Urban Forestry Master Plan Committee - 03/04/2009 City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee —Agenda
MEETING DATE: March 4, 2009, 6:30-8:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Library, 2nd Floor Conference Room,
13500 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER..................................................................................................................6:30-6:35
2. Introduction and Opening Remarks.......................................................................................6:35-6:40
3. Approve Minutes.......................................................................................................................6:40-6:45
4. Results of City of Tigard Internal Coordination Meetings..................................................6:45-7:00
5. Progress on Stakeholder Meetings..........................................................................................7:00-7:15
6. Draft Plan Outline.....................................................................................................................7:15-7:30
7. Planning Commission and City Council Update..................................................................7:30-7:45
8. Public Comment........................................................................................................................7:45-8:00
Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee AGENDA—March 4, 2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 oft
o City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Current Planning Division
Re: Regular Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting of
March 4,2009
Date: February 20,2009
INTRODUCTION
The following summarizes topics proposed for discussion at the March 4,2009 meeting of the Urban
Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee.
CANOPY ANAYLSIS UPDATE
In response to questions/comments made by the Citizen Advisory Committee and public, staff has
assembled additional canopy information in Attachment 1. This agenda item will be briefly discussed
during the introduction/opening remarks section of the meeting.
REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 7,2009 URBAN FORESTRY
MASTER PLAN CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
The Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee held a meeting on January 7,2009. The
minutes of the meeting have been summarized in Attachment 2 by Todd Prager for the Committee's
review and approval.
RESULTS OF THE CITY OF TIGARD INTERNAL COORDINATION MEETINGS
Over the past two months,coordination meetings were attended by key City staff members that have a
role in coordinating and implementing Tigard's urban forestry programs,policies, and ordinances. A
summary of the results of the meetings have been provided in Attachment 3.
PROGRESS ON STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
In addition to internal coordination of City departments, staff is in the process of coordinating with key
community stakeholder groups and jurisdictions who regularly contribute to and/or are affected by the
management of Tigard's urban forest. Attachment 4 lists the groups and organizations that have/will be
contacted for interviews over the next month.
DRAFT PLAN OUTLINE
Attachment 5 contains a draft outline for the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Please review and be
prepared to provide feedback to staff.
PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
In April, staff will be meeting with both the Planning Commission and City Council to update them on
the progress of the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Staff will also seek input and direction on the Plan
from both groups.
As the Urban Forestry Master Plan will need to be approved by both the Planning Commission and
Council,it is important that they are comfortable with the direction the Plan is moving and the final
product prior to the adoption process later this year.
Please be prepared at the March 4,2009 meeting to provide staff with input as to the type of
information you would like to provide to both groups and the input you would like to receive from
Planning Commission and Council.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Public Comment regarding the Urban Forestry Master Plan has been provided in Attachment 6 for the
Committee's review. There will also be an opportunity at the end of the March 4,2009 meeting for
additional public comment.
ATTACHMENTS:
ATTACHMENT 1: CANOPY ANAYLSIS UPDATE
ATTACHMENT 2: MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 7,2009 URBAN FORESTRY
MASTER PLAN CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
ATTACHMENT 3: URBAN FORESTRY, CITY OF TIGARD INTERNAL
COORDINATION MEETING RESULTS
ATTACHMENT 4: PROGRESS ON STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
ATTACHMENT 5: DRAFT PLAN OUTLINE
ATTACHMENT 6: PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
ATTACHMENT 7: PUBLIC COMMENT
v
■ City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee - Minutes
MEETING DATE: January 7, 2009, 6:30-8:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Library, 2nd Floor Conference Room,
13500 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223
Members Present Janet Gillis, Tony Tycer, David Walsh, Matt Clemo, Dennis Sizemore, Mort
Ettelstein, Phil Hickey, Alan DeHarpport
Members Absent—Morgan Holen
Staff Present—John Floyd,Todd Prager, Marissa Daniels, Darren Wyss, Nate Shaub
Visitors —Harry Reid,John Frewing, Ted Ziegler
1. Introductions and Opening Remarks
The Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP), Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting began at 6:35 p.m.
with an opening statement by Todd Prager. Prager described the purpose of the meeting as being to
follow up on unfinished business from the November 5, 2008 meeting and to discuss information about
existing urban forest conditions and community attitudes.
2. Review and Approve Minutes from the November 5, 2008 Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen
Advisory Committee meeting
Prager then asked the CAC if they would like to approve the November 5, 2008 meeting minutes.
Matt Clemo made a motion to approve the minutes (Attachment 1, UFMP CAC January 7, 2009 meeting
packet). Dennis Sizemore then seconded the motion and thus the November 5, 2008 meeting minutes
were approved at 6:37 p.m.
3. Purpose Statement for Urban Forestry Master Plan
Prager then asked if the CAC had any further comments on the revised purpose statement (Attachment 2,
UFMP CAC January 7, 2009 meeting packet). The CAC indicated that they were satisfied with the
revisions. At 6:39 p.m. Prager said the following revised statement would be incorporated into the draft
Urban Forestry Master Plan:
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—January 7, 2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 6
The purpose of the Urban Forestry Master Plan is to implement the goals and policies in the Urban
Forestry section of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and to guide the future of Tigard's urban forest by:
a. Documenting past and present conditions of the urban forest;
b. Providing recommendations and measurable goals that will improve urban forest management;
c. Coordinating City departments with each other,with other jurisdictions, and with the community's
vision for trees in Tigard; and
d. Providing a legislative resource for future plans, policies, and ordinances.
4. Draft Vision Statement for the Urban Forestry Master Plan
At 6:40 p.m., Marissa Daniels explained to the CAC that she worked to incorporate their comments from
the November 5, 2008 meeting into three possible vision statements (Attachment 3, UFMP CAC January
7, 2009 meeting packet). She then asked the CAC if they had a preference on any one of the three options.
By a show of hands two people liked option A, three preferred option B, and one person liked option C.
Dennis Sizemore reiterated that more words result in less meaning for vision statements. Daniels
responded that option C is the most concise, but does not contain all of the themes identified at the
November meeting.
David Walsh said that he wants the vision to be concise, but that option C does not have enough meaning.
Matt Clemo said that if option C is used, he wants the word manage to be incorporated because
management was a central theme identified by the CAC previously.
David Walsh said that the word "protected" in option C is too strong and could be seen as divisive since
there was so much controversy over protecting trees during the Comprehensive Plan process.
Dennis Sizemore suggested that the word "protected" could be substituted with "manage" in option C.
Alan DeHarpport said that he likes how the words "economic" and"quality of life" are in option B. Mr.
DeHarpport added that option B is broad and includes most of the overarching themes.
In order to reduce the number of words in option B, Mort Ettelstein said the word "effectively" could be
removed.
Dennis Sizemore said the word "and" between "thriving" and "interconnected" could be removed to
reduce the number of words as well.
Marissa Daniels then took a vote from the committee and there was unanimous approval of the revised
version of option B which reads:
"Tigard's urban forest is valued and protected by City residents as a thriving interconnected ecosystem
managed to improve quality of life,increase community identity, and maximize aesthetic, economic, and
ecological benefits."
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—January 7,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of 6
5. Discussion of Urban Forestry Survey Results
Prager then moved the discussion to the urban forestry survey results. He began by reading the following
findings from Attachment 4 of the UFMP CAC January 7, 2009 meeting packet:
• Residents are satisfied with the amount and quality of trees/forests in Tigard (-86% satisfaction).
However, approximately 74% agreed that more street trees would be good for the City.
• Residents feel strongly that trees contribute to quality of life (-96% agree) and residential property
values (-92% agree).
• Residents want the City to direct more resources to maintain/protect trees and forests in Tigard
(-74% agree), although support for increasing funding for tree and forest management is less
strong (-55% support).
• Residents support tree preservation and replacement during development (-88% support). In
addition a majority (-56%o) support development regulations even when they limit the size and
extent of potential buildings or profits. Approximately 32% of residents oppose tree regulations
that limit development.
• Residents consistently prioritize planting, protection, and maintenance of natural forested areas over
other resources such as street trees and ornamental landscape trees.
• Approximately 55% of residents would like to see new protection measures focused on larger
groves of native trees as opposed to individual trees of significant size.
• Residents are supportive of tree regulations for developed private property that would protect large,
healthy trees (-75% support).
• Finally, a majority of residents support the creation of a program where the City would become
involved in disputes between neighbors regarding hazardous trees (-59% support).
Janet Gillis commented that she was surprised at the level of support for a permit system on developed
private property based on the amount of controversy generated by the topic during the Comprehensive
Plan process. Dennis Sizemore responded that the survey is representative of a larger group of people
than those that attend Planning Commission and Council hearings.
Tony Tycer commented that the focus on maintenance in the open ended responses shows that City
residents assume there will still be trees in the future to maintain.
Dennis Sizemore noted that the vision statement previously approved is aligned with the survey results.
Janet Gillis commented that many of the open ended responses were about adding more trees and
landscaping to Highway 99.
Tony Tycer noted that the age distribution in the survey skewed towards older residents and property
owners. Prager responded that he thought the demographics of the urban forestry survey is similar to past
community surveys.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—January 7,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 3 of 6
David Walsh asked how much the survey cost, and Prager responded that they went with the lowest bidder
and the cost was $12,000. He added that the Oregon Department of Forestry and USDA Forest Service
*AW contributed$2,500 towards the survey cost, so the City will pay $9,500.
The CAC generally agreed that the survey will pay off in the long run because it will allow future
regulations to better align with community attitudes.
6. Discussion of Tigard Tree Canopy Analysis
Prager then explained the results in Exhibit A of Attachment 5 of the UFMP CAC January 7, 2009 meeting
packet. Prager answered questions from the CAC while explaining the results or referred them to Tigard
staff members and GIS experts Darren Wyss and Nate Shaub.
Tony Tycer commented that the canopy maps appear that there was more than 1% canopy loss from 1996
to 2007 in Tigard. Prager responded that it is important to remember that the losses are buffered by the
gains from planting efforts that show up as canopy.
In response to a follow up question by Mr. Tycer, Darren Wyss said that small red flecks on the canopy
map show canopy loss that was likely due to infill development.
After Prager described the current Tigard canopy as being 24.52% and canopy loss from 1996 to 2007 as
being approximately 1%, he offered the following comparisons:
• The gold standard for urban tree canopy in pacific northwest cities set by American Forests (non-
profit) is 40% coverage.
• In 2005, Lake Oswego was estimated to have 39% canopy.
• In 2005, Portland was estimated to have 26.3% canopy,up .8% from their canopy in 1991 (25.5).
• In 2007,Vancouver,WA was estimated to have 19.7% canopy, down 4.3% from 2003 (24%).
John Frewing asked at what point does a planted tree show up as canopy. Darren Wyss responded that at
500 square feet (roughly 25 foot canopy spread) a tree shows up as canopy.
Alan DeHarpport added that it is important to remember that eventually planted trees will grow and show
up as canopy.
When reviewing the urban renewal zone canopy (9.64% in 2007),Tony Tycer asked if there is enough soil
space for increasing tree canopy given the intense level of development that is planned for downtown.
Prager responded that one of the goals for downtown is to be a green and sustainable core. The plan is to
have trees contribute to that vision. Prager added that the downtown standards will have to include
alternative planting methods to allow for adequate rooting volume to support substantial trees in an
intensely developed urban environment. Marissa Daniels referred the CAC to the recently completed
future vision for downtown document by the University of Oregon.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—January 7,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 4 of 6
The CAC then began to discuss the canopy percentages in the buildable lands inventory. Prager noted a
steep drop in buildable lands in Tigard from 1,423 acres to 528 acres between 1996 and 2007.
Alan DeHarpport asked if Tigard's buildable lands inventory provides the required 20 year supply. Darren
Wyss answered that the 20 year supply of buildable land is inventoried at the regional scale by Metro and
this information is used in urban growth boundary expansion decisions. Wyss stated that the more
important indicator is the Metro Title 1 housing targets that were based on the City's buildable land in the
mid 1990's. Wyss stated the City of Tigard is on track to meet the targets. Mr. DeHarpport then asked if
Tigard should be looking at future grove protection outside its urban growth boundary. Wyss responded
that Tigard is currently land locked and unable to annex new urban growth boundary expansion areas and
therefore unable to annex/protect tree resources outside of its boundaries. Wyss used the example of
Areas 63 and 64 which he to the west of Bull Mt and were brought into the UGB in 2002. These areas are
outside the City's Urban Planning Area and not adjacent to the Tigard city limits so they cannot currently
be planned/annexed by Tigard. Mr. DeHarpport then asked who is doing the planning. Wyss answered the
County is currently in the process of developing the land use concept plan.
