HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 3/18/2008
. ,
.
.
'111~ ~
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
/:
Date Received:
~~
STATE OF OREGON)
)ss.
County of lane )
MAR 1 8 2008
Original Submittal
I, Karen laFleur, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows:
1. I state that I am a Program Technician for the Planning Division of the
Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon.
2. I state that in my capacity as, Program Technician, I prepared and caused to be
mailed copies of Rl2008'. I - -. - ~,OtJ,.",d.
(See attachment UAU) on J 008 addressed to (see ~'(J {3uJ&6
Attachment BU), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with
postage fully prepaid thereon.
'ftJrI-ft ~/jJ)
KA EN LaFLEUR
STATE OF OREGON, County of lane
--1ldPC0.- Iff, .2008. Personally appeared the above named Karen laFleur,
Program Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary
act Before me:
OFFICIAL SEAL
{I) BRENDA JONES
'- .) NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON
'./ COMMISSION NO. 379218
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 27, 2008
/
My Commission Expires: ~ :J1 ~1
. .
,
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
TREE FELLING PERMIT
Staff Report & Decision
-
Project Name: EWEB Plant Expansion - Tree Felling
Project Proposal: Fell 26 trees to enable filtration plant
expansion & plant 50 replacement trees
Case Number: DRC2008-00015
Project Location: 3957 Hayden Bridge Road
17-02-19-00, TL 3300
Zoning: Public Land & Open Space (PLO)
Overlay District(s): N/A
Applicable Refinement Plan: N/A
Refinement Plan Designation: N/A
Metro Plan Designation: Government & Education
Application Submittal Date: February 14, 2008
Application Accepted as Complete Date: February 19, 2008
Decision Issued Date: March 18, 2008
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
Appeal Deadline Date: April 2, 2008
Associated Applications: DRC2007-00074 (Minor Site Plan Modification)
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE - -
POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE
Planner II Land Use Planning Molly Markarian 726-4611
Public Works Engineer in Training Public Works Jesse Jones 736-1036
Deputy Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 726-2293
APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM ~ ""'"
-
Owner/Applicant Applicant's Representative
Wally McCullough, Senior Engineer Water Division Wayne Gresh, P.E.
Eugene Water and Electric Board Black & Veatch
P.O. Box 10148 4800 Meadows Road, Suite 200
Eugene, OR 97440 Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Case No. DRC2008-00015
1018
DECISION
This staff report and decision grants approval with conditions to the subject application, as of the date
of this decision. The standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion
of approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans and notes unless specifically
noted in this decision with findings and conditions necessary for compliance. Tree felling and re-
vegetation must be in conformance with submitted plans and as conditioned herein. This is a limited
land use decision made according to city code and state statutes. Unless appealed, the decision is
final. Please read this document in its entirety.
-
,
, .
REVIEW PROCESS
This application has been reviewed under the procedures listed in SDC 5.1-130, Type II Applications,
and SDC 5.19-100, Tree Felling Permit. This application was accepted as complete on February 19,
2008, and this decision is issued on the 28th day of the 120 days permitted per ORS 227.178.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
Applications for Type II limited land use decisions require notification of property owners and occupants
within 300 feet of the subject property and any applicable neighborhood association, allowing for a 14-
day comment period on the application per SDC 5.1-130. The property owner, applicant, if different,
and parties submitting written comments during the comment period have appeal rights and are mailed
a copy of this decision for consideration. In accordance with SDC 5.1-130, notice was mailed to the
property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property on February 27, 2008.
The following written comments were received during the comment period:
An email was received on March 7,2008 from the property owners of 3930 Hayden Bridge Road, and a
letter was received on March 12, 2008 from the property owners of 3940 Hayden Bridge Road with
similar comments. The complete transcript of the email and letter are made a part of this decision by
reference and are available for review at the Development Services Department.
In summary, the property owners supported removal of the trees on the EWEB property as they hope it
will offer more sunlight exposure to their property. The property owners requested that re-vegetation of
the area occur with slow-growing or deciduous trees that have a maximum height of 30-40 feet to
enable passive solar energy utilization and energy conservation. The property owners also stated that
they would encourage EWEB to top or remove any other trees from the peak of the hill down the north
slope towards Hayden Bridge Road to allow more sunlight to reach their property.
While the City certainly understands the desire of neighboring property owners to have less shade cast
on their property, the Base Solar Development Standards, outlined in SDC 3.2-225, do not apply to this
development since no new buildings are proposed. In addition, as stated under Criterion 5 below,
mature trees protect soil from erosion, retain precipitation and reduce stormwater runoff, serve as
windbreaks, and provide scenic quality and habitat for wildlife. Therefore, re-vegetation in the area
near where trees have been felled is necessary to mitigate the loss of these environmental benefits.
