't assets to the community.
Ms. Ingalls noted that the arborist is not only the enforcer,they educate the community
and deal with utility companies, ascertain which trees on the ROW need to be taken out.
City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 4 of 7
Minutes of January 27,2003
1
Mr. Cory noted that the University of Minnesota has a huge program about which tree to
plant beneath the power lines, so they don't have a bizarre looking mess, like on Bryant
Road. It's all the wrong tree in the wrong place education, which would be another duty
of an arborist.
Mr. Flanagan noted the health of the urban forest is an important point to include, since
that is one of the issues we need to address in order to preserve the resources here in Lake
Oswego.
Mr. Cory noted that there are places in the City where the wrong tree has been planted in
the median strip and the roots are upheaving the asphalt. If the correct tree were planted
there, they wouldn't have to repave the street. There is a savings to the City if they don't
have to redo streets on a regular basis, etc.
Ms. Roth interjected that the report needs to include that the TF understands the budget
problems with hiring an arborist, and that has not been taken lightly by the TF. However,
there are many savings that an arborist on staff would offer the City from a maintenance
standpoint, aesthetic standpoint and legal standpoint.
The TF suggested the fact that the arborist would work as a liaison between City
departments should also be included in the report.
Mr. Pross suggested that modifying the current code won't correct the current problems
and without the arborist any modified code will have most of the same issues and
complaints.
Ms. Ingalls noted with the staff report the Council will get the combined code (old and
new).
The TF suggested there needs to be a statement addressing that the best person for the job
should do the job. The laymen at the counter,however well intentioned they are, don't
have the expertise to do the job. Plus, a professional on the job who is well informed may
be able to have some flexibility with the tougher cases.
The TF also noted there are some alternatives that were not able to be included in the
Code such as thinning,mitigation and tree manual still need to be reviewed.
Mr. Cory noted that when you take out one component,the entire Code will collapse.
Rybowiak wants to make sure the big picture of the cities canopy is seen. She noted that
when some of her neighbors took out trees, she didn't say anything,but now they are
gone, you can see them when you turn onto the street altering the character of the
neighborhood.
City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 5 of 7
Minutes of January 27,2003
Mr. Flanagan asked if anyone has evaluated the aerial photos of the City of Lake Oswego.
If you looked at the pictures of Lake Grove from the air,vs. now,the transformation is
amazing.
Mr. Buck noted that when you look at the pictures of Lake Oswego from the late 1800's
there were less trees because of the smelter. We have more trees than the 1800's,but
what we need to review is what did it look like in the 60's.
Rybowiak noted the NRAB has aerial pictures of Lake Grove before Interstate I-5 and
after I-5.
Mr. Flanagan pondered what's been more devastating, are trees more threatened by fire or
insects?
The TF noted an added benefit of the City Arborist is education, the arborist will be able
to identify and catch problems with insects, etc.,before it becomes a problem.
The TF suggested to adopt an ordinance for sometime in the future, to implement this
ordinance in full, with an arborist. It is the view of the TF members that if the Council
wants to modify their work in this code, that the Council needs to find another TF.
Mr. Cory thinks that if you take out the City Arborist and tree technical manual, the
proposed code will fall apart like a house of cards.
The TF agreed this is a valid point.
Mr. Cory noted that if you brought in a professional there is savings in better
performance and time spent on tree issues. Presently, it's costing the City money because
they have an inferior product. There have been many complaints and lots of
dissatisfaction with the Code, staff efficiency and the amount of time it takes to complete
the permitting process.
Ms. Rybowiak suggested that as positions are vacated, they should not be filled.
Ms. Ingalls concluded she will write the staff report, and try to get it to the TF. We are
meeting again on 2/10/03, and we'll plan how we present at the study session on 2/11/03.
She asked if we need to meet after 2/11/03 to discuss the outcome of the study session? It
was suggested to meet on 2/18/03 to decide where to go from there.
Public Comment
Mr. Buford noted there are going to many points of view after this ordinance is in place.
You're never going to satisfy all of them in any way. He acknowledged that changes cost
money,but if the City wants trees and the community wants change...you have to think
about that.
City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 6 of 7
Minutes of January 27,2003
7
IV. ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting was scheduled for February 10, 2003. There being no further business,
Chair Rubel adjourned the meeting at 8:44 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandy Ingalls, Code Enforcement Specialist
L:\treecodetaskforce\minutes\01-27-03 draft.doc
City of Lake Oswego Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Page 7 of 7
Minutes of January 27,2003
DRAFT n1 2-3/03 un
AN ORDINANCE OF THE. CITY COUNCIL OT THE CITY OF 7 E OSWL'CO
z� crr�
The Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by strikethrough
and adding the ., :, text shown ; redline/„nderline
Chapter 5
Section 2.Artticle555.02r its ereby amended-to-r ead-as-fo oows
55.02 Tree Demova1
Section Section 55 02 1-0 is here y „ nded t„ as as follows
55.02.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the removal of trees and prescribe preventative
preserve the wooded character of the City of Lake Oswego and to protect trees as a
Chapter 55
DRAFT as of 12/05/021/22/03
Trees
Articles:
55.02 Tree Removal.
55.06 Heritage Trees.
55.08 Tree Protection.
Article 55.02
Tree Removal.
Sections:
55.02.010 Purpose.
55.02.020 Definitions.
Page 1
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
DRAFT 01 23 03. un
55.02.030 Prohibited Activities.
55.02.035 Tree Removal in Conjunction with Major or Minor
Development Permit.
50.02.036 Protected Native Tree Species
50.02.037 Tree Technical Manual
(Ord. No. 1429,Sec. 1; 05 18 71.55.02.040 Repealed. Ord.
No. 2059, Sec 16 92. Ora Is 2097, mended 20 94)06-
16-92.
Sectien-4,Section 55.02.020-ts-hereby--amended to-read-as-follows
.55.02.04 I Repealed. Ord. No. 2221, 01-18-00.
55.02.042 Permit Classifications and Review Procedures.
55.02.045 Repealed. Ord. No. 2221, 01-18-00.
55.02.050 Application for Permits.
55.02.060 Fees.
55.02.061 Repealed. Ord. No. 2097, 12-20-94.
55.02.065 Repealed. Ord. No. 2221, 01-18-00.
55.02.067 Repealed. Ord. No. 2097, 12-20-94.
55.02.070 Repealed. Ord. No. 2059, 06-16-92.
55.02.071 Repealed. Ord. No. 2097, 12-20-94.
55.02.075 Repealed. Ord. No. 2221, 01-18-00.
55.02.080 Criteria for Issuance of Type II Tree Removal Permits.
55.02.082 Staff Decision and Notice Requirements for Type II Permits.
55.02.084 Mitigation Required.
55.02.085 Request for Public Hearing on a Type II Tree Removal Permit.
55.02.090 Repealed. Ord. No. 1807; 09-1 5-81.
55.02.092 Expiration of Tree Removal Permits.
55.02.094 Conditions of Approval for Tree Removal Permits.
55.02.100 Repealed. Ord. No. 1807, 09-15-81 .
55.02.1 1 0 Repealed. Ord. No. 1807, 09-15-81 .
55.02.120 Repealed. Ord. No. 1807, 09-1 5-81.
55.02.125 Evidence of Violation.
55.02.130 Penalties.
55.02.1 35 Repealed. Ord. No. 2221, 01-18-00.
Section 55.02.010 Purpose
Residents of Lake Oswego live within an urban forest environment. The purpose of this
chapter is to protect, preserve and promote this natural resource within the City's
Page 2
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
DRAFT ni i23/03; un
neighborhoods by regulating the removal of trees and prescribing preventive protection
measures to avoid damage to trees during site development in order to retain the aesthete
wooded character of the City of Lake Oswego. Extra consideration will be given to
preserving and protecting native species.
Section 55.02.020 Definitions
Arborist meansArborist - a person who has met the criteria for
certification from the International Society of Arboriculture and maintains his or her
accreditation.
Caliper Inch refers to a manner of expressing the diameter inches of a tree
as calculated by measuring the tree's circumference and dividing by Pi (approximately
3.14159). Specially calibrated "diameter tapes" or "calipers" are used to determine
ealiper-inc-hes.
City Arborist-International Society of Arborists (ISA) certified arborist(s)
designated by the City Manager responsible for performance of the duties assigned to the
City Arborist under this Code and the Tree Technical Manual.
City Manager - means the City Manager or the City Managers
designee.
any officer or employee of the City of Lake Oswego.
Dead TreeDead Tree - means a tree is lifeless. Such evidence of
lifelessness may include unseasonable lack of foliage, brittle dry branches, or lack of any
growth during the growing season.
Diameter at breast height or DBH means the diameter of the trunk, at its
maximum cross section, measured 51 inches (41/2 feet) above mean ground level at the
base of the trunk.
D •pline means an imaginary vertical line extending downward from the
Person means any individual or legal entity.
Removal means to cut down a tree or remove all or 50% or more of the crown.
trunk. or root system of a tree; or to damage a tree so as to cause the tree to decline and/or
die. "Removal" includes but is not limited to topping, damage inflicted upon a root
of materials, change of natural grade due to unapproved excavation or filling, or
trimming or pruning of trees.