Prager said that it is important to note that there is relatively high canopy (42.79%) on buildable lands.
Prager then explained the next set of tables regarding Tigard tax lot ownership, noting that the City of
Tigard is the largest single property owner in Tigard, and canopy on City properties is a relatively high
46.13%. He also noted that public right of way contains a relatively low amount (9.12%) of tree canopy.
Alan DeHarpport said that there may not be much opportunity for canopy increase in the right of way
because so much of it is paved. Prager responded that it would be interesting to compare Tigard right of
way canopy with other cities such as Portland or Lake Oswego where there is a perception of significant
canopy overhang over roadways. Dennis Sizemore commented that Tigard right of way may be an
opportunity area where canopy could be increased.
The significant habitat areas in Tigard were then explained by Darren Wyss, and he described the meaning
of High, Moderate, and Low value habitat. Prager added that canopy in the significant habitat areas is
currently high (-50%) and that High and Moderate value habitat is currently protected. Prager said that
Low value habitat is currently vulnerable, and is comprised of upland tree groves.
Prager then described the last set of tables that described canopy cover by zoning. He said that most of
the Urban Forestry Plans that he has seen break canopy cover down by zoning.
In response to a question by Dennis Sizemore, Darren Wyss explained that mixed use zones are those
areas that combine commercial and residential uses. Dennis Sizemore noted that the mixed use zone may
be an opportunity area for protection since there was significant decrease (7.21%) in mixed use areas from
1996 to 2007. Darren Wyss added that it is important to consider that mixed use developments have not
been around very long, so new tree planting in those areas may not have been captured yet in the canopy
data.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—January 7, 2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.dgard-or.gov I Page 5 of 6
Prager then asked the CAC after seeing all of the canopy data,what information do they think will be most
helpful for inclusion and further analysis in the plan. He also asked if there are additional queries that Nate
**&W Shaub could complete that would add value to the Urban Forestry Master Plan.
Dennis Sizemore commented that more analysis of right of way areas,what is happening in mixed use
areas, and the status of parking lot canopy coverage would be the three items at the top of his list for
inclusion in the Master Plan.
David Walsh added that identifying plantable sites was very important to him. He said that previously
statements had been made that developers are running out of mitigation sites and it would be important to
find plantable areas that are outside of buildable lands. Alan DeHarpport agreed that it would be very
helpful for him to know where mitigation/plantable sites exist from a developer's perspective. Dennis
Sizemore added that this could identify areas where canopy could be increased.
7. Public Comment
At 7:45 p.m.John Frewing commented that he wanted to ensure that Tigard's current canopy analyses
would be compatible with analyses in the future. Tony Tycer agreed that in the future, as technology
improves, the analyses will be capturing smaller trees that may inflate canopy numbers relative to current
numbers. Darren Wyss responded by saying that future analyses could be adjusted to capture canopy at
the same scale (500 sq. ft. minimum) as in the current analyses.
Harry Reid then asked if the current free street tree program was in some way connected with the Urban
Forestry Master Plan. Todd Prager responded that the free street tree program is a separate program and
has been going on for several years.
8. Closing Remarks and Adjournment
Todd Prager adjourned the meeting at 7:57 p.m.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—January 7,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 6 of 6
Attachment 1
City of Tigard
. , Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Canopy Analysis Update
Date: February 19, 2009
In response to questions/comments made by the Citizen Advisory Committee and public, staff has
assembled the following additional canopy information.
Mixed use zone canopy decrease
In the mixed used zone the amount of canopy decreased 7.21%between 1996 and 2007. In all other zones
(commercial,industrial,and residential),the canopy decreases were all less than 1%. The Committee
requested more information on why we are seeing relatively high canopy decrease in the mixed use zone.
Darren Wyss,Senior Planner/GIS,has provided the following explanation:
Mixed Use zoning was created in the late 1990's for the Tigard Triangle and Early 2000's for the
Washington Square Regional Center. These areas were re-zoned primarily for their redevelopment
potential. Both areas were predominately older single family housing stock on larger lots (the Tigard
Triangle also contained some vacant land). Redevelopment has removed the single family homes,
consolidated lots,and developed office buildings with large parking lots. For example, the Mixed Use
zoning in the Tigard Triangle comprises 241 acres. In the last 15 years, 51 acres (21.2%) has been
developed. For comparison, the last 15 years has seen 610 acres of Residential zoning developed out of a
total of 5192 acres, or 11.7%.
Additionally,developments from the late 1980's/early 1990's (industrial/commercial/residential) now have
trees mature enough to be captured in the 2007 Canopy Analysis.Trees planted during development of
Mixed Use zones would not have been captured in the 2007 canopy analysis.
Right-of-way canopy comparison
There was some discussion at the last meeting whether or not the amount of Tigard right-of-way canopy
(9.12%) could be realistically increased due to the amount of impervious surface area. The City of Lake
Oswego recently completed a citywide canopy analysis and found that their right-of-way contained 35%
canopy coverage. Over impervious surfaces in the Lake Oswego right-of-way,canopy coverage was 21%.
Buildable lands canobv
Attachment 1
The Committee also questioned how the citywide canopy percentage would be affected if the remaining
buildable lands (528.75 acres)were fully developed. Staff conducted an analysis that assumed 100%removal
of canopy from the remaining buildable lands and found that citywide canopy would decrease from 24.52%
to 21.52% (3%decrease).
Additional studies
At the January 7,2009 meeting,the Committee provided input to staff for additional canopy studies. The
Committee's recommendations were provided to the City's GIS Analyst for consideration taking into
account the value of the results,the amount of labor involved, and his workload.
It was determined that analyzing plantable areas/potential canopy in Tigard would be the most important
additional study to undertake at this time. This will allow the Committee to set realistic canopy goals,
identify locations where increased plantings could occur,and potentially act as a mitigation resource for
developers. Because this study will be relatively labor intensive, there will not likely be enough time to
undertake additional analyses at this time.
Attachment 2
a
City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee - Minutes
MEETING DATE: January 7, 2009, 6:30-8:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Library, 2nd Floor Conference Room,
13500 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223
Members Present Janet Gillis,Tony Tycer, David Walsh,Matt Clemo,Dennis Sizemore, Mort
Ettelstein, Phil Hickey,Alan DeHarpport
Members Absent—Morgan Holen
Staff Present—John Floyd,Todd Prager,Marissa Daniels, Darren Wyss, Nate Shaub
Visitors —Harry Reid,John Frewing,Ted Ziegler
1. Introductions and Opening Remarks
The Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP), Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting began at 6:35 p.m.
with an opening statement by Todd Prager. Prager described the purpose of the meeting as being to
follow up on unfinished business from the November 5, 2008 meeting and to discuss information about
existing urban forest conditions and community attitudes.
2. Review and Approve Minutes from the November 5. 2008 Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen
Advisory Committee meeting
Prager then asked the CAC,if they would like to approve the November 5, 2008 meeting minutes.
Matt Clemo made a motion to approve the minutes (Attachment 1, UFMP CAC January 7, 2009 meeting
packet). Dennis Sizemore then seconded the motion and thus the November 5, 2008 meeting minutes
were approved at 6:37 p.m.
3. Purpose Statement for Urban Forestry Master Plan
Prager then asked if the CAC had any further comments on the revised purpose statement (Attachment 2,
UFMP CAC January 7, 2009 meeting packet). The CAC indicated that they were satisfied with the
revisions. At 6:39 p.m. Prager said the following revised statement would be incorporated into the draft
Urban Forestry Master Plan:
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—January 7,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 6
Attachment 2
The purpose of the Urban Forestry Master Plan is to implement the goals and policies in the Urban
Forestry section of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and to guide the future of Tigard's urban forest by:
a. Documenting past and present conditions of the urban forest;
b. Providing recommendations and measurable goals that will improve urban forest management;
c. Coordinating City departments with each other,with other jurisdictions, and with the community's
vision for trees in Tigard;and
d. Providing a legislative resource for future plans, policies, and ordinances.
4. Draft Vision Statement for the Urban Forestry Master Plan
At 6:40 p.m., Marissa Daniels explained to the CAC that she worked to incorporate their comments from
the November 5, 2008 meeting into three possible vision statements (Attachment 3,UFMP CAC January
7, 2009 meeting packet). She then asked the CAC if they had a preference on any one of the three options.
By a show of hands two people liked option A, three preferred option B, and one person liked option C.
Dennis Sizemore reiterated that more words result in less meaning for vision statements. Daniels
responded that option C is the most concise, but does not contain all of the themes identified at the
November meeting.
David Walsh said that he wants the vision to be concise, but that option C does not have enough meaning.
Matt Clemo said that if option C is used, he wants the word manage to be incorporated because
management was a central theme identified by the CAC,previously.
David Walsh said that the word "protected"in option C is too strong and could be seen as divisive since
there was so much controversy over protecting trees during the Comprehensive Plan process.
Dennis Sizemore suggested that the word "protected" could be substituted with "manage" in option C.
Alan DeHarpport said that he likes how the words "economic" and"quality of life" are in option B. Mr.
DeHarpport added that option B is broad and includes most of the overarching themes.
In order to reduce the number of words in option B, Mort Ettelstein said the word"effectively" could be
removed.
Dennis Sizemore said the word"and" between "thriving" and"interconnected" could be removed to
reduce the number of words as well.
Marissa Daniels then took a vote from the committee and there was unanimous approval of the revised
version of option B which reads:
"Tigard's urban forest is valued and protected by City residents as a thriving interconnected ecosystem
managed to improve quality of life, increase community identity, and maximize aesthetic, economic, and
ecological benefits."
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meering Minutes—January 7,2009
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of 6
Attachment 2
5. Discussion of Urban Forestry Survey Results
Prager then moved the discussion to the urban forestry survey results. He began by reading the following
findings from Attachment 4 of the UFMP CAC January 7, 2009 meeting packet:
• Residents are satisfied with the amount and quality of trees/forests in Tigard (-86% satisfaction).
However, approximately 74%agreed that more street trees would be good for the City.
• Residents feel strongly that trees contribute to quality of life (-96% agree) and residential property
values (-92%agree).
• Residents want the City to direct more resources to maintain/protect trees and forests in Tigard
(-74%agree), although support for increasing funding for tree and forest management is less
strong (-55% support).
• Residents support tree preservation and replacement during development (-88% support). In
addition a majority (-56%) support development regulations even when they limit the size and
extent of potential buildings or profits. Approximately 32% of residents oppose tree regulations
that limit development.
• Residents consistently prioritize planting,protection, and maintenance of natural forested areas over
other resources such as street trees and ornamental landscape trees.
• Approximately 55% of residents would like to see new protection measures focused on larger
groves of native trees as opposed to individual trees of significant size.
• Residents are supportive of tree regulations for developed private,property that would protect large,
healthy trees (-75% support).
• Finally, a majority of residents support the creation of a program where the City would become
involved in disputes between neighbors regarding hazardous trees (-59% support).
Janet Gillis commented that she was surprised at the level of support for a permit system on developed
private property based on the amount of controversy generated by the topic during the Comprehensive
Plan process. Dennis Sizemore responded that the survey is representative of a larger group of people
than those that attend Planning Commission and Council hearings.
Tony Tycer commented that the focus on maintenance in the open ended responses shows that City
residents assume there will still be trees in the future to maintain.
Dennis Sizemore noted that the vision statement previously approved is aligned with the survey results.
Janet Gillis commented that many of the open ended responses were about adding more trees and
landscaping to Highway 99.
Tony Tycer noted that the age distribution in the survey skewed towards older residents and property
owners. Prager responded that he thought the demographics of the urban forestry survey is similar to past
community surveys.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—January 7,2009
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 3 of6
Attachment 2
David Walsh asked how much the survey cost, and Prager responded that they went with the lowest bidder
and the cost was $12,000. He added that the Oregon Department of Forestry and USDA Forest Service
contributed $2,500 towards the survey cost, so the City will pay$9,500.