Furthermore, the affected area is part of Vitus Butte, a Goal 5 Upland site identified on the Metropolitan
Natural Resources Special Study with an environmentally and visually sensitive ridgeline and steep
slope that must be protected to the extent practical.
It is assumed that while the felling of trees will have a negative short-term environmental impact, the
planting of replacement trees has the potential to prevent long-term net loss if the re-planting ratio is at
least one successful new tree for each tree removed and replacement species provide similar mature
canopy spread and biodiversity to the area. Therefore, replanting the felled area with only slow-
growing deciduous trees that grow to a maximum height lower than that to which the existing trees
have grown would result in less than adequate re-vegetation of the felled area. In addition, topping or
removing additional trees unrelated to the approved modifications from the existing extensive mature
grove of trees along the north hillside would result in a significant negative environmental impact to the
area, not to mention that thinning of that grove would result in major public facilities not being
adequately screened from abutting residential districts, a requirement of SDC 4.4-110.
Case No. ORC2008-00015
20f8
~~e respondents' concern~rePlanting are incorporated in the fIlreqUirements addressed under
SDC 5.19-125 E. on pages five to six of this decision.
SITE INFORMATION
The subject property is an approximately 50 acre, irregular-shaped lot on a hilltop west of the McKenzie
River. The lot is on the south side of Yolanda Ave. and Hayden Bridge Road and on the north side of
Marcola Rd, just inside the City limits.
Currently, the property contains an EWEB water treatment plant serving the City of Eugene. The
filtration plant, originally constructed in 1949, has been upgraded three times to date, including a major
expansion in 2000 that was approved under a Discretionary UselSite Plan application (Case No. 2000-
06-124 and 2000-06-143). EWEB received approval on January 22, 2008 to construct a fourth
expansion of the plant, enabling it to increase capacity to approximately 80 million gallons per day.
The property is zoned Public land and Open Space and is designated Government and Education.
Property to the north and west is zoned low Density Residential while property to the south is zoned
Heavy Industrial.
TREE FELLING PERMIT - CRITERIA
SDC 5.19-125 states that the Director, in consultation with the Public Works Director and the Fire Chief,
shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a tree felling permit request based on the criteria listed
in SDC 5.19-125 A. through H.
Finding: The Development Review Committee (DRC), including representatives from the City's
Development Services Department, Public Works Department, and Fire and Life Safety Department
reviewed the application, and their comments have been incorporated into the findings and conditions
below.
Criterion 1 ISDC 5.19-125 A.I
Whether the conditions of the trees with respect to disease, hazardous or unsafe conditions, danger of
falling, proximity to existing structures or proposed construction, or interference with utility services or
pedestrian or vehicular traffic safety walTants the proposed felling.
Finding: The applicant submitted a narrative stating that the approved Minor Site Plan Modification
(Case No. DRC2007-00074) includes construction of two pipelines and an equalization tank, and that
the locations of the pipelines and tank necessitate the removal of 26 regulated deciduous and
coniferous trees. The proposed pipelines and tank were located to place them near existing
constructed faciliites, an existing backwash pond and a recently-constructed reservioir overflow
channel.
The narrative asserts that alternative alignments and locations were evaluated to minimize the number
of trees to be removed, but due to conflicts with future construction of a significant backwash handling
facility, the proposed location was ultimately selected.
Finding: The findings supplied by the applicant support the conclusion that the location of the trees,
with respect to proposed construction, warrant the proposed felling.
Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 1 (SDC 5.19-125 A).
Criterion 21SDC 5.19-125 B.I
Whether the proposed felling is consistent with State standards, Metro Plan policies, and City
Ordinances and provisions affecting the environmental quality of the area, including but not limited to,
the protection of nearby trees and windbreaks; wildlife; erosion; soil retention and stability; volume of
surface runoff and water quality of streams; scenic quality; and geological sites.
Case No. DRC2008-00015
3018
Finding: Forestry practices in !ll.ate of Oregon are governed by th~on Forest Practices A~t.'
State forestry regulations are not applicable in this case because: 1) the limited number of regulated
trees removed; 2) the treees are being removed for planned development not timber harvest purposes;
and 3) sufficient re-planting can be accomplished in accordance with the conditions of this permit and
site plan review process.