Single family dwelling for the purpose of this chapter means any of the following:
a detached home, a townhouse or rowhouse, a zero lot line dwelling, duplex, or a
condominium unit where the tree cutting permit relates to a tree located in the private
yard of such a unit.
To. .in• m ans the severe cutting back of a tree's limbs to stubs 3 inches or
.,d disf gu a the tree
Tree means any woody plant having a trunk 5 caliper inches or larger in diameter
at breast height (DBH). If a tree splits into multiple trunks above ground, but below 4.5
Page 3
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 14
DRAFT L11/23/02.f BP
one tree. If the tree splits into multiple trunks below ground, each trunk shall be
considered one tree. For the purposes of this Chapter, English laurel, photinia,
arborvitae,po oreal ewe co dered-a 'tree".
Tree Cutting Permit means written authorization from the City for a tree removal
Tree Protection Zone means the area reserved around a tree or group of trees in
conditions,
s
(Ord. No. 1129, Sec. 1; 05 18 71. Ord. No. 1631, Sec. 1; 07 20 76. Ord. No.
2059, Sec. 1; 06 16 92. Ord. No. 2097, Amended, 12 20 94)
Se„tion c Se„tion 55 02 030 is hereby „ded t„ ,. ad a., f llows
55 02 030 Prohibited A ctivities
1. No person shall remove a tree without first obtaining a tree cutting permit from
the City pursuant to this Chapter.
2. No person shall top a tree without first obtaining a topping permit
from the City pursuant to this Chapter.Deciduous Tree -Tree that naturally loses foliage
in the fall.
Development- Any human change to improved or unimproved real property,
including, but not limited to, construction, installation or alteration of a building or other
structure, change or use, land division, establishment or termination of a right of access,
storage on the land, grading, clearing, removal or placement of soil, paving, dredging,
filling, excavation, drilling or removal of trees.
DBH - Diameter at Breast Height -defined as the measurement of a tree's
diameter at 4.5 feet or 54 inches above ground level. The Tree Technical Manual should
be followed to measure trees that do not have a straight trunk or are located on a slope.
Diameter Inch - refers to a manner of expressing tree size as calculated by
measuring the tree's circumference and dividing by Pi (3.14). .
Erosion -Detachment and movement of soil, rock fragments, mulch, fill or
sediment.
Fruit Tree - Edible or ornamental variety of stone-fruit or pome-producing trees.
Hazard Tree-Any tree with a structural defect and/or disease, which
makes it subject to a high probability of failure, and which threatens
persons or property, including other trees, in the e„e„t of fail„ro
Hazafd-Tree—Any-tcee-Nvith-a-stfuetural-defeet-andier-disease-whien-fnakes-it
treep n the o nt f failure
Removal - means to cut down, damage, and-or cause to become unstable or to
remove enough of the crown, trunk, or root system of a tree ,or to damage a tree so as to
cause the tree to decline and/or die or become hazardous. "Removal" includes but is not
limited to topping, damage inflicted upon a root system by application of toxic
substances, operation of equipment and vehicles, storage of materials, change of natural
Page 4
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
DRAFT n1 i2zina. uP
grade due to unapproved excavation or filling, or unapproved alteration of natural
physical conditions.
Single Family Dwelling - for the purpose of this chapter means any of the
following: a detached home, a townhouse or row house, a zero lot line dwelling, duplex
unit, or a condominium unit where the tree-removal permit relates to a tree located in the
private yard of such a unit.
Soil Stability— Ability of soil to remain in its current location.
Surface Waters — Storm water, groundwater, or other retained water that stands or
flows on the ground surface
Topping - a pruning practice that results in removal of terminal growth leaving a
stub cut end.
Tree - means any woody plant having a trunk six inches or larger in DBH. If a
tree visibly forks into multiple trunks below 4.5 feet, the trunk is measured at its most
narrow point beneath the fork(s), and is considered one tree. For the purposes of this
section, a tree is considered to fork where multiple trunks are physically separated to the
degree that light passes between them. English laurel (Prunus laurocerasus), photinia
(All Photinia), arborvitae (Thuja orientalis), holly (All Ilex), Portuguese laurel (Prunus
lusitanica), poison oak (Rhus diversiloba), and English ivy (Hedera helix) shall not be
considered a tree.
Tree Removal Permit - means written authorization from the City for a tree
removal to proceed as described in an application, such authorization having been given
in accordance with this chapter.
Tree Technical Manual — A regulatory document containing specialized,
arboricultural reference materials, maintained and updated by the City Arborist with the
approval of the City Manager, on file with the Planning Division to be used in the
application of Chapter 55.
Section 55.02.030 Prohibited Activities
1. No person shall remove, cause, or direct the removal of a tree without first
obtaining a tree removal permit from the City pursuant to this Chapter.
2. No person, including a utility or public agency, shall top a tree without
first obtaining a topping permit from the City pursuant to this Chapter.
3. 3. No person who is required to install or maintain tree
protection measures per LOC 55.08 shall do any development activities including,but not
limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work on a property or site which
requires ministerial, minor or major development approval without approved tree
protection measures properly installed and maintained pursuant to this Chapter.
(Ord. No. 1429, Sec. 1; 05 18 71. Ord. No. 2059, Sec. 1; 06 16 92. Ord. No. 2097,
Amended, 12 20 94)
Page 5
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
DRAFT 0 Pf1/0Z. BP
55.02.035 Tree R„meval in Con.unctionSection 55.(12.035 Tree Removal in
conjunction with Major or Minor Development
Permit.
I. 1. If a Major or Minor Development Permit applied for pursuant to LOC Chapter
50,79 would require or result in tree removal and/or a tree eattingremoval permit as
defined in this Chapter, compliance with LOC 55.02.080 sha1155.02.082 shall be a
criterion of approval of such development permit. Tree removals in conjunction with a
Major or Minor Development Permit shall be considered in conjunction with such permit
and shall be subject to the application, notice, hearing and appeal procedures applicable
to the proposed Major or Minor Development pursuant to LOC Chapter 50.82 and 50.84.
The required Notice for Major or Minor Developments that would require or result in tree
removals shall include a site plan indicating the location of anyall trees. The trees
proposed for removal act site. The proposed trees shallshall be indicated on
the site plan and also be flagged with yellow flagging tape on site. Such flagging shall be
maintained until a final decision on the proposal is rendered. The remaining; notice,
hearing and appeal procedures in Chapter 55 shall not apply to tree removals considered
in conjunction with a Major or Minor Development request. Subsequent tree removals
that have not been reviewed through either Major or Minor Development procedures
shall be reviewed as provided in this Chapter_.- chapter. The City shall require the
applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree pursuant to LOC 55.02.084. Such
mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the original development
permit
chapter The City shall r e the a plic.,nt to mitigate f r the re >.,l of earl. tree
�"++"��"�Y 4.�1. 111�r ti
2. 2.2. Once a final decision has been rendered on the Major or Minor
Development Permit, trees that have been approved for removal as part of that decision
shall be subject to the verification permit Verification Permit process. Applications for
verificationsVelification Permits shall be made on the application forms as prescribed by
the City Manager and be accompanied by an application fee as established by resolution
of the City Council. The purpose of the verification process is to ensure that the trees
approved for removal are properly identified for removal in the field and that the trees
that were not approved for removal are not inadvertently removed. Removal of trees in
violation of such land use approval will be considered a violation of this Chapter. The
criteria contained in LOC 55.02.080 shall not apply to verification-applications for tree
c g55.02.082 shall not apply to Verification removal permits.
3. If a tree proposed to be removed has been specifically required to be preserved or
protected as a condition of approval of a land use action pursuant to the Lake Oswego
Community DevelePifiefft—Gode,the treeremoval--appliesion-shall�l-=recessed-as-a
55.02.080 by the body responsible for reviewing such land use actions. Such
modification procedure shall fot be required in cases of an emergency as provided in
Page 6
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page I of 11
DRAFT 01i2z/03; BP
LOC 55.02.042(3), or when the tree is dead as provided in LOC 55.02.080(1) or is a
hazard as provided in LOC 55.02.080(2).
(Ord. No. 2097, Enacted, 12 20 94)
Section 7 Section 55 02 042 is hereby a nded t„ r ad as follows
55 02 n42 Permit Classifications and Review Preeedures
A person who desires to remove a tree shall first apply for and receive one of the
1. TYPE I PERMIT is required for:
a. A property that is located in a residential zone and is occupied by a single
b. Removal of up to two trees, 10 inch caliper or less per tree at DBH within a
calendar ;
c. A tree that is not:
i. Protected by a condition of approval of a development permit pursuant to
ii. Located within an area or parcel that has been placed on the Historic
iii. A Heritage Tree per LOC 55.06;
iv. Located within an RC or RP sensitive land overlay district;
v. Located within the Willamette River Greenway (WRG) overlay district;
vi. Located within the 25 foot Oswego Lake Special Setback;
vii.Located on property owned by the City of Lake Oswego or dedicated to
Type I permits shall be issued without further review upon application and
this subsection.
2. TYPE II PERMIT:
a. A Type II permit is required prior to any tree removal application that does
., thi ctio
b. Type II permits shall be reviewed and approved by the City Manager pursuant
to LOC 55.02.080(Approval Criteria) and 55.02.082 (Notice Requirements).