The CAC generally agreed that the survey will pay off in the long run because it will allow future
regulations to better align with community attitudes.
6. Discussion of Tigard Tree Canopy Analysis
Prager then explained the results in Exhibit A of Attachment 5 of the UFMP CAC January 7, 2009 meeting
packet. Prager answered questions from the CAC while explaining the results or referred them to Tigard
staff members and GIS experts Darren Wyss and Nate Shaub.
Tony Tycer commented that the canopy maps appear that there was more than 1% canopy loss from 1996
to 2007 in Tigard. Prager responded that it is important to remember that the losses are buffered by the
gains from planting efforts that show up as canopy.
In response to a follow up question by Mr. Tycer, Darren Wyss said that small red flecks on the canopy
map show canopy loss that was likely due to infill development.
After Prager described the current Tigard canopy as being 24.52% and canopy loss from 1996 to 2007 as
being approximately 1%, he offered the following comparisons:
• The gold standard for urban tree canopy in pacific northwest cities set by American Forests (non-
profit) is 40% coverage.
• In 2005, Lake Oswego was estimated to have 39%canopy.
• In 2005, Portland was estimated to have 26.3% canopy, up .8% from their canopy in 1991 (25.5).
• In 2007,Vancouver,WA was estimated to have 19.7% canopy, down 4.3% from 2003 (24%).
John Frewing asked at what point does a planted tree show up as canopy. Darren Wyss responded that at
500 square feet (roughly 25 foot canopy spread) a tree shows up as canopy.
Alan DeHarpport added that it is important to remember that eventually planted trees will grow and show
up as canopy.
When reviewing the urban renewal zone canopy (9.64%in 2007), Tony Tycer asked if there is enough soil
space for increasing tree canopy given the intense level of development that is planned for downtown.
Prager responded that one of the goals for downtown is to be a green and sustainable core. The plan is to
have trees contribute to that vision. Prager added that the downtown standards will have to include
alternative planting methods to allow for adequate rooting volume to support substantial trees in an
intensely developed urban environment. Marissa Daniels referred the CAC to the recently completed
future vision for downtown document by the University of Oregon.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—January 7,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 4 of6
Attachment 2
The CAC then began to discuss the canopy percentages in the buildable lands inventory. Prager noted a
steep drop in buildable lands in Tigard from 1,423 acres to 528 acres between 1996 and 2007.
Alan DeHarpport asked if Tigard's buildable lands inventory provides the required 20 year supply. Darren
Wyss answered that the 20 year supply of buildable land is inventoried at the regional scale by Metro and
this information is used in urban growth boundary expansion decisions. Wyss stated that the more
important indicator is the Metro Tide 1 housing targets that were based on the City's buildable land in the
mid 1990's. Wyss stated the City of Tigard is on track to meet the targets. Mr. DeHarpport then asked if
Tigard should be looking at future grove protection outside its urban growth boundary. Wyss responded
that Tigard is currently land locked and unable to annex new urban growth boundary expansion areas and
therefore unable to annex/protect tree resources outside of its boundaries. Wyss used the example of
Areas 63 and 64 which lie to the west of Bull Mt and were brought into the UGB in 2002. These areas are
outside the City's Urban Planning Area and not adjacent to the Tigard city limits so they cannot currently
be planned/annexed by Tigard. Mr. DeHarpport then asked who is doing the planning. Wyss answered the
County is currently in the process of developing the land use concept plan.
Prager said that it is important to note that there is relatively high canopy (42.79%) on buildable lands.
Prager then explained the next set of tables regarding Tigard tax lot ownership, noting that the City of
Tigard is the largest single property owner in Tigard, and canopy on City properties is a relatively high
46.13%. He also noted that public right of way contains a relatively low amount (9.12%) of tree canopy.
Alan DeHarpport said that there may not be much opportunity for canopy increase in the right of way
because so much of it is paved. Prager responded that it would be interesting to compare Tigard right of
way canopy with other cities such as Portland or Lake Oswego where there is a perception of significant
canopy overhang over roadways. Dennis Sizemore commented that Tigard right of way may be an
opportunity area where canopy could be increased.
The significant habitat areas in Tigard were then explained by Darren Wyss, and he described the meaning
of High, Moderate, and Low value habitat. Prager added that canopy in the significant habitat areas is
currently high (-50%) and that High and Moderate value habitat is currently protected. Prager said that
Low value habitat is currently vulnerable, and is comprised of upland tree groves.
Prager then described the last set of tables that described canopy cover by zoning. He said that most of
the Urban Forestry Plans that he has seen break canopy cover down by zoning.
In response to a question by Dennis Sizemore, Darren Wyss explained that mixed use zones are those
areas that combine commercial and residential uses. Dennis Sizemore noted that the mixed use zone may
be an opportunity area for protection since there was significant decrease (7.21%) in mixed use areas from
1996 to 2007. Darren Wyss added that it is important to consider that mixed use developments have not
been around very long, so new tree planting in those areas may not have been captured yet in the canopy
data.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meering Minutes—January 7,2009
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 5 of 6
Attachment 2
Prager then asked the CAC after seeing all of the canopy data,what information do they think will be most
helpful for inclusion and further analysis in the plan. He also asked if there are additional queries that Nate
Shaub could complete that would add value to the Urban Forestry Master Plan.
Dennis Sizemore commented that more analysis of right of way areas,what is happening in mixed use
areas, and the status of parking lot canopy coverage would be the three items at the top of his list for
inclusion in the Master Plan.
David Walsh added that identifying plantable sites was very important to him. He said that previously
statements had been made that developers are running out of mitigation sites and it would be important to
find plantable areas that are outside of buildable lands. Alan DeHarpport agreed that it would be very
helpful for him to know where mitigation/plantable sites exist from a developer's perspective. Dennis
Sizemore added that this could identify areas where canopy could be increased.
7. Public Comment
At 7:45 p.m.John Frewing commented that he wanted to ensure that Tigard's current canopy analyses
would be compatible with analyses in the future. Tony Tycer agreed that in the future, as technology
improves, the analyses will be capturing smaller trees that may inflate canopy numbers relative to current
numbers. Darren Wyss responded by saying that future analyses could be adjusted to capture canopy at
the same scale (500 sq. ft. minimum) as in the current analyses.
Harry Reid then asked if the current free street tree program was in some way connected with the Urban
Forestry Master Plan. Todd Prager responded that the free street tree program is a separate program and
has been going on for several years.
8. Closing Remarks and Adjournment
Todd Prager adjourned the meeting at 7:57 p.m.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meering Minutes—January 7,2009
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov + Page 6of6
Attachment 3
a
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry, City of Tigard Internal Coordination Meeting Results
Date: February 19, 2009
On January 21, 2009, a coordination meeting was attended by key City staff members that
have a role in coordinating and implementing Tigard's urban forestry programs,policies, and
ordinances. Meeting attendees included representatives from a range of City departments
(Community Development,Public Works, and Financial and Information Services) and
divisions (Capital Construction &Transportation, Current Planning, Development Review,
Information Technology,Public Works Administration, Parks, Streets,Wastewater/Storm,
and Water). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss urban forestry coordination issues,
and identify those areas where coordination could be improved. As a result of the meeting,
the following list was generated that identified areas where urban forestry coordination
efforts could be improved.
1. Street trees on record drawings don't reflect where they are actually planted
(Planning, Engineering, Public Works, IT/GIS);
2. Development engineering inspects vegetated corridors after development, but no
long term/sustained maintenance requirements (Engineering,Planning/Arborist and
Code Enforcement, IT/GIS);
3. Difficult to track deed restricted trees after development (Planning, IT/GIS);
4. Difficult to track required landscape trees (parking lot trees, buffer trees, etc.) after
development (Planning/Arborist and Code Enforcement, IT/GIS);
5. Difficult to track mitigation trees after development (Planning/Arborist, IT/GIS);
6. No inventory of street trees (Planning, Engineering,Public Works, IT/GIS);
7. When City acquires greenspaces, no detailed understanding of maintenance costs
(especially regarding hazard trees) (Planning/Arborist,Public Works);
8. No policy for protecting deed restricted trees and significant habitat trees during
building additions (Planning, Building);
9. No policy of requiring exempt City projects to follow standards required by private
development (Planning, Capital Construction and Transportation, Public Works);
10. No review of exempt City projects for trees by planning staff(Planning, Capital
Construction and Transportation,Public Works);
Attachment 3
11.No formal hazard evaluation process for parks/greenspaces (Planning/Arborist,
Public Works/Parks, Risk);
12.No formal emergency response system for tree hazards on streets
(Planning/Arborist,Public Works/Streets);
13.No formal emergency response system for tree hazards in parks/greenspaces
(Planning/Arborist,Public Works/Parks);
14.Tree removal in sensitive lands requires tree removal permits, not sure if there is
awareness of this Code provision (Planning,Capital Construction and
Transportation,Public Works);
15.No formal process for spending/tracking tree mitigation fund expenditures and
planting(Planning/Arborist,Public Works,IT/GIS,Finance);and
16.No formal process for determining adjustments to street standards to preserve trees
(18.810.030.A.7) (Planning/Arborist,Engineering).
17. No formal street tree maintenance process for limb/root clearance and removal
(Planning/Arborist,Public Works/Streets).
After the list was generated,a series of meetings was held with representatives from
the groups affected by the coordination issues. The purpose of the smaller group
meetings was to discuss the coordination issues and formulate possible solutions that
could improve coordination efforts. The following list identifies the coordination
issues (in black) and possible solutions (in red) that were formulated after the group
meetings.
1. Street trees on record drawings don't reflect where they are actually planted
(Planning,Engineering,Public Works,IT/GIS);
• Make note on record drawings that actual street tree locations may vary, see
street trees in GIS for actual locations.
• Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS actual locations of
street trees prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into
the City's GIS system for tracking.
• Information on street trees to include location (x/y coordinates), size (dbh),
species,date planted, condition, tree ID code, and any additional information
necessary to conduct resource analyses in the future.
• Consider creating program where developers pay a fee to the City to plant and
GPS street trees.
2. Development engineering inspects vegetated corridors after development,but no
long term/sustained maintenance requirements (Engineering,Planning/Arborist and
Code Enforcement, IT/GIS);
Attachment 3
• Development engineering inspects vegetated corridors after planting, and after
a defined maintenance period (usually two years) to ensure compliance with
Clean Water Services (CWS) requirements.
• If the vegetated corridor becomes City property, then the Wastewater/Storm
Division of Public Works assigns crews to ensure long term maintenance.
• If the vegetated corridor is privately owned, the City of Tigard does not
currently have a program to inspect/enforce long term vegetation
maintenance. The City will clarify with CWS what agency is responsible for
ensuring long term maintenance of vegetated corridors.
3. Difficult to track deed restricted trees after development(Planning, IT/GIS);
• Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS locations of deed
restricted trees prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded
into the City's GIS system for tracking.
• Information on deed restricted trees to include location (x/y coordinates), size
(dbh), species, date inventoried, condition, tree ID code, and any additional
information necessary to conduct resource analyses in the future.
4. Difficult to track required landscape trees (parking lot trees,buffer trees, etc.) after
development(Planning/Arborist and Code Enforcement, IT/GIS);
• Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS actual locations of
required landscape trees prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be
loaded into the City's GIS system for tracking.
• Information on required landscape trees to include location (x/y coordinates),
size (dbh), species, date planted, condition, tree ID code, and any additional
information necessary to conduct resource analyses in the future.
5. Difficult to track mitigation trees after development (Planning/Arborist, IT/GIS);
• Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS actual locations of
mitigation trees prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded
into the City's GIS system for tracking.
• Information on mitigation trees to include location (x/y coordinates), size
(dbh), species, date planted, condition, cash assurance/bond release date, tree
ID code,and any additional information necessary to conduct resource
analyses in the future.
6. No inventory of street trees (Planning,Engineering,Public Works, IT/GIS);
Attachment 3
• Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS actual locations of
street trees prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into
the City's GIS system for tracking.
• Hire AmeriCorps member and/or recruit volunteers to assist in inventory of
existing street trees outside development process.
• GPS actual locations of street trees planting during annual street tree planting
program.
• Information on street trees to include location (x/y coordinates), size (dbh),
species, date planted, condition, tree ID code, and any additional information
necessary to conduct resource analyses in the future.