Finding: The SDC is the primary implementing ordinance for the environmental protection policies
contained in the Metro Plan. SDC 5.19-100, Tree Felling Permit, and SDC 5.17-100, Site Plan Review,
generally implement environmental protection policies of the Metro Plan duirng development review.
No evidence has been submitted that indicates any City, State, or Metro policies protect or preserve the
trees proposed to be felled beyond the City's Tree Felling standards.
Finding: The trees proposed for removal from the subject property include 12 coniferous trees of
varying sizes and ages (6-30 inches in diameter), and 14 deciduous trees of varying sizes and ages (6-
20 inches in diameter).
Finding: The trees proposed for removal are scattered along the interior of the extensively vegetated
EWES filtration plant site, predominantly north of the new contact basin and north of the northernmost
interior gravel access road on the property. As such, the trees proposed for removal are not readily
visible from areas outside the site, are not part of a natural or scenic area, and do not comprise part of
a larger contiguous stand of trees. In addition, the applicant will be required to perform felling activities,
as well as erosion control and slope stability practices, in accordance with City standards. Also, the
applicant has proposed replanting the area near where the trees are to be felled with 18 big leaf maple
trees, 20 Douglas fir trees, and 12 ponderosa pine trees. Therefore, as conditioned below, removal of
the existing trees and re-vegetation should not have an appreciable effect on the surrounding physical
and visual environment.
Finding: SDC 5.19-130 A. states that if issuance of the Tree Felling Permit is conditioned upon the
applicant's proposed plan to replace the trees, landscape, or otherwise reduce the effects of the felling,
the time within which the plan is to be completed shall be specified on the permit.
Condition 1: All felling activities, including ingress and egress for the logging operations, shall include
erosion control measures in conformance with the City's Engineering Design Standards and
Procedures Manual (EDSPM).
Condition 2: Existing trees to be retained shall be clearly flagged, identified, and protected from
damage due to the adjacent tree removal and other site clearing work. All felling and removal activities
shall be performed in a manner which avoids site impacts, including but not limited to: soil compaction
around trees to be retained, soil compaction in the root zones of any trees on neighboring properties,
damage to trunks of trees to be retained, and soil compaction in areas of future landscape planting.
Condition 3: Any soils and debris tracked into the street by vehicles and equipment leaving the site
shall be cleaned up with shovels in a timely manner and not washed into the stormwater system.
Condition 4: Prior to initiation of tree felling activities, a Land Drainage and Alteration Permit (LDAP)
shall be approved and issued for the proposed tree felling.
Finding: As conditioned above, the proposed felling is consistent with State standards, Metro Plan
policies, and City ordinances and provisions affecting the environmental quality of the area.
Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 2 (SDC 5.19-125 S.) as conditioned herein.
Criterion 3 ISDC 5.19-125 C.l
Whether it is necessary to remove trees in order to construct proposed improvements as specified in an
approved development plan, grading permits, and construction drawings.
Finding: As stated earlier, the applicant has already received approval to modify the existing EWES
filtration plant facilities via Case No. DRC2007-00074. The plan set included with this application
identifies a conflict between existing trees and the proposed location of two pipelines and an
Case No. DRC2008-00015 4 of 8
equalization tank. Therelit is necessary to remove such tr"'o construct the improvements
specified in the approved development plan.
Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 3 (SDC 5.19-125 C.).
Criterion 4 ISDC 5.19-125 D.l
In the event that no development plan has been approved by the City, felling of trees will be permitted
on a limited basis consistent with the preservation of the site's future development potential as
prescribed in the Metro Plan and City development regulations and consistent with the following criteria:
1. Wooded areas associated with natural drainage ways and water areas shall be retained to
preserve riparian habitat and to minimize erosion;
2. Wooded areas that will likely provide attractive on-site views to occupants of future
developments shall be retained;
3. Wooded areas along ridge lines and hilltops shall be retained for their scenic and wildlife value;
4. Wooded areas along property lines shall be retained to serve as buffers from adjacent
properties;
5. Trees shall be retained in sufficiently large areas and dense stands so as to ensure against
windthrow;
6. Large scale clear-cuts of developable areas shall be avoided to retain the wooded character of
future building sites and so preserve housing and design options for future City residents
Finding: The subject property has an approved development plan for the modifications that
necessitate the proposed felling, Case No. DRC2007-00074. Therefore, Criterion 4 is not applicable.
Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 4 (SDC 5.19-125 D.).