3. DEAD TREE REMOVAL PERMIT:
a. The City shall issue a tree cutting permit for a dead tree,except as provided b)
subsection (b) of this section, if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is dead and
b. In order to provide for wildlife habitat and natural processes, the City
located in wetlands, RC Protection Areas (LOC 50.16.055), stream corridors, parks or
Page 7
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 1
DRAFT 01 23mz. un
4. HAZARD TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: The City shall issue a tree cutting
removal.
a. A hazard tree is a tree that is cracked, split, leaning or physically damaged to
the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard
tree may also include a tree that is located within a public right of way and is causing
b. The City may require the applicant to submit an arborist's report confirming
by the City.
5. EMERGENCY PERMIT:
a. If the condition of a tree presents an immediate danger of collapse, and
represents a clear and present hazard to persons or property, an emergency tree cutting
subsection, "immediate danger of collapse" means that the tree is already leaning, with
the non emergency process. "Immediate danger of collapse" does not include hazardous
conditions that n be alleviated by p r treatment
1. b. Emergency tree cutting permits must be approved
fa
tree proposed to be removed has been specifically required to be preserved or protected
as a condition of approval of a land use action pursuant to the Lake Oswego Community
Development Code, the tree removal application shall be processed as a modification to
that land use action and shall be reviewed subject to the criteria of LOC 55.02.082 by the
body responsible for reviewing such land use actions. Such modification procedure shall
not be required in cases of an emergency tree removal as provided in LOC 55.02.042(3),
when the tree is dead as provided in LOC 55.02.082(1), or a hazard as provided in LOC
55.02.082(2).
2. The City may impose conditions of approval on any tree removal permit if
the condition is reasonably related to preventing, eliminating or mitigating a negative
impact or potential impact on natural features or processes or on the built environment of
the neighborhood which is created or contributed to by the approved tree removal.
Conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to:
a. Leaving a stump instead of grinding or fully removing a stump;
b. Requiring modifications in the location, design or intensity of a
development or activities on a site or to require or prohibit certain construction methods:
such as grade beam foundations and bridging of driveways and sidewalks over roots.
Page 8
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
DRAFT n1i2zini. uD
c. Requiring vegetation not requiring a tree removal permit to remain
in place or be planted;
d. Requiring the removal of injurious vegetation from other trees and
surrounding area on the property, such as:
Scientific Name Common Name
Clematis vitalba Traveler's joy
Hedera helix English ivy
1pomoea convolvulaceae Morning glory
Rubus discolor Himalayan Blackberry
Rhus diversiloba Poison Oak
Section 55.02.036 Protected Native Tree Species
The following protected natives-trees, if at least six inches in size, can only be
removed through the Type II removal process, unless the trees are dead or a hazard:
Protected Native Tree Species List
Abies grandis grand fir
Amelanchier alnifolia western serviceberry
Arbutus menziesii madrone
Cornus nutallii pacific dogwood
Pinus ponderosa ponderosa pine
Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir
Quercus garryana Oregon white oak
Rhamnus purshiana cascara
Taxus brevifolia western yew
Thuja plicata western red cedar
Tsuga heterophylla western hemlock
Section 55.02.037 Tree Technical Manual
The City Manager may adopt a Tree Technical Manual, and revise its contents
from time to time. The Tree Technical Manual shall contain specialized, arboricultural
reference materials; establish procedures required for installation, planting, pruning,
thinning, removal, and maintenance of trees; and, establish or preserve the tree and root
protection zone. Any person who is required under this Code or pursuant to a condition
of approval of a development permit to undertake such activities or to comply with the
tree and root protection zone shall comply with the requirements and procedures set forth
in the Tree Technical Manual.
Page 9
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
Section 55.02.042 Permit Classifications and Review Procedures.
A person who desires to remove a tree shall first apply for and receive one of the
following tree removal permits before tree removal occurs:
1. TYPE I REMOVAL PERMIT is required for:
a. Removal of up to two trees, 12-inch DBH or less per tree within a
calendar year, located on property that is in a residential zone and is occupied by a single
family dwelling, and the tree(s) is/are not:
i. Protected by a condition of approval of a development
permit pursuant to the Lake Oswego Community Development Codes;
ii. Located within an area or parcel that has been placed on the
Historic Landmark Designation List pursuant to LOC Chapter38;
iii. A Heritage Tree per LOC 55.06;
iv. Located within a Resource Conservation (RC) or Resource
Protection (RP) sensitive land overlay district;
v. Located within the Willamette River Greenway (WRG)
overlay district;
vi. Located within the 25-foot Oswego Lake Special Setback;
vii. Located on property owned by the City of Lake Oswego or
dedicated to the public, including parks, open spaces and public rights-of-way.
viii. On the protected native species list set forth in LOC
55.02.036 and has a 6" DBH or greater; or
b. Any size and number of willow family, (including cottonwood and
poplar), fruit or non-native hawthorn trees.
c. Any tree not meeting Type I criteria shall be subject to requirements
of LOC 55.02.042 (2) or (3) or(4) or (5) or(6) or (7).
Type I Permits shall be issued without further review upon application and demonstration
by the applicant that the request qualifies as a Type I Permit pursuant to this subsection.
2. TYPE II REMOVAL PERMIT:
a. A Type II permit is required prior to any tree removal application
that does not qualify as a Type I Permit, Dead Tree Removal Permit, Hazard Tree
Removal Permit, Emergency Permit, Verification Permit, or Topping Permit as described
in this section.
b. Type II Permits shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Manager pursuant to LOC 55.02.042 (2)(D) and 55.02.082.
c. Criteria for Issuance of Type II Tree Removal Permits. Except for
fora Type I tree a r m;t shall demonstrate that the f ll t
IVl u I y}�a, 1I e
satisfied:
Removal of the tree ; of f r pr„viding e nha„cement of
I�V111V♦G{1 VI � e
Page 10
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 1
DRAFT 01/23/03. RD
.,d buff ring trees•
t
enhechara esthetics,er-prepefty-r es-ef-the-neighborhee .
c. Criteria for Issuance of Type II Tree Removal Permits.
Except for removal of trees within a sensitive lands area which must address
additional criteria contained in a Sensitive Land Overlay District (LOC 50-16-
005-50.16.110), an applicant for a Type II tree-removal permit shall demonstrate
that the following criteria are satisfied:
i. Removal of the tree is not for providing or
enhancement of.
i. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative
impact on soil stability, flow of surface waters or wind, protection of other trees
or existing wind-buffering trees:
ii. Removal of the tree will not have a significant
negative impact on the character, aesthetics, or property values of the
neighborhood. The City may grant an exception to this criterion when
alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and either no reasonable
alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone or the
City Engineer determines that the tree presents a public safety hazard i-n-to the
ma's-use of a public right-of-way. In making this determination, the City may
consider alternative site plans for placement of structures or other developments
that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to
comply with the other provision of the Lake Oswego Code. The City shall not
grant an exception solely to provide or enhance views;
d. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of
each tree pursuant to LOC 55.02.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition
of approval of the permit. In circumstances where trees are removed for the better
arboricultural interests of the remaining trees as determined by the City Arborists, no
mitigation will be required.
3. DEAD TREE REMOVAL PERMIT:
a. The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a dead tree. except as
provided by subsection (b) of this section, if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is dead
and removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on soil stability or
flow of surface waters.
b. In order to provide for wildlife habitat and natural processes, the
City Manager may require the retention of a dead tree. Dead trees shall not be removed if
Page 11
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
DRAFT 01/23/03; BP
located in wetlands, Resource Conservations (RC) Protection Areas (LOC 50.16.055),
stream corridors, parks or open space areas required to be preserved as a condition of
development approval, unless the tree presents a hazard to persons or property.
A „tility a „blic a be : ed cable dead tree al
penal ' . 8 nd the i on-r�ents „f T 55.02.084,
c. A utility or public agency may be issued a revocable dead tree
removal permit for 1 (one) year for the purpose-of pruning or removing dead trees and
that obstruct or interfere with utility facilities, or that create public safety issues
hazards,adjacent to utility poles within the public right-of-way. If, under this permit,
the utility or public agency prunes or removes trees that are not dead, or, if dead, their
pruning or removal is not required for the purpose of removing
obstructions or public safety issue hazards, the utility or public agency shall be liable
for penalties pursuant to LOC 55.02.130 and the mitigation requirements of LOC
55.02.084, and the City Manager shall revoke the permit.
4. HAZARD TREE REMOVAL PERMIT:
The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates
that a tree is a hazard, and the hazard cannot be alleviated by pruning or treatment.