• Consider creating program where developers pay a fee to the City to plant and
GPS street trees.
7. When City acquires greenspaces, no detailed understanding of maintenance costs
(especially regarding hazard trees) (Planning/Arborist, Public Works);
• Create budget sheet to track personnel, material, and service costs associated
with greenspace acquisition.
• Budget sheet should detail first year costs as well as costs for years two
through five.
• A benefits section should be included on the form to identify mitigation,
connectivity, and other potential benefits.
• The budget sheet needs to be routed to the appropriate departments and
divisions for input before it is finalized.
• There is an evaluation form for land acquisition that was used for CIP projects
that may be used as a template (contact Carissa).
• If hazard trees are an issue during land acquisition associated with
development projects,require developer's arborist to conduct a hazard
assessment for review and inspection by City Arborist.
8. No policy for protecting deed restricted trees and significant habitat trees during
building additions (Planning, Building);
• This item should be further addressed during the Tree Code updates.
• However, for deed restricted trees, the City can require a protection plan for
building additions that complies with the original tree protection plan for the
development project.
Attachment 3
• For trees in sensitive lands, the City can restrict access/building within the
driplines of trees through the use of tree protection fencing. Section
18.790.060 prohibits damage to a protected tree or its root system.
9. No policy of requiring exempt City projects to follow standards required by private
development (Planning, Capital Construction and Transportation,Public Works);
• City Arborist to attend"kickoff meetings" for City projects to identify
applicable City rules and regulations.
• Project plans will be routed to City Arborist for review and comment prior to
completion.
• Depending on the size of the project, the City Arborist may provide assistance
on tree protection and planting specifications, or recommend that the City
hire a project arborist.
• Work with the Tree Board and Community Development Director on
developing a set of standards for City projects to follow.
10. No review of exempt City projects for trees by planning staff(Planning, Capital
Construction and Transportation, Public Works);
• City Arborist to attend"kickoff meetings" for City projects to identify
applicable City rules and regulations.
• Project plans will be routed to City Arborist for review and comment prior to
completion.
• Depending on the size of the project, the City Arborist may provide assistance
on tree protection and planting specifications, or recommend the City hire a
project arborist.
11.No formal hazard evaluation process for parks/greenspaces (Planning/Arborist,
Public Works/Parks, Risk);
• Budgeting has eliminated non-emergency management and evaluation of
hazards in parks/greenspaces due to the transfer of the greenspace
coordinator (urban forester) position from Public Works to the associate
planner/arborist (city arborist) position to Community Development.
• Proactive evaluation and management of City owned parks/greenspaces
would be best accomplished through the hiring of a greenspace coordinator to
fill the position vacated in Public Works.
Attachment 3
• A greenspace coordinater could develop a program based off of protocols
developed by the USDA Forest Service and/or International Society of
Arboriculture.
• Alternatively, the City could contract with a private arborist to develop a
hazard evaluation and management program.
12. No formal emergency response system for tree hazards on streets
(Planning/Arborist, Public Works/Streets);
• When a member of the public calls the City about a potential hazard tree on a
City street, they should be forwarded to the Public Works front desk (503-
639-4171).
• Operators at Public Works will route the call to the Streets Division manager,
who will in turn assign a staff member to investigate the complaint.
• If the tree clearly is not a hazard, the Streets Division will contact the citizen
and close the case.
• If the tree is already down or is clearly an immediate hazard, the Streets
Division will coordinate traffic control, contact other impacted agencies (such
as PGE if power lines are involved), and remove the tree from the street and
sidewalk right-of-way using the City's contract arborist (or any other available
private arborist if the contract arborist is not available). The debris from the
removal will be placed on the owner's property, and debris disposal will occur
at the owner's expense.
• If the tree hazard is a borderline case, the City Arborist will make a
determination whether the tree should be retained, monitored, removed, or
further investigated by the contract arborist.
• If the City Arborist decides the tree is a hazard and there is enough time, he
will write a letter to the responsible property owner giving them a specific
period of time to abate the hazard. If the deadline is not met, the responsible
owner will be cited through Code Enforcement.
• If the hazard is after hours, citizens will need to call the Public Works after-
hours number (503-639-1554). Public Works will then investigate the hazard
after hours and either contact the contract arborist (or any other available
private arborist if the contract arborist is not available) if there is an immediate
hazard, or forward the inquiry to the Streets Division for follow up the
following business day if the hazard is not immediate. The Streets Division
will then follow the same process outlined above.
13.No formal emergency response system for tree hazards in parks/greenspaces
(Planning/Arborist, Public Works/Parks);
Attachment 3
• When a member of the public calls the City about a potential hazard tree on
City property, they should be forwarded the Public Works front desk (503-
639-4171).
• Operators at Public Works will route the call to the appropriate division
manager,who will in turn assign a staff member to investigate the complaint.
• If the tree clearly is not a hazard, the responsible division will contact the
citizen and close the case.
• If the tree is determined to be an immediate hazard, the responsible division
will contact the City's contract arborist (or any other available private arborist
if the contract arborist is not available) to abate the hazard immediately.
• If the tree hazard is a borderline case, the City Arborist will make a
determination whether the tree should be retained,monitored, removed, or
further investigated by the contract arborist.
• The City Arborist is estimated to respond to one "borderline" call per week
on average. If the time commitment is significantly more, the process may
need to be reevaluated.
• If the hazard is after hours, citizens will need to call the Public Works after-
hours number (503-639-1554). Public Works will then investigate the hazard
after hours and either contact the contract arborist (or any other available
private arborist if the contract arborist is not available) if there is an immediate
hazard, or forward the inquiry to the appropriate division if the hazard is not
immediate for follow up the following business day. The responsible division
will then follow the same process outlined above.
14.Tree removal in sensitive lands requires tree removal permits, not sure if there is
awareness of this Code provision (Planning, Capital Construction and
Transportation,Public Works);
• City Arborist to attend"kickoff meetings" for City projects to identify
applicable City rules and regulations.
• Tree removal permits and fees in Tigard Development Code Section
18.790.050 are applicable for any tree removal over six inches in diameter
within sensitive lands (including City projects).
• Publicize program through periodic Community Development/Public
Works/Capital Construction and Transportation coordination meetings.
• Ensure the sensitive lands GIS layer is available through Tigard Maps for all
divisions/departments.
• Clarify with Community Development Director if invasive/exotic trees are
exempt from tree removal permit requirements.
Attachment 3
15. No formal process for spending/tracking tree mitigation fund expenditures and
planting (Planning/Arborist, Public Works, IT/GIS, Finance); and
• GPS actual locations of mitigation trees/areas. The spatial data can then be
loaded into the City's GIS system for tracking.
• Information on mitigation trees to include location (x/y coordinates), size
(dbh), species, date planted, condition, cash assurance/bond release date, tree
ID code, and any additional information necessary to conduct resource
analyses in the future.
• Link mitigation trees (via a GIS point layer) and mitigation areas (via a GIS
polygon layer) with IFIS (accounting system) so that expenditures can be
directly related to specific projects.
16. No formal process for determining adjustments to street standards to preserve trees
(18.810.030.A.7) (Planning/Arborist, Engineering).
• The City's policy is to maintain the required curb to curb width standards in
the Tigard Development Code in all cases, regardless of existing trees.
• However, during the development review process,when a healthy and
sustainable tree in the right of way is identified by the project arborist and/or
City Arborist, Development Engineering will allow adjustments to planter
strip and/or sidewalk standards on a case by case basis.
• The City does not currently have the authority to require private developers to
preserve trees if they choose not to.
17. No formal street tree maintenance process for limb/root clearance and removal
(Planning/Arborist, Public Works/Streets).
• If the street tree is the responsibility of the City, the corresponding division
will maintain the clearance requirements outlined in the Tigard Municipal
Code.
• If a citizen complaint is received, the Streets Division will investigate.
• If there is an immediate hazard (e.g. blocked stop sign, hanging limb, etc.),the
Streets Division will prune the tree immediately.
• If there is not an immediate hazard, the Streets Division will contact the
responsible party directly and explain the Code requirements, or gather the
information and forward to Code Enforcement if the owner is nonresponsive.
• If the potential branch clearance hazard is after hours, citizens will need to can
the Public Works after-hours number (503-639-1554). Public Works will then
investigate the hazard after hours and either contact the contract arborist (or
any other available private arborist if the contract arborist is not available) if
there is an immediate hazard, or forward the inquiry to the Streets Division if
Attachment 3
the hazard is not immediate for follow up the following business day. The
Streets Division will then follow the same process outlined above.
• When tree roots are impacting City streets or utilities, the responsible division
will investigate and,if needed, contact the City Arborist for root pruning
advice.
• If the City Arborist decides the tree can be safely root pruned to make the
necessary repairs, the responsible division will absorb the cost of root pruning.
• If the tree cannot be safely root pruned and the tree needs to be removed, the
City will absorb the cost of removal,but the property owner will be
responsible for stump removal and replanting. Prior to removing a street tree,
the City Arborist shall be contacted.
Attachment 9
v
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Progress on Stakeholder Interviews
Date: February 19, 2009
In addition to internal coordination of City Departments, staff is in the process of
coordinating with key community stakeholder groups and jurisdictions who regularly
contribute to and/or are affected by the management of Tigard's urban forest. The
following list of groups and organizations have/will be contacted for interviews by staff over
the next month:
• ASLA, Oregon Chapter (meeting 2-18-09,Troy Mears)
• Clean Water Services
• Home Builder's Association
• ODOT
• Pacific Northwest Chapter of the ISA (meeting 2-27-09,Terry Flanagan)
• Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (meeting 2-23-09)
• Portland General Electric (contacted 2-17-09, Chad Burns)
• Tigard Chamber of Commerce
• Tigard-Tualatin School District (meeting 2-23-09,Phil Wentz)
• Tualatin River Keepers (meeting 2-24-09, Brian Wegener)
• Tree Board (meeting 4-1-09)
The following list of questions will be asked of stakeholder groups:
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well?
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
Attachment 5
City of Tigard
. , Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Draft Plan Outline
Date: February 25, 2009
The following draft outline for the Urban Forestry Master Plan has been prepared by staff. Please
review and be prepared to provide feedback to staff at the March 4, 2009 meeting.
I. Introduction
A. Vision
B. Purpose
C. Planning Process
a. Participants
b. Implementation,Monitoring,and Evaluation
D. What is Urban Forestry?
E. Why Do Urban Forests Need to Be Managed?
1. Benefits
a. Aesthetic
b. Environmental
c. Social/Psychological
2. Costs
a. Maintenance
b. Infrastructure Damage
c. Program Administration
d. Hazard Trees
3. Cost vs. Benefits
a. Portland Study
b. Bismark, ND Study
c. Cheyenne,WY Study
d. Lake Oswego? Study
II. History of People and Forests of Tigard
A. Native Americans
B. U of 0 "Pre-settlement Vegetation"
Attachment 5
C. Early Tigard (-1850s-1910)
D. Middle Tigard (1910-1960)
E. Late Tigard (—1960-Present)
III.Current Conditions
A. Community Profile
1. Geography and the Environment
2. Transportation
3. Population and Demographics
4. Land and Development
5. Employment and Industry (?)
B. Canopy Analysis
1. Total Coverage
2. Cluster Size
3. Buildable Lands
4. Canopy by Ownership
5. Canopy by Zoning
6. Significant Habitat Areas/Sensitive Lands
7. Right-of-way
8. Comparisons with other Metro Cities
C. Policy Framework
1. Fed/State
2. Metro
3. Tigard
D. Community Attitudes/ Values
1. Past Community Surveys
2. Comprehensive Planning Effort
3. Surveys
a. Scientific
b. Satisfaction
c. Importance
d. Allocation of Resources
e. Development Regulations
f. Prioritization
g. Hazards
h. Parallel
IV. Coordination
A. Internal (City) Coordination
1. Identify/Describe City Departments/Groups
2. Identify Coordination Challenges
3. Identify Possible Solutions
4. Create Internal Coordination Chart
B. External Coordination
Attachment 5
1. Identify/Describe Major Regulatory Agencies/Issues
2. Identify/Describe Major Stakeholder Groups
3. Summarize Challenges/Opportunities Expressed During Stakeholder Interviews
V. Recommendation/Implementation Matrix (see attached example)
VII. Appendix
Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan Attachment 5, Exhibit A
Implementation Matrix - Draft
b 5
\°c cq0 J``e5 �cet
Z.41'e Implementation Goals
Develop1. Hazard Tree Program.