Criterion 5 IS DC 5.19-125 E.l
Whether the applicant's proposed replanting of new trees or vegetation is an adequate substitute for
the trees to be felled.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to fell 12 coniferous trees of varying sizes and ages (6-30 inches
in diameter), and 14 deciduous trees of varying sizes and ages (6-20 inches in diameter). The
applicant has proposed seeding all disturbed areas and re-planting the area near where the trees are to
be felled with 18 big leaf maple trees, 20 Douglas fir trees, and 12 ponderosa pine trees, which
amounts to a re-planting rate of two to one.
Finding: The SDC regulates street trees, vegetative screening, curbside planter strips, landscaped
setbacks, and parking lot planting areas. However, the proposed felling and re-vegetation does not fall
within any of these categories as it is proposed to occur on the interior of a large, public facility site.
Therefore, to address Criterion 5 in such a case, staff must rely on general urban forestry best practices
in reviewing proposals to determine whether the re-vegetation is adequate given the context of the tree
felling and the use of the property.
Finding: Mature trees protect soil from erosion, retain precipitation and reduce stormwater runoff,
serve as windbreaks, and provide scenic quality and habitat for wildlife. Therefore, re-vegetation in the
area near where trees have been felled is necessary to mitigate the loss of these environmental
benefits. It is assumed that while the felling of trees will likely have a negative short-term environmental
impact, the planting of replacement trees has the potential to prevent long-term net loss if the re-
planting ratio is at least one successful new tree for each tree removed and replacement species
provide similar mature canopy spread and biodiversity to the area.
Finding: SDC 5.19-130 A. states that if issuance of the Tree Felling Permit is conditioned upon the
applicant's proposed plan to replace the trees, landscape, or otherwise reduce the effects of the felling,
the time within which the plan is to be completed shall be specified on the permit.
Case No. DRC200B-00015 5 of 8
~ ~ '.
Condition 5: Within six months, the applicant shall plant a minimum 0~0 trees as proposed and
depicted on the submitted plans. Trees shall be selected and planted in conformance with the
standards of the SDC and EDSPM and shall at a minimum, at full maturity, be similar to the existing
trees in terms of canopy spread and biodiversity. Ground cover disturbed by tree removal activities
shall be replanted and established prior to final inspection of replanting.
Finding: As conditioned herein, the proposed re-vegetation plan is an adequate substitute for the trees
to be felled.
Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 5 (SDC 5.19-125 E.) as conditioned herein.
Criterion 6/SDC 5.19-125 F.l
Whether slash left on the property poses significant fire hazard or liability to the City.
Finding: The applicant's narrative states that trees will be removed as part of the specified clearing
and grubbing process for the proposed pipelines and tank.
Finding: Removal of slash reduces fire hazards and prevents the mixing of organic materials with
engineered fill and other materials placed on the site during construction.
Finding: SDC 5.19-130 A. states that if issuance of the Tree Felling Permit is conditioned upon the
applicant's proposed plan to replace the trees, landscape, or otherwise reduce the effects of the felling,
the time within which the plan is to be completed shall be specified on the permit.
Condition 6: All trees and slash shall be removed from the site within 72 hours of felling.
Finding: As conditioned above, slash will not pose a significant fire hazard or liability to the City.
Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 6 (SDC 5.19-125 F.) as conditioned herein.
Criterion 7/SDC 5.19-125 G.l
Whether the felling is consistent with the guidelines specified in the Field Guide to Oregon Forestry
Practices Rules published by the State of Oregon, Department of Forestry, as they apply to the
northwest Oregon region.
Finding: Oregon forestry regulations are designed to provide safety and other guidelines during
logging operations and to assure continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species and the
continued productivity and stabilization of soils. The proposed tree felling and re-vegetation are not
subject to these regulations given the relatively limited number of trees to be removed and given that
trees are being removed for urban development and not for commercial timber harvest. Therefore,
Criterion 7 is not applicable.
Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 7 (SDC 5.19-125 G.).
Criterion 8/SDC 5.19-125 H.l
Whether transportation of equipment to and equipment and trees from the site can be accomplished
without a major disturbance to nearby residents.
Finding: Low Density Residential districts abut the subject property to the north, west, and south.
However, the trees proposed for felling are located on the interior of a 50-acre hilltop lot. In addition,
the applicant's narrative states that transportation of equipment to and equipment and trees from the
site will be incidental to the construction traffic for the approved site modifications and is anticipated to
be through a dedicated contractor entrance road on the site, to Hayden Bridge Road and then Marcola
Road.
Finding: The traffic generated by the tree felling activity will be no more intrusive than other heavy
vehicle traffic associated with site development and will occur on adjacent public collector and arterial
streets and on-site roads.