Cross-Reference: See LOC 55.020.04550 for requirement for arborist's report in
application
5. EMERGENCY TREE REMOVAL PERMIT:
a. If the condition of a tree presents an immediate danger of collapse,
and represents a clear and present hazard to persons or property, an emergency tree
removal permit may be issued and the payment of a fee may be waived. For the purposes
of this subsection, "immediate danger of collapse" means that the tree is already leaning,
with the surrounding soil heaving, or there is a significant likelihood that the tree will
topple or otherwise fail and cause damage before a tree removal permit could be obtained
through the hazard tree removal permit process. "Immediate danger of collapse" does not
include hazardous conditions that can be alleviated by pruning or treatment.
b. Emergency tree removal permits must be approved by the City
Manager. If an emergency situation arises at a time when the City Manager is
unavailable, and such emergency creates a significant likelihood that the tree will topple
or otherwise fail before such official becomes available. the owne,. of the practical-and
reasonable, first notify the City Tree Hotline phone number and state the address where
9i S ctical-and-reasonable, first notif, r ity and state-the a c ess
,
' The owner shall photograph the
Page 12
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
D AFT ni i23/03; un
tree showing emergency conditions and then may proceed with removal of the tree to the
extent necessary to avoid the immediate hazard. Within seven days of such removal, the
owner of the tree shall apply for a retroactive emergency treeenning-permit-and-shall
c. The city may require the application to hire an arborist to review
removal
permit.
e-.c. If the evidence shows that the tree did not satisfy the emergency
tree removal standards set forth in this chapter.subsection,the application shall be
denied and the owner of the tree shall be subject to penalties pursuant to LOC
55.02.130 and the mitigation requirements of LOC 55.02.084.
Cross-Reference: See LOC 55.020.04550 for requirement for evidence of emergency
and arborist report in application.
6. -6. VERIFICATION PERMIT:
a. a. If a site has received development approval
through a Major or Minor Development Process, then a Verification Permit shall be
issued for those trees approved for removal through that process.
b. To obtain a verification perinn,Verification Permit, an applicant
must clearly identify in the field the trees to be removed by tying yellow taggingflagging
tape around each tree and submitting a site plan indicating the location of the requested
trees. their location. The City Manager may require the building footprint of the
development to be staked to allow foraccurate verification of the permit application. The
City Manager will then verify that therequested trees designated for removal match the
site plan approved through the Major or Minor Development Process. The-City-shall
require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree pursuant to LOC 55.02.084.
c. b. Any tree not approved for removal through
the original Major or Minor Development review process shall not be approved as part of
the verification permit process, unless the subject tree is located within an approved
building footprint, public/private utility or improvement area, and no feasible alternative
exists to preserve the tree. In such cases, the City may allow the tree to be removed
without a Type II tree eu-ttingremoval permit process; however, the mitigation
requirements of LOC 55.02.084 shall still apply.
d. c. Verification permits shall be issued upon
section. Verification permits shall not be issued prior to the issuance of a building permit
for the subject property without prior authorization by the City Manager.
7. 7. TOPPING PERMIT:
a. a. A topping permit may be issued only if the-following
apply:
Page 13
Ordinanee NE XXXX
Page 1 of 11
DRAFT n1i23/03; un
i. The applicant is any person, including a utility or public
agency
ii. i. A utility, public agency, or
The proposed topping is in furtherance of public
safety,
surto improve the condition of the tree, or remove dead wood; and
iii. ii. Trees under utility wires may
be topped only where other pruning practices are impractical.
iv. A utility or public agency may be issued a revocable topping
permit for I (one) year for the purpose of topping and thinning trees adjacent to utility
poles within the public right-of-way. If under this permit, the utility or public agency
tops trees that do not meet the criteria of subsection (ii) above, the utility or public
agency shall be liable for penalties pursuant to LOC 55.02.130 and the mitigation
requirements of LOC 55.02.084, and the City Manager shall revoke the permit.
b. b. The City, in granting approval for tree
removal in an open space or undeveloped area, may allow a tree to be topped to a
designated height in order to maintain a "snag" for wildlife habitat.
c. c. A tree cutting permit obtained forA tree
removal permit shall not authorize topping unless said tree cuttingremoval permit
specifically authorizes such action.
d. Topping permits are not required for fruit trees.
(Ord. No. 2097. Enacted, 12/20/94)
Section Q Sectio„ 55 02 ncn is hereby, nded4„ r ad as follows
55.02.050 Application for Permits
1. An application for a tree cutting permit shall be made upon forms prescribed b}
a. The number, size, species and location of the trees proposed to be cut on a site
plan of the property;
b. The anticipated date of removal;
c. A statement of the reason for removal;
d. Information concerning any proposed landscaping or planting of any new
trees-tom-replace-the-trees--to-be-removed and
e. e. Any other information reasonably required
by the City.Fruit trees are excluded from topping regulations.
Cross-Reference: See LOC 55.020.04550 for requirement for arborist report in
application.
Section 55.02.050 Application for Permits
1. An application for a Tree
Removal Permit shall be made on such forms and contain such information as the City
Manager may require.
Page 14
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
DRAFT-4-1-4-3/1 un
2. The applicant shall have the burden of proving that his or herthe
application complies with the criteria for approval of the applicable class of permit.
3. In considering the application, the City Manager may require on-site
inspection to verify the information submitted and to assist in determining whether the
tree removal criteria are met.
3,4. Misrepresentation of any fact necessary for the City'sCity's determination
for granting a tree ougremoval permit shall invalidate the permit. The City may at any
time, including after a removal has occurred, independently verify facts related to a tree
removal request and, if found to be false or misleading, may invalidate the permit and
process the removal as a violation. Such misrepresentation may relate to matters
including, without limitation, tree size, location, health or hazard condition, and
owner sowner's authorized signature.(Ord. No. 1429, Sec. 1. 05 18 71. Ord. No. 1631, Sec. 2; 07 20 76. Ord. No. 2059,
Sec. 1; 06 16 92. Ord. No. 2097, Amended, 12120/94)
55.0 060 Fees.
An application for a tree cutting permit shall be accompanied by a filing fee as
(Ord. No. 1.129, Sec. 1; 05 18 71. Ord. No. 2059, Sec. 1; 06 16 92.)
55 02 080 Criteria for Issuance o f Type ii Tree Cutting Permit&
the criteria for a permit.
1. The tree is proposed for removal for landscaping purposes or in order to construct
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the character,
4. Removal f the tree i of fo the solo of providing-or-enhancing-views,
5. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree
pursuant to LOC 55.02.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of
Page 15
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
DRAFT 01/23/03; BP
(Ord. No. 2097, Amended, 12/20/94)
Sectien-14,Section 55 n2.082 is herebyended-te-read-as follows
1. An applicant for a Type II tree cutting permit shall:
a. Complete a written notice form to be mailed by the City via regular
1 te i e , ;
b. Complete a written certification that the property will be posted
c. Within 24 hours of applying for a tree cutting permit, post a public
notice sign of a pending tree cutting permit as provided by the City on the subject
d. Mark each tree proposed to be removed by tying or attaching a
e. Maintain the posting and marking for fourteen consecutive days.
2. Within two business days of the close of the fourteen day comment period.
nits, staff shall ake tentat; a .le g tho ;t e shall de , tho it
a.aa� wawa ouui■ aiaun�. uzcr�currr e .
3. If a permit is tentatively approved, staff shall immediately post a yellow
hearing is received meeting the requirements of LOC 55.02.085, the approval of the
perm; he i-n-al.
4. If the applicant appeals the denial of a permit, or appeals conditions
stating-the appeal,and th a-and date o the-appeal-hearing. Thy-applic-ant sh l
5. ailure to install or maintain the required notice and marking may result in
Section 55.02.084--is-hereby-amended to read-as-follows
55 02 084 Mitigation Requires
With the exception of dead trees, hazard trees and trees that are 10 inch or less in
diameter removed from developed single family lots, an applicant shall provide
Page 16
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
DRAFT n1/2zin3, BP
mitigation for any tree approved for removal. The mitigation requirement shall be
1. Replanting on site. The applicant shall plant either a minimum 2 inch
� n 1 ting ff to if in the City's d tion there ff t
.... e"�ranrrrr�-01I�i �te�l�lniircrorr-crrcr—r�Zirwrrrcrcrrc
5. In the event that a permit is issued, and the applicant revises the site plan;,
the applicant must submit a revised plan to the City Manager for review and approval
prior to removing any trees on the site. If the tree(s) is removed before a revised plan is
submitted and approved by the City Manager, the applicant shall mitigate for the loss of
the tree(s) by planting the same species with a total diameter inch as what was removed
or pay into the tree fund the value of the removed tree(s).
Section 55.02.060 Fees
An application for a tree removal permit shall be accompanied by a filing fee as
established by resolution of the City Council.
Section 55.02.082 Staff Decision and Notice Requirements for
Type II Permits.
1. An applicant for a Type II tree removal permit shall:
a. Complete a written notice form to be mailed by the City via regular
mail to property owners within 100 feet of the property, and to the chair of any
recognized neighborhood association whose boundaries include the proposed tree
removal site. The mailing address for the owners shall be as on file with the county t: •
assessor; the mailing address for the chair of the neighborhood association shall be that
mailing address on file with the City.
b. Complete a written certification that the property will be posted
and the trees will be marked pursuant to this section.
c. Within 2T hours of applying f r a tree al pv mit post
♦�11I11I1
,
to the !'tit.. Manager within 10 days f em the date of posting nd the r nding r mit
LV 111V �1{., 111LL11I1�,{.+l Wlllllll o 0
Within 24 hours of applying for a tree removal
permit, post a public notice sign of a pending tree removal permit as provided by the City
on the subject property in a location which is clearly visible and readable to public
passing the property. The public notice sign shall state that a tree removal permit is
pending for trees on the property marked by yellow plastic flagging tape and that
Page 17
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 1
written comments may be submitted to the City Manager within 10 days from the
date of posting.tThe notice shall also include a site plan, the date of posting, the reason
for tree removal and the pending permit number as assigned by the City Manager..—,
d. Mark each tree proposed to be removed by tying or attaching a
yellow plastic flagging tape to the tree at 4.5 feet above mean ground level at the base of
the trunk on the same day that the property is posted.
e. Maintain the posting and marking for ten (10) consecutive days.
are-receiyedy:* (ten) days o -the- e-of postin If* e-tree-removal- ication is
sign and the tree marking until the date of the hearing. 5. Failure to install or
2.
doomed to have ,. ed the mailing of the `decision to them' Persons submitting written
comments who oyided ^ mailing address and the applicant shall have seven calendar
days from the date of the decision to request an appeal in writing to the City Recorder.