1.1 Establish City storm and hazard tree response protocols.
a. Prior to land acquisition conduct a tree hazard assessment Public Works H 2.3.8 L $ Ongoing ISA,ON
b. Hire greenspace coordinater to manage Tigard natural areas and
Public Works H 2.2.5 H $$ Medium TRK
develop a proactive hazard abatement program
C. Develop and implement formal emergency response system for
Planning H 2.3.8,2.2.3 L $ Short ISA,ONtree hazards on City streets
d. Develop and implement formal emergency response system for Public Works H 2.2.3,2.3.8,2.3.9, L $ Short ISA,ON
tree hazards in City parks/greenspaces I 1 1 2.3.10,2.3.11
1.2 Establish City program to facilitate hazard abatement on private property.
a. Revise Tigard Municipal Code to grant authority to the City to
become involved in private property tree hazards. Planning H 2.3.8 H $ Short ISA,ON
2. Revise Street Tree . Landscaping and Screening O .
2.1 Revise street tree planting,maintenance,and removal requirements
a. Create design and maintenance manual with drawings and
Planning M 2.3.8 H $ Medium ISA,ASLA,TRK
specifications for planting and maintenance.
b. Revise Tigard Municipal Code to establish permit system for
street tree planting,removal,and replacement. Planning M 2.2.5 M $ Medium ISA,ASLA
Attachment 6
- ' City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Planning Commission and City Council Update
Date: February 20, 2009
In April, staff will be meeting with both the Planning Commission and City Council to update them
on the progress of the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Staff will also seek input and direction on the
Plan from both groups.
As the Urban Forestry Master Plan will need to be approved by both the Planning Commission and
Council,it is important that they are comfortable with the direction the Plan is moving and the final
product prior to the adoption process later this year.
Please be prepared at the March 4, 2009 meeting to provide staff with input as to the type of
information you would like to provide to and the input you would like to receive from Planning
Commission and Council.
Attachment 7
Todd Prager
From: Morgan Holen [morgan_holen@pbsenv.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 4:23 PM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: UFMP CAC-Comments 1-7-09
Hi Todd,
I'm sorry I can't make the CAC meeting tonight. Here are my comments:
1. Meeting minutes-please add that I work as a consulting arborist for PBS Engineering+Environmental
under my intro/opening remarks. I know it's minor,but it's important to me.
2.No comments regarding the revised purpose statement. The revisions seem to sufficiently reflect our previous
discussion.
3. Regarding the draft vision statement, I prefer option C, but have some suggestions:
Tigard's urban forest is a healthy and sustainable ecosystem valued and pr-eteeted by
City residents for social, ecological,and economic benefits.
4. The survey results are very interesting and I'm really sorry to have to miss the discussion on this. I look
forward to reviewing the meeting minutes from tonight's meeting. Please let me know if there are any particular
issues that I need to follow-up on to stay informed and up-to-speed with the rest of the group.
Thank you for your understanding. I hope that these comments,however few, will be useful.
Sincerely,
Morgan
Morgan E. Holen
Certified Arborist(ISA PN-6145A)
Certified Tree Risk Assessor(ISA No.449)
Forest Biologist j
morgan holen0obsenv.com
503.417.7584
PBS Engineering + Environmental
Engineering I Natural Resources I Environmental I Health and Safety
www.pbsonv.com
4412 SW Garbett Ave.Portland OR,97239
ph:503.248.1939:fax:503.248.0223
i
I
DISCLAIMER:
This message and any attachments are considered privileged and confidential and are intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom the message is
addressed.If you have received this message in error,please immediately advise the sender and permanently delete the message and any attachments.
I
i
1
I
Attachment 7
Todd Prager
From: jfrewing Ufrewing@teleport.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 9:21 AM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: UFMP CAC Comment
Todd,
I just want to get down in writing several points which I think should show up in minutes and further publications of the
UFMP for Tigard:
1 A goal. 40 percent canopy cover may be OK, but by what technology? By what size of automatic pixel? We need
better statements of others goals.
2 A goal. Does Tigard want a simple canopy cover goal, or does it want a goal which has a certain percentage of clusters
larger than one acre or are we happy with lots of individual trees?
3 Canopy cover study. Could we see the citywide result if the remaining BLI is developed at the current level of built
areas? ie, how much would the citywide canopy cover be dragged down? Janet guessed 24%to 19%.
4 Tigard should now be mapping canopy cover in areas likely to be annexed in coming years. There are only two such
areas: Bull Mtn and Metzger.
5 Tigard's UFMP should specifically address Division of State Lands mitigation sites, both past and prospective. These
sites are nominally for wetlands, but adjacent uplands offer opportunity for canopy improvement, and we have no idea if
these areas are being maintained as mitigation areas.
6 The canopy cover work for Significant Habitat Areas covers only 2007 information. These same areas should be
mapped on a 1996 map and the canopy cover(in 1996)should be determined, to see how much canopy of the significant
habitat areas have been lost.
i
Thanks for keeping these items on top of the table. John Frewing
1
M IE ET ] NG
M, UNUTES
City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee - Minutes
MEETING DATE: March 4, 2009, 6:30-8:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Library, 2nd Floor Conference Room,
13500 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223
Members Present—Tony Tycer,David Walsh, Matt Clemo,Mort Ettelstein,Phil Hickey
Members Absent—Morgan Holen,Dennis Sizemore,Alan DeHarpport,Janet Gillis
Staff Present—Todd Prager,Marissa Daniels
Visitors —Harry Reid,John Frewing, Karen Estrada,Tom Butterfield
1. Introductions and Opening_Remarks
The Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP), Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting began at 6:31 p.m.
with an opening statement by Todd Prager. Prager described the purpose of the meeting as being to
communicate the results of internal City of Tigard coordination meetings,receive input from the CAC on
the draft plan outline and implementation matrix, and discuss upcoming steps in the UFMP process.
Prager also explained the follow up research items for the canopy analysis (Attachment 1, UFMP CAC
March 4,2009 meeting packet).
When explaining staff analysis for the canopy decrease in the mixed use zone/Tigard Triangle,Mort
Ettelstein asked for clarification on where the Tigard Triangle is.
Marissa Daniels explained that the Tigard Triangle is the area bound by Highway 217,1-5, and 99W.
Tony Tycer commented that he thinks there has been more tree loss than just 7%.
Prager said that it is important to remember that canopy loss in some areas is buffered by canopy gain in
other areas.
John Frewing and Phil Hickey both commented that in the mixed use zone, the trees are still young
enough that they are not being captured as tree canopy in the 2007 maps.
Phil Hickey also added that the mixed use/Tigard Triangle has many planting opportunities.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—March 4,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 5
Prager communicated to the CAC that due to workload and funding issues, the only additional canopy
mapping being pursued for inclusion in the UFMP is the plantable areas study. Prager said that study
offers the most value for the time investment.
Tony Tycer asked if Portland Community College landscape architecture students might be able to provide
assistance in completing additional studies. Prager said he would ask the GIS analyst if this was an option.
2. Review and Approve Minutes from the January 7. 2009 Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen
Advisory Committee meeting
The CAC then approved the January 7, 2009 meeting minutes (Attachment 2,UFMP CAC March 4, 2009
meeting packet).
3. Results of City of Tigard Internal Coordination Meetings
Prager then briefly summarized the highlights of the City of Tigard internal coordination meetings that
were held over the past two months (Attachment 3,UFMP CAC March 4,2009 meeting packet).
Prager said that the internal coordination meetings have already had the effect of changing City operations.
For example,Prager said that an emergency response system for dealing with public tree hazards was
developed, and an arborist review process was instituted for all City projects.
Prager also said that many other coordination challenges could be easily resolved when time allows and/or
if the CAC chose to make recommendations as part of the UFMP.
Some of the changes,Prager explained,would require code amendments or additional staffing to be
implemented. An example would be hiring a greenspace coordinator to proactively manage the City's 200
acres of unmanaged greenspace.
Prager said the internal coordination meeting process demonstrated to him that the City of Tigard is
relatively coordinated and adaptable to change. He said that at his previous employment with the City of
San Francisco, those types of coordination meetings and operational changes would have been extremely
difficult achieve.
4. Progress on Stakeholder Meetings
At 6:54,Prager updated the CAC on the progress of the stakeholder meetings (Attachment 4,UFMP CAC
March 4, 2009 meeting packet). Prager explained that he has already met with several of the stakeholders,
and will complete the remaining stakeholder interviews by the next CAC meeting in May. He said he will
provide the CAC with all of the meeting notes for their review and comment.
5. Draft Plan Outline
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—March 4,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov i Page 2 of 5
At 6:55 p.m.,Marissa Daniels led a discussion on the draft UFMP outline and implementation matrix
(Attachment 5, UFMP CAC March 4, 2009 meeting packet). She explained that the drafts are a work in
progress and will be revised. She asked the CAC for their comments on the drafts.
Mort Ettelstein said that he liked the matrix, but that there is too much information in the body of the
outline. He said that much of it could be moved to an appendix.
Tony Tycer expressed concern about the private property hazard tree program in the implementation
matrix. Marissa Daniels explained that it was only an example, but Mr. Tycer said that it should not even
be used as an example because the City should not become involved in private hazards.
Mort Ettelstein said that it is important to identify who will be responsible for future code development in
the implementation matrix.
John Frewing asked if the implementation matrix will provide a legislative basis for future code
amendments. Marissa Daniels responded that it will provide a legislative basis as well as identify which
code amendments will be prioritized and timelines for implementation.
Mort Ettelstein said that the title should be changed from implementation goals to program goals. The
CAC generally disagreed, and felt that program goals had already been identified through the
Comprehensive Plan process,and that now those goals needed to be implemented.
Tony Tycer said that the "funding source" column should be next to the "cost" column. Mr. Tycer said
that there needs to be specific dates in the matrix that identify when the programs will be implemented.
Marissa Daniels responded that historically, Council has been hesitant to adopt plans with specific dates,
and that they prefer flexibility.
Dave Walsh said that because the Tree Board will be working to implement the programs in the UFMP,
that there needs to be specific dates that let the Tree Board know what their work tasks will be in the
coming months/years.
Dave Walsh also suggested that the matrix should be color coded to make it easier to search through the
document.
Mort Ettelstein reiterated that the body of the UFMP should be brief, and the appendix could be more
detailed.
Dave Walsh said that if definitions are necessary, they should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
definitions.
In response to a question by Dave Walsh,Prager explained that the UFMP needs to be approved by the
Planning Commission and Council. Mr. Walsh said that means that the plan will not be a living document.
Urban Forestry Master Plan,Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—March 4, 2009
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.dprd-or.gov I Page 3 of S
Prager explained that the Tree Board will be implementing the UFMP over the next five to seven years
until it is updated. Marissa Daniels said that the Tree Board may use their annual joint meetings with
Council to update them on the progress of UFMP implementation and their work program for the
upcoming year.
In response to a question by Tony Tycer, Prager explained that the Long Range Planning Division has
already budgeted for a consultant to assist in an inventory and protection program for upland tree groves.
He said that using an incentive approach to protect these groves will be investigated as part of the study.
6. Planning Commission and City Council Update
Prager then explained that staff will be providing a mid-Plan update to both the Planning Commission and
Council in April. The purpose will be to describe the progress on the UFMP thus far,explain the next
steps, answer questions, and receive input from both bodies. Prager asked the CAC if they had any
information that they wanted him to communicate to Planning Commission and Council.
Dave Walsh said that Prager should explain that the Tree Board is frustrated that the UFMP is blocking
progress towards implementation of code changes. Tony Tycer and Matt Clemo agreed that the Tree
Board is getting bogged down in process, and unable to complete any real code changes.
Marissa Daniels asked if UFMP meetings should occur every month or if meetings should be extended to
speed progress towards completion of the UFMP. The members generally agreed that they did not have
time for more or longer meetings.
7. Public Comment
At 7:52 p.m., the meeting was opened for public comment.
Karen Estrada began by clarifying her understanding that the CAC's role is to develop a program
implementation schedule for Council approval,which will necessitate future code changes and program
developments by the Tree Board. The CAC generally agreed that she was correct in her understanding.
