HBA hot-air storm could well topple Tigard trees

(Soapboxes are guest opinions from our readers, and anyone is welcome to write one. John Frewing is a Tigard resident.)

By John Frewing

, May 1, 2008, Updated Oct 30, 2009

ADVERTISEMENTS

A blast of hot air rushed through Tigard City Hall on the evening of April 22 as the Planning Commission made its recommendation to the City Council for a new section of our comprehensive plan dealing with tree protection and enhancement of our urban forest. Behind the hot air was the Home Builders Association (HBA), who rounded up 12 speakers to complain about possible interference with building development if the policies hammered out over the past year by the Tigard Tree Board were adopted.

The Planning Commission spent 95 percent of the evening listening and then adopting most of the HBA concepts as language which will go to the City Council in a workshop on May 6 and could then be adopted in a formal hearing on June 3. Anyone interested in tree protection should appear at these two City Council meetings to express their views. To wit:

HBA representatives asked that any reference to the mitigation requirements for removing trees should not use the word “proportional” when describing the extent of mitigation. The Planning Commission bought this idea. The Tree Board and staff had recommended that the nature and amount of mitigation should be “proportional” to the impact of tree removal. Mitigation may occur in the form of tree planting elsewhere, a monetary payment, or other efforts to maintain what remains of Tigard’s urban forest.

HBA representatives asked that reference to mitigation of tree removal should include the modifying phrase, “while minimizing cost of mitigation to the developer.” The Planning Commission bought only half of this restrictive wording, agreeing that the concept of mitigation should “consider” the cost to developers in applying mitigation to a specific site.

HBA representatives complained about the use of the term “understory” in making reference to tree protection. Understory is the brush and groundcover beneath and adjacent to trees which covers roots, absorbs and retains moisture in soil, prevents erosion and harbors both bugs and small animals/birds which coexist with trees. The Planning Commission bought this idea, eliminating entirely the word “understory” from the recommended policies of the new comprehensive plan.

HBA representatives railed at the idea of any regulation of trees on privately owned lands. The Planning Commission ignored the fact that other land features like streams, wetlands, steep slopes, etc., also call for regulation on privately owned lands for the purpose of protecting natural resources and public safety and eliminated any reference to tree removal outside of an application for a new development.

The issue which is so galling to Tree Board members and those citizens who have worked on this comprehensive plan revision over the past year is that the new policies are clearly weaker than those of our first comprehensive plan, written in 1983. For example:

1 | 2 Next Page >>