The application will be held open during the appeal period. The applicant shall continue
to post the public notice sign and keep a yellow flagging tape on the tree until a decision
has been rendered on the tree removal application.
3. The City Manager will-shall consider any comments on the pending
permit that are received within l 0 (ten) days of the date of posting. If the tree removal
application is not challenged within the 10-day posting period, the City Manager will
shall either approve or deny the application and
Page 18
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
DRNFT n1 i23mz. uv
shall, within one business day following the decision, mail notice of the
decision by regular mail to the applicant and persons who submitted written comment. If
no mailing address is stated on a written comment, the person submitting the
written comment shall be deemed to have waived the mailing of the notice of the
decision
4. If the applicant or person who submitted written comment appeals the
decision or the conditions imposed on a approved permit, pursuant to LOC 55.02.085, the
City Manager shall in a timely manner post a sign stating that an appeal is pending, and
the time and date of the appeal hearing. The applicant shall maintain the this posting of
this-sign and the tree marking until the date of the hearing.
5. Failure to install or maintain the-any required notice and or marking may
result in denial or delay in issuance of the permit or revocation of an approved permit.
Section 55.02.084 Mitigation Required
The general mitigation requirement.when-required, FLOC 55.02.0421 shall be
satisfied as follows:
1. Replanting on site. If the City Arborist determines that there is sufficient
space on the site to permit replanting, consistent with the future growth requirements of
the other trees on the site, the applicant shall plant either.
a. if a native tree was removed, a native tree from the City's Native
Plant l ist which is a minimum 1-1/2 diameter inch fur a deciduous tree or a minimum 6-
8 foot tall (excluding the leader)€er an evergreen tree
b. a minimum 1 1/2 inch diameter deciduous tree or a 6 8 foot tall
o iergrcen tree (excluding the leader) for each tree removed. The tree shall be planted
according to the specifications in the Tree Technical Manual. If a native tree was
removed, the replacement tree shall be of a type on the City's Native Plant List.
2. Replanting off site. If in the City Arborist's determination there is
insufficient space on the site to permit replanting, consistent with the future growth
requirements of the other trees on the site, the replanting required in subsection (1) shall
occur on other property in the applicant's ownership or control within the City, in an
open space tract that is part of the same subdivision, or in a City-owned or dedicated
open space or park, consistent with a planting plan approved by the City Arborist. The
City Arborist shall specify the species and the size of the mitigation trees under this
section. Such mitigation planting is subject to the approval of the authorized property
owners. If planting on City-owned or dedicated property, the City Arborist may specify
the species and size of the tree. Nothing in this section shall be construed as an
obligation of the City to allow trees to be planted on City-owned or dedicated
property.
T ist whicl, m 1 1/2 ,diameter inch f„r a deciduous tree e
Page 19
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
DRAFT01/21/03; RP
f
tree-(excluding-the-leader) for each-tree=removed.the-tree al
plated rding to the cifcatie the Tree Techn al Ma al
c offf iv. in t ' th ff: t
�$ep lle- '�e�s�s-C�eterii�nat�en-cr.ere�s--irr�r�rc��.=.�
Cit„ Arborist shall specify the species a d the of the m:t:gation tree.. , nder this
canobligation-ef the City to-allow trees-to be lanced enCit„ City d dedicated
rzric-c-rc�—c � c�crc7—vwiica-vravorccrccQ
1. 3. Payment in lieu of planting. If in the City Arborist's
determination no feasible alternative exists to plant the required mitigation trees, the
applicant shall pay into the tree fund an amount as established by the resolution of the
City Council.
ceation 1- Section 55 02 n8e is hereby a „ded t„ r as as follows
55.02.085 Request for Public Hearing on a Type II Tree Cutting Permit.
Section 55.02.085 Procedures for Hearings and Appeals.
1. 1. Any personAny person who submitted a written comment
within the comment period may request a hearing on a Type II tree cuttingremoval permit
by filing a written Request for Hearing, along with the applicable hearing fee as
established by resolution of the City Council with the City Recorder, within
fourteenseven days of the date the notice of tentative of decision=was-posted pursuant to
LOC 55.02.082. Failure to file within the seven-day period shall preclude
such a request.
2. ?. An applicant for a tree c-ettingremoval permit may appeal
denial of a permit or conditions imposed on an approved permit by filing a written notice
of intent to appeal, along with the applicable filing fee as established by resolution of the
City Council, with the City Recorder within fourteenseven days of the date of decision on
the permit.
3. Requests for hearing and appeals shall be heard by the Community
Forestry Commission (CFC), which shall hold a public hearing on the request or appeal.
The City Manager shall send written notice of the hearing to the applicant, the person
requesting the hearing if different from the applicant, to all persons who filed written
comments within the comment period and to the recognized Neighborhood Association
for the area in which the subject property is located. The written notice shall be sent at
least ten days in advance of the hearing to all pe .,he fled , ritte„ c ents within
the-comment-period.
Page 20
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
4. The CFC shall hear testimony from the applicant, followed by those
persons who submitted comments in favor of the application, those persons who
opposed to the application (beginning with the person who
requested the hearing if different from the applicant), and concluding with rebuttal by the
applicant. Only the applicant and Any persons who submitted comments within the
comment period may testify before the CFC. Following the close of the public
testimony, the CFC shall determine, based upon the evidence and testimony in the record,
whether or not the application complies with the criteria contained in LOC 55.02.080.
The findings, conclusions, and order shall contain the CFC's reasons for approving,
denying or modifying the permit
T eCityAd., ftheheari gtotho 1:, ant the
""2�S#&�l-S2ff��Yftt@H-i-}6�Ee-6-rmc�ca:iir�cv cai—appacarr�crn�crSvi�
Neighborhood Asseciation-€er-t#e-afea-i-n thich-the ject property ecated,--T#e
written notice-.hall bent at least te„ da„s : advance „f the hearing . n h
1. 1. The CFC shall hear testimony from the applicant, followed by
testimony in the ord whether o of the plication c plies , ith the criteria
(1 ' i OC C e�s .d der hall tain
Eerea iir�c��:�z?�88�# , EvirC�H$ioirs,—mom�a-�v�racr�rrtrrrC-emmr�t#e
5. 5. A decision of the CFC shall not become final for ten days from the date of
adoption of written findings. Any person who appeared before the CFC either orally or
in writing may appeal the decision of the CFC to the City Council by filing a written
notice of intent to appeal, along with an appeal fee as established by resolution of the
Council, with the City Recorder within ten days of the date of adoption of the
CFC'sCFC's written findings, conclusions and order. The findings, conclusions, and
order and minutes of the CFC meeting, along with any written staff reports or testimony
shall be forwarded to the City Council. Written notice of the appeal hearing shall be sent
at least ten days in advance of the Council hearing to those persons who appeared before
the CFC. The hearing before the City Council shall be on the record established before
the CFC and only persons who appeared before the CFC orally or in writing may testify.
The appellant shall testify first, followed by persons in favor of the appeal, persons in
opposition to the appeal (beginning with the applicant if different from the appellant), and
concluding with rebuttal by the appellant. The Council'sCouncil's hearing and decision
shall otherwise comply with subsection 4 of this section. The decision of the Council
shall be final.
(Ord. No. 2097, Enacted, 12/20/94)
Page 21
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
DDATT01/21/0301P
5c.02.090 Repealod. Ord, No. 1807; 09 1 c Q1.
Section 1 c Section 55 02 092 is hereby a „ded F„ ad „s follows
55.02.092 Expiration of Tree Cutting
Section 55.02.092 Expiration of Tree Removal Permits.
Al. Except as provided by subsection 2 below, a properly issued tree
entnagremoval permit shall remain valid for no more than 60 days from the date-of
effective date of final decision by the
City Manager, or if appealed, by a hearing body. A 60-day extension shall be
automatically granted by the City Manager if requested in writing before the expiration of
the permit. No additional extensions beyond the first extension shall be granted. Permits
that have lapsed are deemed void. Trees removed after a tree-cuttingtree removal permit
has expired shall be considered a violation of this Chapter.
1. The City may impose conditions of approval on any tree cutting permit if
2. Conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to:
a. Cutting a tree or stump flush with the grade instead of grinding or
b. Requiring modifications in the location, design or intensity of a
do elm nt o ctivities o site r to r ohibit certain struction
ar..`v'c.ivYiini■[ vi-uteri-riZiv
„n,dr2. Tree removal permits approved in conjunction with building permits will
expire six months from the date of issuance of the building permit.