Ms. Estrada then went on to explain her desire for protecting trees during infill development projects in
existing neighborhoods. She described a situation in her neighborhood off of SW North Dakota (Schenk
Partition) where a developer let their land-use expire and cut down all the previously protected trees. She
said the developer is now waiting a year so that the trees will be exempt from mitigation requirements,
before reapplying for a development permit. Ms. Estrada said while this process is technically legal,it is not
the intent of the tree ordinance. She said that she is not against developers, but she does not appreciate
her neighborhood being blighted by the removal of trees without any accountability. She recommended
that the CAC and Tree Board work in the future to protect existing neighborhoods from this type of
activity.
Dave Walsh said that Ms. Estrada was correct in that no protections exist against clear cutting,and that
mitigation can be avoided by not developing for a year.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—March 4,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 4 of 5
Mr. Walsh said that when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted Council said that they wanted code
changes to follow, but the UFMP is a detour to accomplishing this.
At 8:05 p.m.John Frewing described a 22 unit development at 92nd Avenue and Hall Boulevard that has
been recently annexed into the City. He said that the trees were cut and the land use was approved by the
County, so the City cannot require mitigation per City standards.
Mr. Frewing suggested that the City should look at protecting trees in Urban Growth Boundaries by
requiring trees cut within two years of annexation to be inventoried and mitigated per City standards.
8. Closing Remarks and Adjournment
Todd Prager adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—March 4,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 5 of 5
C�oor��lu � � � oo �
City of Tigard Internal Coordination Meeting Results
On January 21,2009,a coordination meeting was attended by key City staff members that have a
role in coordinating and implementing Tigard's urban forestry programs,policies,and ordinances.
.Meeting attendees included representatives from a range of City departments (Community
Development,Public Works,and Financial and Information Services) and divisions (Capital
Construction &Transportation, Current Planning,Development Review, Information Technology,
Public Works Administration,Parks,Streets,Wastewater/Storm,and Water). The purpose of the
meeting was to discuss urban forestry coordination issues,and identify those areas where
coordination could be improved. As a result of the meeting, the following list was generated that
identified areas where urban forestry coordination efforts could be improved.
1. Street trees on record drawings don't reflect where they are actually planted (Planning,
Engineering,Public Works,IT/GIS);
2. Development engineering inspects vegetated corridors after development,but no long
term/sustained maintenance requirements (Engineering,Planning/Arborist and Code
Enforcement,IT/GIS);
3. Difficult to track deed restricted trees after development (Planning, IT/GIS);
4. Difficult to track required landscape trees (parking lot trees, buffer trees, etc.) after
development (Planning/Arborist and Code Enforcement,IT/GIS);
5. Difficult to track mitigation trees after development(Planning/Arborist,IT/GIS);
6. No inventory of street trees (Planning,Engineering,Public Works, IT/GIS);
7. When City acquires greenspaces,no detailed understanding of maintenance costs (especially
regarding hazard trees) (Planning/Arborist,Public Works);
8. No policy for protecting deed restricted trees and significant habitat trees during building
additions (Planning,Building);
9. No policy of requiring exempt City projects to follow standards required by private
development (Planning,Capital Construction and Transportation,Public Works);
10. No review of exempt City projects for trees by planning staff(Planning, Capital
Construction and Transportation,Public Works);
11. No formal hazard evaluation process for parks/greenspaces (Planning/Arborist,Public
Works/Parks, Risk);
12. No formal emergency response system for tree hazards on streets (Planning/Arborist,Public
Works/Streets);
13. No formal emergency response system for tree hazards in parks/greenspaces
(Planning/Arborist,Public Works/Parks);
14. Tree removal in sensitive lands requires tree removal permits, not sure if there is awareness
of this Code provision (Planning,Capital Construction and Transportation,Public Works);
15. No formal process for spending/tracking tree mitigation fund expenditures and planting
(Planning/Arborist,Public Works, IT/GIS,Finance);and
16. No formal process for determining adjustments to street standards to preserve trees
(18.810.030.A.7) (Planning/Arborist,Engineering).
17. No formal street tree maintenance process for limb/root clearance and removal
(Planning/Arborist,Public Works/Streets).
After the list was generated,a series of meetings was held with representatives from the
groups affected by the coordination issues. The purpose of the smaller group meetings was
to discuss the coordination issues and formulate possible solutions that could improve
coordination efforts. The following list identifies possible solutions for the coordination
issues that were formulated after the group meetings.
1. Street trees on record drawings don't reflect where they are actually planted (Planning,
Engineering,Public Works,IT/GIS);
• Make note on record drawings that actual street tree locations may vary, see street
trees in GIS for actual locations.
• Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS actual locations of street
trees prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into the City's GIS
system for tracking.
• Information on street trees to include location (x/y coordinates),size (dbh), species,
date planted,condition, tree ID code,and any additional information necessary to
conduct resource analyses in the future.
• Consider creating program where developers pay a fee to the City to plant and GPS
street trees.
2. Development engineering inspects vegetated corridors after development,but no long
term/sustained maintenance requirements (Engineering,Planning/Arborist and Code
Enforcement,IT/GIS);
• Development engineering inspects vegetated corridors after planting, and after a
defined maintenance period (usually two years) to ensure compliance with Clean
Water Services (CWS) requirements.
• If the vegetated corridor becomes City property, then the Wastewater/Storm
Division of Public Works assigns crews to ensure long term maintenance.
• If the vegetated corridor is privately owned, the City of Tigard does not currently
have a program to inspect/enforce long term vegetation maintenance. The City will
clarify with CWS what agency is responsible for ensuring long term maintenance of
vegetated corridors.
3. Difficult to track deed restricted trees after development (Planning, IT/GIS);
• Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS locations of deed
restricted trees prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into the
City's GIS system for tracking.
• Information on deed restricted trees to include location (x/y coordinates), size (dbh),
species,date inventoried,condition, tree ID code,and any additional information
necessary to conduct resource analyses in the future.
4. Difficult to track required landscape trees (parking lot trees,buffer trees, etc.) after
development (Planning/Arborist and Code Enforcement,IT/GIS);
• Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS actual locations of
required landscape trees prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded
into the City's GIS system for tracking.
• Information on required landscape trees to include location (x/y coordinates), size
(dbh), species,date planted,condition, tree ID code,and any additional information
necessary to conduct resource analyses in the future.
5. Difficult to track mitigation trees after development(Planning/Arborist, IT/GIS);
• Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS actual locations of
mitigation trees prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into the
City's GIS system for tracking.
• Information on mitigation trees to include location (x/y coordinates),size (dbh),
species,date planted, condition,cash assurance/bond release date, tree ID code, and
any additional information necessary to conduct resource analyses in the future.
6. No inventory of street trees (Planning,Engineering,Public Works, IT/GIS);
• Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City to GPS actual locations of street
trees prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into the City's GIS
system for tracking.
• Hire AmeriCorps member and/or recruit volunteers to assist in inventory of existing
street trees outside development process.
• GPS actual locations of street trees planting during annual street tree planting
program.
• Information on street trees to include location (x/y coordinates),size (dbh), species,
date planted,condition, tree ID code,and any additional information necessary to
conduct resource analyses in the future.
• Consider creating program where developers pay a fee to the City to plant and GPS
street trees.
7. When City acquires greenspaces,no detailed understanding of maintenance costs (especially
regarding hazard trees) (Planning/Arborist,Public Works);
• Create budget sheet to track personnel,material,and service costs associated with
greenspace acquisition.
• Budget sheet should detail first year costs as well as costs for years two through five.
• A benefits section should be included on the form to identify mitigation,
connectivity,and other potential benefits.
• The budget sheet needs to be routed to the appropriate departments and divisions
for input before it is finalized.
• There is an evaluation form for land acquisition that was used for CIP projects that
may be used as a template (contact Carissa).
• If hazard trees are an issue during land acquisition associated with development
projects,require developer's arborist to conduct a hazard assessment for review and
inspection by City Arborist.
8. No policy for protecting deed restricted trees and significant habitat trees during building
additions (Planning,Building);
• This item should be further addressed during the Tree Code updates.
• However, for deed restricted trees,the City can require a protection plan for building
additions that complies with the original tree protection plan for the development
project.
• For trees in sensitive lands, the City can restrict access/building within the driplines
of trees through the use of tree protection fencing. Section 18.790.060 prohibits
damage to a protected tree or its root system.
9. No policy of requiring exempt City projects to follow standards required by private
development (Planning,Capital Construction and Transportation,Public Works);
• City Arborist to attend"kickoff meetings" for City projects to identify applicable
City rules and regulations.
• Project plans will be routed to City Arborist for review and comment prior to
completion.
• Depending on the size of the project, the City Arborist may provide assistance on
tree protection and planting specifications, or recommend that the City hire a project
arborist.
• Work with the Tree Board and Community Development Director on developing a
set of standards for City projects to follow.
10. No review of exempt City projects for trees by planning staff(Planning, Capital
Construction and Transportation,Public Works);
• City Arborist to attend"kickoff meetings" for City projects to identify applicable
City rules and regulations.
• Project plans will be routed to City Arborist for review and comment prior to
completion.
• Depending on the size of the project, the City Arborist may provide assistance on
tree protection and planting specifications, or recommend the City hire a project
arborist.
11. No formal hazard evaluation process for parks/greenspaces (Planning/Arborist,Public
Works/Parks,Risk);
• Budgeting has eliminated non-emergency management and evaluation of hazards in
parks/greenspaces due to the transfer of the greenspace coordinator(urban forester)
position from Public Works to the associate planner/arborist(city arborist) position
to Community Development.
• Proactive evaluation and management of City owned parks/greenspaces would be
best accomplished through the hiring of a greenspace coordinator to fill the position
vacated in Public Works.
• A greenspace coordinater could develop a program based off of protocols developed
by the USDA Forest Service and/or International Society of Arboriculture.
• Alternatively, the City could contract with a private arborist to develop a hazard
evaluation and management program.
12. No formal emergency response system for tree hazards on streets (Planning/Arborist,Public
Works/Streets);
• When a member of the public calls the City about a potential hazard tree on a City
street, they should be forwarded to the Public Works front desk (503-639-4171).
• Operators at Public Works will route the call to the Streets Division manager,who
will in turn assign a staff member to investigate the complaint.
• If the tree clearly is not a hazard, the Streets Division will contact the citizen and
close the case.
• If the tree is already down or is clearly an immediate hazard,the Streets Division will
coordinate traffic control,contact other impacted agencies (such as PGE if power
lines are involved),and remove the tree from the street and sidewalk right-of-way
using the City's contract arborist (or any other available private arborist if the
contract arborist is not available). The debris from the removal will be placed on the
owner's property,and debris disposal will occur at the owner's expense.
• If the tree hazard is a borderline case, the City Arborist will make a determination
whether the tree should be retained,monitored,removed,or further investigated by
the contract arborist.
• If the City Arborist decides the tree is a hazard and there is enough time, he will
write a letter to the responsible property owner giving them a specific period of time
to abate the hazard. If the deadline is not met, the responsible owner will be cited
through Code Enforcement.
• If the hazard is after hours, citizens will need to call the Public Works after-hours
number (503-639-1554). Public Works will then investigate the hazard after hours
and either contact the contract arborist (or any other available private arborist if the
contract arborist is not available) if there is an immediate hazard, or forward the
inquiry to the Streets Division for follow up the following business day if the hazard
is not immediate. The Streets Division will then follow the same process outlined
above.
13. No formal emergency response system for tree hazards in parks/greenspaces
(Planning/Arborist,Public Works/Parks);
• When a member of the public calls the City about a potential hazard tree on City
property,they should be forwarded the Public Works front desk (503-639-4171).
• Operators at Public Works will route the call to the appropriate division manager,
who will in turn assign a staff member to investigate the complaint.
• If the tree clearly is not a hazard,the responsible division will contact the citizen and
close the case.
• If the tree is determined to be an immediate hazard, the responsible division will
contact the City's contract arborist (or any other available private arborist if the
contract arborist is not available) to abate the hazard immediately.
• If the tree hazard is a borderline case, the City Arborist will make a determination
whether the tree should be retained,monitored,removed, or further investigated by
the contract arborist.
• The City Arborist is estimated to respond to one "borderline"call per week on
average. If the time commitment is significantly more, the process may need to be
reevaluated.