Case No. DRC2008-00015 6 of 8
.' , fI'
Finding: SDC 5.19-130 A. states that if issuance of the Tree Felling Permit is conditioned upon the
applicant's proposed plan to replace the trees, landscape, or otherwise reduce the effects of the felling,
the time within which the plan is to be completed shall be specified on the permit.
Condition 7: All felling and bucking shall occur during normal business hours, to limit noise impacts to
the neighbors.
Condition 8: The applicant shall notify the project planner at least five (5) days prior to
commencement of the tree felling operation. Please contact Molly Markarian in the Development
Services Department Planning Division at 726-4611 or email heratmmarkarian@ci.springfield.or.us.
Finding: As conditioned above, the transportation of equipment to and equipment and trees from the
site can be accomplished without a major disturbance to nearby residents.
Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 8 (SDC 5.19-125 H.) as conditioned herein.
SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
NOTE: This summary of the conditions of approval is provided as a courtesy to the applicant. The
applicant should, however, carefully read the decision in its entirety to understand the basis for each
condition. In addition, as stated earlier, the applicant must comply with the entire decision, and tree
felling and re-vegetation must be in conformance with submitted plans and as conditioned herein.
1. All felling activities, including ingress and egress for the logging operations, shall include erosion
control measures in conformance with the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures
Manual (EDSPM).
2. Existing trees to be retained shall be clearly flagged, identified, and protected from damage due
to the adjacent tree removal and other site clearing work. All felling and removal activities shall
be performed in a manner which avoids site impacts, including but not limited to: soil
compaction around trees to be retained, soil compaction in the root zones of any trees on
neighboring properties, damage to trunks of trees to be retained, and soil compaction in areas
of future landscape planting.
3. Any soils and debris tracked into the street by vehicles and equipment leaving the site shall be
cleaned up with shovels in a timely manner and not washed into the stormwater system.
4. Prior to initiation of tree felling activities, a Land Drainage and Alteration Permit (LDAP) shall be
approved and issued for the proposed tree felling.
5. Within six months, the applicant shall plant a minimum of 50 trees as proposed and depicted on
the submitted plans. Trees shall be selected and planted in conformance with the standards of
the SDC and EDSPM and shall at a minimum, at full maturity, be similar to the existing trees in
terms of canopy spread and biodiversity. Ground cover disturbed by tree removal activities
shall be replanted and established prior to final inspection of replanting.
6. All trees and slash shall be removed from the site within 72 hours of felling.
7. All felling and bucking shall occur during normal business hours, to limit noise impacts to the
neighbors.
8. The applicant shall notify the project planner at least five (5) days prior to commencement of the
tree felling operation. Please contact Molly Markarian in the Development Services Department
Planning Division at 726-4611 or email heratmmarkarian@ci.springfield.or.us.
Case No. DRC2008-00015
7018
CONCLUSION
The application, as submitted and conditioned herein, complies with the eight criteria listed in SDC
5.19-125 A. through H. The tree felling plan approved as submitted and conditioned herein may not be
substantively changed.
-
,
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The application, all documents, and supporting evidence are available for free inspection (copies are
available for a fee) at the Development Services Department.
APPEAL
This decision is considered a Director's Type II decision and as such, may be appealed to the
Planning Commission. SDC 5.3-115 states that only the property owner, applicant, if different, and
those persons who submitted written comments within the 14-day comment period have standing to
appeal this decision. SDC 5.3-115 also states that an appeal application in accordance with 5.3-100
shall be filed with the Development Services Department within 15 calendar days of the Director's
decision (the date of this decision). In accordance with this policy and the Oregon Rules of Civil
Procedures, Rule 10(c), the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00pm on April 2, 2008.
QUESTIONS
Please call Molly Markarian in the Development Services Department Planning Division at 726-4611 or
email heratmmarkarian@ci.springfield.or.usif you have any questions.
PREPARED BY
Molly Markarian
Planner II
Urban Planning Section
Case No. DRC2008-00015
80f8
. ,
.
J
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
.
I
James & Debra Henley
17204 Laredo Vista Ave
Palmdale, CA 93591-3338
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
225 5th ST
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
Jerry & Allsion Jacobsan
3940 Hayden Bridge Road
Springfield, OR 97477
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
225 5th ST
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
Wally McCullough
EWEB
PO Box 10148
Eugene, OR 97440
l;1 IY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
225 5th ST
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
Wayne Gresh, P.E.
Black & Veatch
4800 Meadows Road, Ste 200
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
-/J