Section 55.02.125 Evidence of Violation.
c. Requiring vegetation not requiring al. A stump that is tu❑
diameter inches or more for which no tree removal permitto remain in place or be
d. Requiring the removal of injurious vegetation (English Ivy) from u
Section4-7,Section--55 25-is-.hereby amended to . ad as ollows
55.02.125 Evidence of violation.
Page 22
Ordinance No V V VY
Page 1 of 11
D A1:T01/22/03; RD
f
1. If a tree is removed without a tree cutting permit, a violation shall
d-i-anmeterwas approved shall be considered prima facie evidence of the removal of a tree
in a violation of this chapter.
2. Removal of the stump of a tree removed without a tree cutting perm
determination p ided ubsectien I of this section olatien of this chapter
U[iZVI]I II IIA • � �
3.2. Proof of violation of this chapter shall be deemed prima facie
evidence that such violation is that of the owner of the property upon which the violation
was committed. Prosecution of or failure to prosecute the owner shall not be deemed to
relieve any other responsible person.
4:3. Tree removal or topping caused by natural weather conditions shall not be
deemed a violation of this chapter and shall be exempt from all penalties-set forth in LOC
55.02.130:
(Ord. No. 2059, Sec. 1; 06 16 92. Ord. No. 2097, Amended. 12/20/94)
Section 1 Q Section ec 02 130 is hereby a nded t„ r ad „s fonow's
55.02.130 Penalties.
Section 55.02.130 Penalties.
1. Civil Violation. A violation of any provision of this chapter, the breach of
any condition of a permit granted under this chapter, or the failure to comply with the
Tree Technical Manual as required in LOC 55.02.037 shall be a civil violation as
defined by LOC 34.04.105, enforceable pursuant to LOC 34.04. The unlawful removal
or causing, participating in or directing the removal of each individual tree shall be a
separate offense hereunder. Failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter or a
condition of approval shall constitute a separate offense each day the failure to comply
continues. The violation shall be punishable by a fine set forth by the municipal court
and the enforcement fee and restoration requirements as set forth in LOC 55.02.130(3)
and (4).
1. 1. Civil Violation. A violation of any provision of this chapter,or the
,
participating in or directing the removal of each individual tree shall lien rate off nse
herude . Failure-to comply tiYt of thi n � .lit' f
[7T1T CeVTr V�Ir-iTC07IQiCIo7i4i
The violation shall be p ishable b,, a fine set f rth by them pal n urt and the
en€orcementfee-and restoration-requirements-as-se o th iOC--5 4'' 130(3) and (4)
2. Nuisance Abatement. The removal of a tree in violation of this chapter is hereby
declared to be a}pub lic-n u inn n t
to LOC Article 34.08.
3. Enforcement Fee. A person who removes a tree without first obtaining a tree
cutting permit form the City pursuant to this Chapter, removes a tree in violation of an
ed tree cutting. p mit olater ndition of a ed tree cutting p mit
Cl ll Vl V YI..0 ll l,.{. 1,.0 111 i1� lJ{�liili 1, Vl-V]p1R e
shall pay an enforc
Page 23
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
..t f e to the City ; nt , established bI, r lution of the City Cou„ei
ellR.11l f[�[r lV 111[r �ll� 111 Clll 1.1111V lull [[J[.JIilV IIJIIV[T ,
4. Restoration.
a. A person who removes a tree without first obtaining a Type II, dead tree, or
hazard tree cutting permit from the City pursuant to this Chapter, removes a tree in
violation of an approved- e-H,dead tree, odd tree-c ttis per it „l„tes a
.,dition of � ch a rmit shall � nto the f ity's Tree Fund a standard f e p alipe
G VIIQITIVII pl JCIG-II C[ ll{...I lI lli JIIAIl I)R�I e
h f r the total r, mber f caliper: ches of the tree r ed elation f this Chapte,
1,l\sll 1V1 ll l[s lVl[ll 111111f V[sl Vl \:UllrJ[�1 lll[sl I[rJ VI LI IV e
b. The City may require the person to pay into the City's Tree Fund an increased
fee r aliper : eh for the total ,-,ber f caliper; ches of the tree r ed olation
1 V[w lJ[.1 [s{IllrJ{,.1 111{..31 1V1 ll1[r [V[ilI 11UII e
"Guide for Plant Appraisal" an official publication of the International Society of
i. The person has committed a previous violation of a provision of thi,
Chapter,er
ii. Tree protection measures as required by LOC 55.08 were not installed of
„ta ed
iii. The tree removed was any of the following:
(a) 36 caliper inches in diameter or greater,
(b) a heritage tree, per LOC 5.5.06,
(c) expressly protected or required to be preserved as a condition of
approval of a development permit pursuant to the Lake Oswego Communit\
Development-Code;
(d) located within the Willamette River Greenway per LOC 50.15,
(e) part of a Resource Conservation (RC) or Resource Protection (RP)
area, per LOC 50.16.
(f) located on public right of way, City owned or dedicated property, a
5. Injunction. Upon request of the City Manager or direction from Council, the Cit)
ntt r„ey stitute ate ction rt t the r .,l of trees
[LIVI„t/,' ll,uy ;;lJ IILU Its Ul.,l:,l Vy,l�ULI. ul.11 Vl, ll, ally ^ e
6. Loss
2. Nuisance Abatement. The removal or causing, participating in or
directing the removal of a tree in violation of this chapter is hereby declared to be a
public nuisance, and may be abated by appropriate proceedings pursuant to LOC 34.08.
3. Enforcement Fee. A person who removes or causes, participates in, or
directs the removal of a tree without first obtaining a tree removal permit
from the City pursuant to this Chapter, removes or causes, participates in,
or directs the removal of a tree in violation of an approved tree removal
permit, or violates a condition of an approved tree removal permit shall
pay an enforcement fee to the City in an amount as established by
resolution of the City Council.
4. Restoration Mitigation or Fee.
a. A person who removes or causes, participates in, or directs the
removal of a tree without first obtaining a Type II, dead tree, or hazard tree removal
Page 24
Ordinance No XXXX
Page 1 of 1'I
DRAFT n1i23/03; BP
permit from the City pursuant to this Chapter, removes or causes, participates in, or
directs the removal of a tree in violation of an approved Type II, dead tree, or hazard tree
removal permit, or violates a condition of such a permit shall either restore the damaged
tree on the site, restore the same diameter inch tree to the site if the tree was removed
from the site, restore the same number of diameter inches of trees to the site, pay into the
City's Tree Fund a standard fee per diameter inch for the total number of diameter inches
of the tree removed in violation of this Chapter in an amount as established by resolution
of the City Council, or a combination thereof as provided hereafter.
b. If a tree is damaged but is not removed from the site, a person who
violates any provision of this chapter shall submit a report prepared by an arborist to
evaluate the damage to a tree and/or make recommendations to remedy the violation.
The City Arborist, upon evaluating these recommendations may, at the City Arborist's
discretion, require that the recommended measures be implemented. If, however, the
City Arborist determines that it is not likely that the damaged tree will survive for 5
years, then the tree shall be removed and the person shall pay such fines, fees, and
mitigate the same as if the tree had been originally removed.
c. If the City Arborist determines that it is practical to plant a restoration
tree which is the same diameter-inch tree as that removed and the 5-year survivability of
the restoration tree(s) can be assured with a maintenance plan, then the owner shall plant
such restoration tree on the site in the same general location as that removed, and such
planting shall be performed and maintained in the manner directed by the City Arborist.
d. If the City Arborist determines that it is not practical to plant a
restoration tree which is the same diameter-inch tree as that removed, or the 5-year
survivability of said restoration tree cannot be assured even with a maintenance plan, but
the City Arborist determines that there is adequate room on site, consistent with the
future growth requirements of the other trees on the site, for one or more restoration trees
for the tree that was removed so that the cumulative diameter inches of the restoration
trees are the same as the diameter inches of the tree that was removed, and that the 5-year
survivability of the restoration tree(s) can be assured with a maintenance plan, then the
owner shall plant such additional restoration trees on the site in the location and in the
manner directed by the City Arborist. If, however, the City Arborist determines it is not
practical to plant additional restoration trees on site which would cumulatively equal the
diameter inches of the tree removed, then the Owner shall plant such additional trees on
site as the City Arborist determines possible and the person shall pay into the City's Tree
Fund the standard fee per diameter inch in an amount as established by resolution of the
City Council for the difference in the total number of diameter inches of the tree removed
as compared to the diameter inches of the restoration trees planted.