• If the hazard is after hours,citizens will need to call the Public Works after-hours
number(503-639-1554). Public Works will then investigate the hazard after hours
and either contact the contract arborist (or any other available private arborist if the
contract arborist is not available) if there is an immediate hazard,or forward the
inquiry to the appropriate division if the hazard is not immediate for follow up the
following business day. The responsible division will then follow the same process
outlined above.
14. Tree removal in sensitive lands requires tree removal permits,not sure if there is awareness
of this Code provision (Planning,Capital Construction and Transportation,Public Works);
• City Arborist to attend "kickoff meetings" for City projects to identify applicable
City rules and regulations.
• Tree removal permits and fees in Tigard Development Code Section 18.790.050 are
applicable for any tree removal over six inches in diameter within sensitive lands
(including City pro}ects).
• Publicize program through periodic Community Development/Public Works/Capital
Construction and Transportation coordination meetings.
• Ensure the sensitive lands GIS layer is available through Tigard Maps for all
divisions/departments.
• Clarify with Community Development Director if invasive/exotic trees are exempt from
tree removal permit requirements.
15. No formal process for spending/tracking tree mitigation fund expenditures and planting
(Planning/Arborist,Public Works,IT/GIS,Finance);and
• GPS actual locations of mitigation trees/areas. The spatial data can then be loaded
into the City's GIS system for tracking.
• Information on mitigation trees to include location (x/y coordinates),size (dbh),
species,date planted,condition, cash assurance/bond release date,tree ID code, and
any additional information necessary to conduct resource analyses in the future.
• Link mitigation trees (via a GIS point layer) and mitigation areas (via a GIS polygon
layer)with IFIS (accounting system) so that expenditures can be directly related to
specific projects.
16. No formal process for determining adjustments to street standards to preserve trees
(18.810.030.A.7) (Planning/Arborist,Engineering).
• The City's policy is to maintain the required curb to curb width standards in the
Tigard Development Code in all cases,regardless of existing trees.
• However,during the development review process,when a healthy and sustainable
tree in the right of way is identified by the project arborist and/or City Arborist,
Development Engineering will allow adjustments to planter strip and/or sidewalk
standards on a case by case basis.
• The City does not currently have the authority to require private developers to
preserve trees if they choose not to.
17. No formal street tree maintenance process for limb/root clearance and removal
(Planning/Arborist,Public Works/Streets).
• If the street tree is the responsibility of the City, the corresponding division will
maintain the clearance requirements outlined in the Tigard Municipal Code.
• If a citizen complaint is received, the Streets Division will investigate.
• If there is an immediate hazard (e.g. blocked stop sign,hanging limb,etc.), the
Streets Division will prune the tree immediately.
• If there is not an immediate hazard, the Streets Division will contact the responsible
party directly and explain the Code requirements,or gather the information and
forward to Code Enforcement if the owner is nonresponsive.
• If the potential branch clearance hazard is after hours, citizens will need to can the
Public Works after-hours number(503-639-1554). Public Works will then
investigate the hazard after hours and either contact the contract arborist (or any
other available private arborist if the contract arborist is not available) if there is an
immediate hazard, or forward the inquiry to the Streets Division if the hazard is not
immediate for follow up the following business day. The Streets Division will then
follow the same process outlined above.
• When tree roots are impacting City streets or utilities, the responsible division will
investigate and,if needed,contact the City Arborist for root pruning advice.
• If the City Arborist decides the tree can be safely root pruned to make the necessary
repairs, the responsible division will absorb the cost of root pruning.
• If the tree cannot be safely root pruned and the tree needs to be removed, the City
will absorb the cost of removal, but the property owner will be responsible for
stump removal and replanting. Prior to removing a street tree,the City Arborist
shall be contacted.
Sta . - elho0der
Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• The 1000+ members of the Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan
Portland (HBAMP) rely on the homebuilding industry for their livelihood. It
is in the interest of the membership to develop land and create building sites
for new homes. Land development requires tree removal on sites that have
trees and are zoned for development.
• Applications for land development are currently required to include tree
preservation/removal plans prior to development in order to meet Tigard
Development Code requirements.
• Under the current code section 18.790, applicants may pay a fee in lieu of
mitigation or are required to mitigate tree removal by planting replacement
trees within the City.
• HBAMP members have attended Tree Board, Planning Commission, and City
Council meetings to provide input on tree related matters such as the Urban
Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan.
• The HBAMP has a representative on the Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen
Advisory Committee.
r 2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Tree planting when the right tree is planted in the right place.
• The City's overall goal of preserving trees.
• Requiring developers to utilize the expertise of independent, certified arborists
when evaluating the conditions of trees and their viability of survival with site
development.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• The HBAMP's position is that the City's mitigation requirements are
unreasonable and punitive.
• The mitigation structure in section 18.790.030.B.2(a-d) is unreasonable
because it is not practicable to retain even 25% of the trees on sites zoned for
medium to high density residential development (5 units per acre or more).
There has likely never been a development in Tigard with 75% or greater
retention on property zoned R4.5 or higher. Heavy equipment,grading,
roads, and utilities are very disruptive to trees. Significant amounts of grading
must take place outside the right of way when driveways are cut in, sidewalks
are poured, and building footprints are cleared for structures. This results in
:� tree retention being limited to the perimeter of developed sites.
• The City's current program incentivizes the preservation of trees that will
cause potential future hazards. For example, trees over 12" in diameter have
root systems and canopies that extend at least 10' from the trunk. Larger trees
have larger areas around them that need to remain undisturbed. This is not
practicable is high density situations. Even if a younger but potentially large
tree species such as Doug.-fir is able to be retained, it often makes sense to
remove it to avoid potential hazards in the future.
• The fee structure associated with fee in lieu of planting for mitigation far
exceeds the actual cost to plant trees. For example, a recent mitigation project
to plant trees in Cook Park for the Fletcher Woods development cost the
developer$20,000 to complete. However, the City required the developer to
submit a bond for $106,000 or$110 per caliper inch as assurance and to cover
the City's cost of planting should the developer fail to mitigate.
• The incentives in section 18.790.040 should be updated. For example, the
density bonus incentive allows for a 1% density bonus for 2% canopy cover
retained. This bonus does not yield any practical benefit unless the site is very
large. For a site that is 10 lots, it would take 20% retention for a 10% density
bonus to add just one unit. Moreover, by adding another unit and decreasing
the amount of land available for infrastructure and buildings, the result is lots
that are significantly smaller than zoning allows. This creates a direct conflict
with lot size requirements in section 18.510.
• Finally, it is the consensus of the HBAMP that tree regulation and tree plan
requirements require additional resources adding cost and time to any
development project. In addition, Tigard's current program is divisive and
creates legal conflicts in the form of appeals to the Land Use Board of
Appeals for tree related issues.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• The City should not regulate trees on private property. Private property
owners should be allowed to cut trees as they have done since the
establishment of Tigard. This "hands off' approach has successfully been
done for decades with virtually no loss (and perhaps even some gain) in tree
canopy. Trees are not community property and belong to the owners of the
land.
• Eliminate the punitive standards that cost developers large sums of money for
unavoidable tree removal. There is currently over$1,000,000 in the tree
mitigation fund. It is expected to grow to over $2,000,000 within the next
year. This fund can only be used to plant trees. Last year's City budget for
tree planting was $50,000. There is little available land within the City where
future trees can be planted.
• If the City does continue to regulate trees in the future, developers should
only be required to mitigate only for unnecessary tree removal.
• The City should not incentivize the preservation of potentially hazardous
trees.
• The mitigation fee in lieu should be revised to reflect the actual cost of
planting trees.
• Revise incentives to create higher motivation for developers to utilize the
incentives.
• The City forestry program should be balanced with the right to subdivide and
develop private property. The cost of an urban forestry program should not
outweigh the benefits.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• HBAMP and its members continue to participate in the public process so that
their views are understood by the City's decision makers.
• It is the view of those HBAMP members who have participated in the process
that the HBAMP's views are dismissed while the views of the Tree Board and
one extremely active Tigard citizen are taken very seriously. It is always simple
to achieve "consensus" when everyone in the room shares the same view.
The key to real and balanced stakeholder participation is to find the people
who have concerns about the forestry program and openly discuss the views
of the stakeholders' concerns and have dialogue. The HBAMP has received
virtually no feedback from City staff, the Tree Board or the Citizen Advisory
Committee about the information and testimony HBAMP's representatives
have provided at meetings, public hearings and worksessions. This needs to
be addressed.
• By requiring costly tree mitigation and/or fees for tree removal, it is the view
of the HBA members who have been involved in this process that the Tree
Board and City Staff are putting the interest of trees ahead of the interest of
property owners. This is unacceptable.
• City staff has not made a concentrated effort to contact those property owners
who have the most potential impact under the current and future tree code.
These owners should be contacted and advised of the financial impact the
current tree code could have on their property values. These are the single
most impacted stakeholder group, yet they have never been invited to any
meetings. This needs to be addressed.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• There should be no urban forestry program because the benefits of such a
program do not outweigh the costs.
• Do not regulate trees on private property, and allow owners to manage their
land as they see fit.
• However,if the City does continue to regulate trees in the future the following
should be included/excluded from the program:
o Eliminate punitive mitigation standards and only require developers to
mitigate for unnecessary tree removal.
o Revise fee in lieu of mitigation to reflect the actual cost of tree
replacement.
o Do not incentivize the preservation of large and potentially hazardous
trees.
o Revise incentives for tree preservation so that developers are able to
utilize the incentives.
o Make a concerted effort to include the HBAM-P and affected property
owners in the process.
Clean Water Services Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• Watershed Management Department manages revegetation projects in
Tigard's stream corridors.
• Partnered with urban forester (currently unfilled) on many acres of tree
planting in Tigard's stream corridors including Englewood Park, Fanno Creek
Park, and Cook Park. These projects were funded by Surface Water
Management (SWM) fees which come from sewer system ratepayers.
• Development Services issues Service Provider Letters (SPL) for development
projects with potential impacts on stream corridors.
• CWS inspectors monitor Vegetated Corridor work of private developers to
ensure compliance with CWS standards.
• Some stream restoration projects require City of Tigard tree removal permits
and tree protection plans.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Tigard Public Works is effective at using volunteers for planting projects.
• In theory, the tree mitigation fund works well (if the money is actually used
for tree planting).
• Tigard has worked well with Clean Water Services on tree planting projects
and meeting"Tree for All" planting goals.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• Tree survey requirements can be counterproductive for restoration projects in
stream corridors. The money for tree surveys and protection plans in areas
dominated by non-native or invasive trees would be better spent on tree
planting.
• Invasive and non-native trees in Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors
should not be protected and/or require a tree removal permit. Protecting
invasives and non-natives is a barrier to restoration.
• Vegetated Corridor and other natural area plantings require long term
maintenance beyond the two-year maintenance period typically required of
developers.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• The City should be more diligent about taking a proactive approach to
inspecting Vegetated Corridors during the maintenance period if their Urban
Forestry Program includes CWS Vegetated Corridor requirements.
• Restoration projects in degraded Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors
should be exempt from tree survey and protection requirements.
• Tigard needs to adopt an inclusive invasive species list and exempt the
removal of invasive trees from Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors from
permit requirements.
• There needs to be more focus on long term maintenance of private and public
riparian plantings. This could be addressed through a combination of Code
requirements, SWM funds, and tree mitigation funds. The City should secure
a stable source of funding for vegetation maintenance.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• Continue stewardship of"Tree for All" sites even after the program ends.
• Coordinate public outreach about invasive plants and the responsibilities of
streamside property owners.
• Ensure City of Tigard and Clean Water Services regulatory requirements are
coordinated in future. Allow Clean Water Services to review/comment on
Code changes that affect stream corridors prior to adoption.
• Continue partnering to co-implement Stormwater Management Permits.
• Coordinate on implementing an integrated pest management plan.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Exempt stream restoration projects in degraded Sensitive Areas and Vegetated
Corridors from tree survey and protection requirements.
• Exempt invasive and non-native tree removal in stream corridors from permit
requirements.
• Adopt an inclusive invasive species list and exempt invasive tree removal from
permit requirements.
• Focus on long term maintenance of riparian plantings through Code revisions,
SWM funds, and tree mitigation funds.
• Secure a stable funding source for long term riparian vegetation management.