In determining the size of restoration trees to be planted. and their location, the
following priority shall apply:
i. largest size survivable tree in the original location as the
removed tree, with lesser-sized trees in the same general location, to the extent practical
based on the effect on the future health of trees in that area;
ii. largest size survivable tree elsewhere on the site other than
in the original location of the removed tree, with lesser-sized trees in the original location
as the removed tree, to the extent practical based on the future health of trees in those
respective areas;
Page 25
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
iii. largest size survivable tree elsewhere on the site other than
in the original location of the removed tree, with lesser-sized trees elsewhere on site other
than in the original location of the removed tree, to the extent practical based on the
future health of trees in those respective areas;
The maintenance plan shall be for such period of up to 5-years of time as the City
Arborist determines necessary to assure the survival of all restoration trees. The Owner
shall post a performance bond, letter of credit, or other form of security acceptable to the
City Manager that is equal to 120% of the value of the restoration trees planted. The
bond, letter of credit, or security shall be released upon successful completion of the
maintenance plan. The maintenance plan, or a memorandum thereof, shall be recorded
with the County Clerk of the county in which the site is located.
e. The City may require the person to pay into-the City's Tree Fund an
increased fee per diameter inch for the total number of diameter inches of the tree
removed in violation of this Chapter and not restored under subsection (d), in an amount
as established by resolution of the City Council or the value of the tree as determined by
the City Arborist in accordance with the methods set forth in the "Guide for Plant
Appraisal" an official publication of the International Society of Arboriculture,
whichever is greater, if any of the following apply:
i. The person has committed a previous violation of a provision
of this Chapter, or
ii. Tree protection measures as required by LOC 55.08 were not
installed or maintained, or
iii. The tree removed was any of the following:
a. 36 inches in diameter or greater,
b. a Heritage Tree, per LOC 55.06
c. expressly protected or required to be preserved
as a condition of approval of a development permit pursuant to the Lake Oswego
Community Development Code,
d. located within the Willamette River Greenway
per
LOC 50.15.
e. part of a Resource Conservation (RC) or
Resource Protection (RP) area, per LOC 50.16.
f. Located on public right-of-way, City owned or
dedicated property, a public or private open space area or conservation easement.
5. Enforcement and Restoration fees under subsection 4(e) for tree removals
on a development site and/or associated with a building permit shall be 10 (ten) times the
scheduled feesE„f rcement and Restoration f es , nder subsection 4(e) f tree re .,ls
en-a-develepnient-site-andier-asseeiated-with-a-building=penhit-sliall-be-- times-the
scheduled-fees.
6. Injunction. Upon request of the City Manager or direction from Council,
the City Attorney may institute appropriate action in any court to enjoin the removal of
trees in violation of this Chapter.
7. Loss of City Privileges.
a. A person hired to perform tree removal within the City, upon
Page 26
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
DRAFT01/23/01. RD
f
request, shall provide evidence to the City Manager that he or she
possesses a valid license to conduct hm!,int,. . In City of Lake Oswego. The person is
subject to business license revocation pursuant to LOC 20.02.085 if the person violates
any provision of this Chapter.
b. Any arborist, builder, landscaper, contractor, or tree service that
has performed any tree removal in violation of this chapter or submitted a falsified report
for the criteria required in this chapter, shall not be considered a responsible bidder for
any City contracts for a period of two years from the date of violation or report.
7. Arborist Report and Required Treatment. Upon request by the City, a person who
,later of this chapter shall „bmit ort p red by a.borist to
1�l Vl{1lVJ {All ' l.J1V��1J1 Vll Vl.� L}1�1.1J {..I ICI Vier
evaluate.-fie--damage-te-a-treecedier-make---rec6mmendations to remedy the�lativon. --
1
8. Cumulative Remedies. The rights, remedies, and penalties provided in
this chapter are cumulative, are not mutually exclusive, and are in addition to any other
rights, remedies and penalties available to the City under any other provision of law.
(Ord. No. 1429, Sec. 1; 05 18 71. Ord. No. 1880, Sec. I: 02 07 84. Ord. No. 2059,
Sec. 1, 06 16 92. Ord. No. 2097, Amended, 12 0 94.)
SectionA-rt __.
55 06 Heritage Trees
5-&06�' ose;
Page 27
Ordinance Ne XXXX
Page 1 of 11
DRAFT 01/21M1. uD
Article 55.06
Heritage Trees
Sections:
55.06.010 Purpose: Definition.
55.06.020 Nomination.
55.06.030 Review Process.
55.06.040 Protection of Heritage Trees.
55.06.050 Recognition of Heritage Trees.
55.06.060 Removal of Heritage Tree Designation.
Section 55.06.010 Purpose: Definition.
1. 1. The purpose of LOC Article 55.06 is to recognize, foster
appreciation and provide for voluntary protection of Heritage Trees.
2. 2. For the purpose of this Article, a "Heritage Tree""Heritage
Tree' is a tree or stand of trees that is of landmark importance due to age, size, species,
horticultural quality or historic importance.
(Ord. No. 2159, Enacted, 11/04/97)
Seetion 21 ection 55A46.020-is her ended to r
Section 55.06.020 Nomination.
1. 1. -Any person may nominate a particular tree or trees as a
Heritage Tree. If the proposed Heritage Tree is located on property other than City
property or public right-of-way under City or County jurisdiction, the nomination shall be
submitted by the property owner or accompanied by the property owner'sowner's written
consent. If the proposed Heritage Tree is located on City property or public right-of-way
under City or County jurisdiction, the nomination shall be submitted to the City
ManagerArborist or County Administrator, as appropriate; if the nomination is consented
to by the City or County, the City ManagerArborist or County Administrator shall submit
the nomination to the Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB)pursuant to LOC
55.06.030.
2. 2. Nomination shall be made on such form as required by the
City Manager. The nomination form shall include a narrative explaining why the tree
qualifies for Heritage Tree status pursuant to the description in LOC 55.06.010 and the
written consent of the property owner as described in subsection 1 of this section.
(Ord. No. 2159, Enacted, 11/04/97)
Page 28
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
D AFT 01 23/03; u v
5. (Ord. 2289,Amended,06/05/2001)
Section 55.06.030 Review Process.
1. 1. The NRAB shall review all Heritage Trees nominations at a
public meeting. Notice of the meeting shall be provided to the nominating applicant, the
property owner(unless the nominated tree is located on public right-of-way under City or
County jurisdiction, in which event notice shall be given to the respective City
ManagerArborist or County Administrator) and the Chairchair of any recognized
neighborhood association in which the tree is located.
2. 2. StaffThe City Arborist shall prepare a report for the NRAB
analyzing whether the tree complies with the requirements for designation.
3. 3. After considering the sta€fCity Arborist's report and any
testimony by interested persons, the NRAB shall vote on the nomination. The NRAB
may designate a tree as a Heritage Tree if the Board determines that the following criteria
are met:
a. a. The tree or stand of trees is of landmark importance
due to age, size, species, horticultural quality or historic impertaneei--andimportance.
b. b. The tree is not irreparably damaged, diseased,
hazardous or unsafe, or the applicant is willing to have the tree treated by an arborist and
the treatment will alleviate the damage, disease or hazard; hazard.
4. 4. Following approval of the nomination by the NRAB:
a. a. If the tree is located on private property, the
designation shall be complete upon the Property Ownerproperty owner's execution of a
covenant running with the land suitable for recordation by the City. The covenant shall
describe the subject property, generally describe the location of the heritage tree, and
covenant that the tree is protected as a "Heritage Tree""Heritage Tree"by the City of
Lake Oswego and is therefore subject to special protection as provided in LOC Chapter
55.
b. b. If the tree is located on public right-of-way, the
designation shall be complete upon the Staff sStaff s listing of the tree on the City
Heritage Tree records.
5. If the tree is located on the public right-of-way, the City or County, as
appropriate, shall condition any future property owner-
requested vacation of the public right-of-way upon the execution of a covenant in
accordance with Section 4, above, which shall be recorded by the City upon the vacation
of the right-of way.
(Ord. No. 21.59, Enacted, 11/01/97).
55 0 040 Protectio„ „f Heritage Tree
,
remove a designated Heritage Tree shall be processed as a Type II Tree Removal Permit
Page 29
Page 1 of 11
DR4FT41423/03. un
subject to the criteria contained in LOC 55.02.080, as modified by subsection 2 of this
section.
2. If an application to remove a Heritage Tree is sought pursuant to LOC 55.02.080
trees-located wi-thi-n-the pu tg# Cout j iction, then the
,
County:
a. View obstruction;
b. Routine pruning, leaf raking and other maintenance activities; and
c. Infrastructure impacts or tree hazards that can be controlled or avoided by
3. Unless the permit is to remove a dead or hazard tree pursuant to LOC
55.02.042(3) or (4), the applicant to remove a heritage tree shall be required to mitirite
for the loss of the tree pursuant to LOC 55.02.084.
5. 4. Any person who removes a Heritage Tree in violation of
55.02.130(3).way.
(Ord. No. 2159, Enacted, 11/04/97)
1. A Heritage Tree plaque shall be designed and may be furnished by the City to the
County official, of a designated Heritage Tree. The City may charge a fee to cover the
1l b ted t location at o the
E6§ts-6 a-pf9vi @--p e-S-h-ari--v�p6fiTc�-crc-ca--iv "cai-znc
2. The Planning Department shall maintain a list and map of designated
Heritage Trees.(Ord. 2289.Amended 06/05/2001)
Section 55.06.040 Protection of Heritage Trees.
1. Unless the tree qualifies for a dead or hazard tree remov al penult, a permit
to remove a designated Heritage Tree shall be processed as a Type ll Tree Removal
Permit subject to the criteria contained in LOC 55.02.080, as modified by subsection 2 of
this section.
2. If an application to remove a Heritage Tree is sought pursuant to LOC
55.02.042 the applicant shall demonstrate that the burden imposed on the property owner,
or, if the tree is located within the public right-of-way under City or County jurisdiction,
then the burden imposed on the respective City or County by the continued presence of
the tree outweighs the public benefit provided by the tree in order to comply with LOC
55.02.080(3). For the purposes of making this determination, the following shall not be
Page 30
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
DRAFT 01i23m3. un
considered unreasonable burdens on the property owner, or if appropriate, the City or
County:
a. View obstruction;
b. Routine pruning, leaf raking and other maintenance activities; and
c. Infrastructure impacts or tree hazards that can be controlled or avoided
by appropriate pruning or maintenance.
3. Unless the permit is to remove a dead or hazard tree pursuant to LOC
55.02.042(3) or(4), the applicant to remove a heritage tree shall be required to mitigate
for the loss of the tree pursuant to LOC 55.02.084.
4. Any person who removes a Heritage Tree in violation of Article 5.5.06
shall be subject to the penalties provided in LOC 55.02.130. In addition, the violator
shall be subject to double the enforcement fee established pursuant to LOC 55.02.130(3).
(Ord. No. 2159, Enacted, 11/04/97)
(Ord. 2289,Amended.06/05/2001: Ord. 2260,Amended, 09/05/2000)
Section 55.06.050 Recognition of Heritage Trees.
l. A Heritage Tree plaque shall be designed and may be furnished by the
City to the property owner, or if the tree is in the public right-of-way, to the appropriate
City or County official. The City may charge a fee to cover the costs of providing the
plaque. The plaque shall be posted near the tree and, if feasible, visible from a public
right-of-way.
2. The Planning Department shall maintain a list and map of designated
Heritage Trees.
(Ord. No. 2159. Enacted, 11/04/97)
(Ord. 2289,Amended.06/05/2001)
Section 55.06.060 Removal of Heritage Tree
Designation.
A Heritage Tree shall be removed from designation if it dies or is removed
pursuant to LOC 55.06.040. If removed from private property, the City shall record a
document extinguishing the covenant.
(Ord. No. 2159, Enacted, 11/04/97)
55 08 Tree Protection
Section 27 Section cc n4 n1n is he„eby „ nded to . ad as follows
Page 31
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
DRATT01/23/03; RD
cc 08 01 n Applicability.(Ord. 2289,Amended,06/05/2001)
Page 32
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page I of 11
DRAFT 01i23/03; un
Article 55.08
Tree Protection
Sections:
55.08.010 Applicability.
55.08.020 Tree Protection Plan Required.
55.08.030 Tree Protection Measures Required.
55.08.040 Inspection.
Section 55.08010 Applicability
This article is applicable to any ministerial, minor, or major development.
Section 28. Section 55.08.020 is hereby amended to read as follows
(Ord. 2221, Add.01/18/2000)
55.08.120 TreeSection 55.08.020 Tres Protection Plan Required.
1. I. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the City Manager shall
be required prior to conducting any development activities including, but not limited to
clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on a property or site, which requires
ministerial, minor, or major development approval.
2. ?. In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan;Plan.
an applicant shall submit a plan to the City: which clearly depicts all trees to be preserved
on the work site. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following:
a. a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site
and within 15 feet of theon all adjacent properties adjacent to the work site;
b. Location of the drip line of each tree;
b. c. Location of existing and proposed roads, water,
sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and other utility lines/facilities and easements;
c. d. Location of dry wells and soakage trenches;
d. e. Location of proposed and existing structures;
e. f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after
construction;
f. g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces;
g. h. Identification of a contact person and/or arborist
who will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved tree protection
plan: and
Page 33
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 14
DRAFT n1i2zm3. BP
h. i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be
installed per LOC 55.08.030.
3. For minor or major development, the Tree enProtection Plan
shall be prepared by an arborist and shall include an inventory of all trees on site, their
health or hazardwithin the work onsite, their condition, and recommendations for
treatment for each tree.
Section
55.08.025 Determination of Tree and Root Protection Zone
1. An applicant for a ministerial, minor or major development permit shall
include on the permit application materials the tree and root protection zone approved by
the City Arborist for each tree on the site within the area that may be affected by the
development, and the related development activities.
2. The tree and root protection zone for a tree shall be 10 times the tree's
DBH, measured from the face of the trunk of the tree in all directions, unless modified b)
the City Arborist. A larger or smaller tree and root protection zone may be established b)
the City Arborist for a tree based on the site, tree. and root conditions, by a showing that
a different tree and root protection zone is necessary to protect the tree and its roots from
damage resulting from the development or the related development activities which could
cause the decline of or injure the tree or its roots.
3. The City Arborist may require submission by the Owner of such evidence
as may be necessary to assist in the determination of the appropriate tree and root
protection zone, including an arborist's report.
4. The City Arborist may amend the tree and root protection zone at any time
until completion of the development upon notice to the applicant, upon a finding that
either the original determination of the tree and root protection zone was based on
incorrect actual site, tree, or root conditions at the time of initial determination of the tree
and root protection zone, or that a change of circumstance has occurred on the site such
that a modified tree and root protection zone is necessary to protect the tree and its roots
from damage resulting from the development or the related development activities which
could cause the decline of or injure the tree or its roots. After receipt of notice of the
amended tree and root protection zone, the applicant shall cause the tree and protection
zone to be modified before continuing with development activities. An applicant may
appeal the amended tree and root protection zone determination in the same manner as
provided in subsection 5, and the appeal hearing shall be conducted in the same manner
as subsections 6 through 7-abevebelow.
5. An applicant may appeal the City Arborist's determination of the tree and
root protection zone to the Community Forestry Commission (CFC) by filing a written
notice of appeal with the City Recorder within 7 days from the date of the City Arborist's
determination of the tree and root protection zone, and payment of such fee as established
by resolution of the City Council.
6. Notice of the public hearing shall be given to the applicant and to the City
Arborist not less than 10 days in advance of the public hearing by the CFC.
Page 34
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
DRAFT 01/23/nl. un
7. The CFC shall consider the appeal at a public hearing. The CFC shall
hear testimony from the applicant and any witnesses in support of the applicant, from the
City Arborist and any witnesses in support of the City Arborist, and then rebuttal by the
applicant and any witnesses in support of the applicant. The CFC shall determine, based
on the evidence and testimony in the record, the appropriate tree and root protection zone
necessary to protect the tree and its roots from damage resulting from the development or
the related development activities which could cause the decline of or injure the tree or its
roots.
55404130 TreeSection 55.08.030 Tree Protection Measures
Required:
1. 1. Except as otherwise determined by the City Manager, all
required tree protection measures set forth in this section shall be instituted prior to any
development activities;including, but not limited to; clearing, grading, excavation or
demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction activity,
including landscaping and irrigation installation.
2. ?. Chain link fencing, a minimum of 6 feet tall with steel
posts driven into the ground for a minimum of two feet, placed no farther than ten feet
apart, shall be installed at the edge of the tree protection ,
greater,zone, as determined by the City Manager, and at the boundary of any open space
tracts or conservation easements that abut the parcel being developed.
3. 3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed
grade.
4. 4. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing
stating that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior
approval has been obtained from the City Manager and arborist for the project.
5. 5. No construction activity shall occur within the tree
protection zone;including, but not limited to, dumping or storage of materials such as
building supplies, soil, waste items, or parked vehicles or equipment.
6. 6. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically
injurious materials and liquids such as paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum
products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris, or run-off.
7. 7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other
activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless directed by an arborist present
on site and approved by the City Manager.
8. 55.08.040 Inspection.Stake construction footprints, including structures,
decks and driveways prior to tree protection inspection, may be required.
9. Building permits will not be issued prior to submission and approval of a
tree removal plan or tree protection inspection and approval.
10. Tree protection measures shall not be removed before completion of the
project.
Page 35
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 14
11. The Owner may be required to cover with course organic mulch to a depth
of at least 6 inches and/or with plywood or similar material to the areas adjoining the tree
and root protectionve zone of a tree in order to protect roots from damage caused by
heavy equipment.
12. The Owner may be required to minimize root damage by excavating a 2-
foot deep trench, at the edge of the tree and root protective zone to cleanly sever the roots
of trees to be retained.
13. The Owner shall avoid damage to trees resulting from machinery or
building activity by corrective pruning ofn protected trees, or other means as required by
the City Arborist. Owner shall maintain trees throughout construction period by watering
and fertilizing.
14. The Owner shall ensure that any landscaping done in the tree and root
protectionve zone subsequent to the removal of the fencing shall be accomplished with
light machinery or hand labor, to minimize impact on the tree and its roots.
15. Additional protection measures are outlined in the Tree Technical Manual.
Section 55.08.040 Inspection.
The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation
of erosion control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of
the required tree protection measures and a building and/or grading permit has been
issued by the City.
y lidity of the o,tio of thi .d;
Read f the first time bl. title only and o cted at the ular meeting of the City Cou„cil
l�I+UU 1Vl llll. fll Jl ll llll: V}' ll llV VIll7
of the City of Lake Oswego held on the day of , 2003.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Dated:
ATTEST:
Page 36
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
•
DRAFT01/71/03; RD
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
•
ae. n,n r.. .,n.• ;
•
Page 37
Ordinance No. XXXX
Page 1 of 11
la? y(),3
61t, 5122-4- —
E-141 fy1,3--DoLL-cA 1SeciA131)
II _ (7---4_ taymt
iezi;:e4 _
I t 3171. F.
'L'e 44/A;e- 57L-t-tfi 41f1,0
— ItC1(?tEle41-- TRYC
I -
i
1 � _
;i
I