• Monitor expenditure of SWM funds to ensure that adequate funding is
provided for riparian vegetation management.
• Fill the urban forester position so that riparian revegetation projects
continue/expand in the future.
• Coordinate City planting standards in stream corridors with Clean Water
Services standards.
• Implement an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan in cooperation with
Clean Water Services.
Oregon Department of Transportation Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• During development, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
reviews street tree planting plans in ODOT right of ways for compliance with
ODOT specifications.
• ODOT reviews and grants permits for City tree planting projects in ODOT
right of ways (99W, Hall Boulevard, Highway 217).
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• No comment.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• Street tree planting under powerlines causes conflicts because traffic lanes are
closed for ongoing maintenance issues.
• Some trees cause damage to infrastructure (sidewalks, curbs, streets).
• Trees planted on top of underground utilities cause future conflicts due to
root interference.
• Some City tree planting and placement requirements are not coordinated with
ODOT requirements (root barriers, site distance, clear distance, limb
clearance)
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Require overhead utilities to be shown on site plans to avoid inappropriate
tree planting that will create future conflicts. Route plans to Portland General
Electric for review.
• Select street trees that will not conflict with hard features. Require root
barriers and other design feature that will help to minimize conflicts.
• Require development projects to locate utilities on planting plans prior to
MOT and City review. This help to ensure that trees are not planted on top
of existing utilities.
• Clarify jurisdictional requirements and coordinate during future Code updates.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• Clarify jurisdictional requirements and coordinate during future Code updates.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Prohibit the planting of trees that will conflict with powerlines. Route plans
to Portland General Electric for review.
• Require root barriers and other design feature that will help to minimize
conflicts with hard features.
• Require development projects to locate utilities on planting plans prior to
ODOT and City review.
• Clarify jurisdictional requirements in ODOT right of ways:
o ODOT site distance requirements supersede Tigard requirements.
o MOT clear distance requirements supersede Tigard requirements.
o MOT branch clearance requirements supersede Tigard requirements.
o MOT has final signoff authority on any trees planted or removed in
ODOT right of way (ODOT permit required).
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Stakeholder Interview Notes
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board declined to comment at their February 23, 2009
meeting.
Portland General Electric (PGE) Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• PGE continually trims trees away from overhead conductors in Tigard to
provide for the safe, reliable and continual source of electricity to meet the
needs of commercial and residential customers.
• PGE considers the City of Tigard an integral participant in this process in
terms of establishing approved street tree lists, encouraging appropriate and
responsible plantings, approving of ideal specimens for their heritage tree
program and having the long term vision to develop and maintain an urban
forestry program.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• As a whole, Tigard's urban forestry program works extremely well. There is
very qualified and attentive stewardship of trees in the City of Tigard.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• Some inappropriate street tree plantings in the City of Tigard.
• Several potentially hazardous tree/utility conflicts in the City of Tigard.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Remove and replace inappropriate street trees.
• Aid in the hazardous tree removal by providing the labor and equipment
necessary.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• PGE can contribute appropriate trees to new planting sites.
• Aid in hazardous tree removal where the threat of an overhead conductor is a
factor.
• Attend monthly City coordination meetings.
• Share in the exchange of information and of past experiences of what works
well and what doesn't work quite well in other municipalities.
• Assist in any educational capacity such as right tree/right place programs.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Future programs need to recognize the conflict between a static overhead
distribution system of electricity and the dynamic nature of vegetation
management around PGE facilities.
• Invite PGE to monthly City coordination meetings.
• Route tree plans to PGE for review.
Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture Stakeholder
Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• High level of involvement with tree ordinance through development projects.
• Assist private property owners with tree management outside the
development process.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Tree code helps to incentivize preservation because increasing tree removal
requires increasing mitigation and associated costs.
• Bi-weekly arborist report condition of approval helps to ensure better project
oversight and tree plan implementation.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• Tree code penalizes property owners with heavily treed lots more than those
with un-treed lots. Mitigation is tied solely to tree removal. This may have the
effect of precluding development in heavily treed areas such as the Tigard
Triangle that are zoned for dense development.
• Mitigation standards encourage overplanting of trees or planting of small
stature trees to meet mitigation requirements. Requiring tree replacement on a
caliper inch basis may not be appropriate for every tree and contributes to
overplanting.
• No sustainable funding for urban forestry programs. There needs to be a
stable funding source for Tigard's urban forestry program that can be utilized
for tree maintenance, not just tree planting.
• Bi-weekly arborist reports can be hard for the City to track, especially during
the transition from site development to building phase.
• Project arborists are hired to protect their clients. This can result in arborist
reports with false or misleading information.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Determine tree stocking levels based on plantable areas as is done in the City
of Vancouver, WA. This could be accomplished by matching available soil
volumes for lots of various sizes with trees.
• Allow required trees such as parking lot and street trees to count for
mitigation. This will help alleviate overplanting of mitigation trees.
• Provide incentives for planting of natives and large stature mitigation trees.
One incentive could be to offer more mitigation credit for planting natives
and large stature trees. This will help alleviate overplanting and encourage the
planting of trees that offer the most environmental benefits.
• Develop spacing standards based on the mature size of trees to improve long
term growth and health.
• Urban forestry funding can be more sustainable if it tied to stable sources such
as stormwater fees, permit fees, transportation fees, etc. This will also allow
for the urban forestry funds to be used for long term tree maintenance.
• Bi-weekly arborist reports should be required in future code updates. The
City should require a copy of the contract for bi-weekly reports and require
the project arborist to send a notice to the City if the contract is terminated.
If a different arborist is to provide bi-weekly reports, then the original project
arborist should have to sign off prior to the new arborist amending the tree
preservation plan.
• The City should require more personal accountability for project arborists to
discourage false or misleading information. Measures could include revoking
business licenses and/or fines so that project arborists have more personal
accountability when providing false or misleading information.
• An alternative method to limit false or misleading reports would be for the
City to hire a third party the arborist to do the tree preservation report and bi-
weekly inspections.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• ISA can provide input and review on future tree code revisions.
• ISA can be a resource for code provisions that have been successful in other
jurisdictions and may be appropriate for Tigard.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Require mitigation based on stocking levels, not on a caliper inch basis.
• Develop clear and specific mitigation requirements that favor native and large
stature trees, and require spacing per industry standards. Allow required
landscape trees and street trees to count towards mitigation requirements.
• Do not unfairly penalize property owners with heavily treed lots that will have
trees that are overcrowded and not in good condition.
• Incentivize protection and replanting of natives and large stature trees.
• Identify sustainable funding sources for urban forestry programs. Fund long
term maintenance of trees, not just tree planting.
• Require project arborists to be brought onto the project team as early as
possible.
• Allow the project arborist to drive the tree preservation plan in future code
updates, not the project engineer.
• Require metal fencing in future code updates.
• Develop a zone of clearance for building footprints, and don't penalize
developers for removing trees in clearance zones. This zone could be 5'-10'
or 3 to 5 times the diameter of the tree. However, site and species
characteristics should be considered when crafting code revisions.
• Increase planting strip size and require root barriers to protect streets and
sidewalks.
• Require utilities to be under the street, not in the planter strip where trees
should be.
• Hire a greenspace coordinator to manage the City's greenspaces.
Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce Stakeholder Interview Notes
On March 9, 2009, I spoke with Christopher Zoucha, Chief Executive Officer of the Tigard
Area Chamber of Commerce regarding the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Christopher
informed me that urban forestry has not been an issue for the Chamber members, and
therefore declined providing input as a stakeholder group for the Urban Forestry Master
Plan.
Tree Board Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• The Tree Board is an oversight body for Tigard's urban forestry program.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• The City actively works to include the greater community in developing its
urban forestry program.
• The City collects substantial fees to be used for the planting of trees.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• The City's departments are not well coordinated on urban forestry issues due
to lack of communication.
• Tree management provisions are scattered throughout the Code and not
unified.
• The Tree Code is too focused on development.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• More communication between City departments.
• Unify tree related provisions in Code.
• Focus future Code on areas outside development, and fix the mitigation issue.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest.
• The Tree Board can help create a plan for the future management of Tigard's
urban forest.
• The Tree Board can help execute the action measures in the plan. Mitigation
funds can be used to implement the plan.
• The Tree Board can continue to reach out to stakeholders when implementing
the plan.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Increase communication between City departments.
• Unify tree related Code provisions.
• Focus future Code revisions on areas outside development.
• Make sure Code revisions can be translated into something the public can
understand.
• Expand community education on urban forestry issues. Use Eastmoreland
outreach materials as a model.
• Continually measure progress on canopy preservation/expansion and
community attitudes.
• Plan for future annexations of tree resources in areas outside of the City limits.
Oregon Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects Stakeholder Interview
Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• High level of familiarity with Tigard's tree and landscape ordinances.
• Regularly implements codes during development projects to meet landscape
and mitigation requirements.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Tigard actually has a tree and landscape ordinance whereas some cities do not.
• Tigard staff is easily accessible to discuss issues with and work out solutions.
• The Urban Forestry Master Plan will result in a more comprehensive
approach to future tree and landscape ordinance updates.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• Replanting on a caliper inch basis does not work because it incentivizes
overplanting.
• Site planning is focused too heavily on building needs and not on existing site
conditions. This causes an excessive amount of clear cutting.
• Landscape architects do not have enough flexibility in landscape design
because landscape code requirements are overly specific.
• Street tree list is outdated, and many of the species are no longer appropriate
or relevant.
• Street trees and streetscapes are non-uniform. Different development projects
choose different types of trees so city blocks become a hodgepodge of street
trees.
• Many parts of the tree code are overly vague, which creates loopholes and a
wide variety of interpretations. For example, there are no spacing, species, or
nursery stock quality standards with respect to mitigation trees.
• Need more tree and landscape related expertise on the Tree Board.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Focus tree code revisions on preservation and less on mitigation. If
preservation requirements are increased, then mitigation could occur on a tree
for tree basis rather than inch for inch.
• Need to be stricter on grading with respect to trees. This can occur by
focusing more on existing conditions and how trees can be incorporated into
the building design. Also, landscape architects should be required to
collaborate more with project arborists in order to identify which trees are
appropriate for preservation, and how to adjust grading to preserve trees.
Perhaps there should be a dual sign off on preservation plans between the
landscape architect and project arborist.
• Allow for more flexibility in landscape requirements in future updates.
Require landscape architects to be part of the design team, and sign off on
planting before, during, and after installations.
• Update street tree list.
• To improve uniformity of streetscapes, the developers should have to survey
the street trees in a 4-5 block radius and choose trees that complement
existing plantings.
• The tree/mitigation code sections need more specificity. The City of Salem
has a detailed development design handbook with detailed drawings and
specifications that are referred to in their development code. This allows for
more clarity as to what is expected of the development.
• When advertising Tree Board vacancies, specify that you are looking for
members with tree and landscape expertise. Advertise vacancies with local
professional organizations.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• Sends drafts of tree and landscape code revisions to ASLA for review and
comment.
• Contact ASLA to see if members could get credit hours for developing codes
and design handbooks.
• Hire ASLA members to help develop code and design guidelines.
• Share example codes that require maximum preservation of existing trees.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• More focus on preservation through improved grading plans, less focus on
mitigation. The City needs to take a leadership role in this.
• More focus on sustainable landscapes. Not necessarily native trees, but trees
that are appropriate for site conditions.
• Need detailed design/preservation manual with illustrations.
• Need to have a warranty period for required landscaping to ensure
establishment.
• Need to require powerlines to be shown on landscape plans to avoid future
overhead utility conflicts.
• Landscape architects should be a required member of the design team.
Tigard Tualatin School District Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• Somewhat limited.
• Participation in the Tigard Neighborhood Trails Study.
• Manage trees on School District property.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Adequate budget for tree planting and early establishment.
• City of Tigard is very cooperative with the School District.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• Lack of communication prior to planting trees on School District property. It
is important to coordinate with Facilities Division so that long term
maintenance issues can be addressed prior to planting.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Bring Facilities Division into the planning process from the beginning of a
tree planting project.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• School District properties may offer opportunities to utilize City tree planting
funds.
• Wetlands on School District properties may offer wetland mitigation
opportunities for the City.
• Facilities Division would be able to provide guidance as to the types of trees
and planting layouts that will facilitate long term maintenance by the District.
• School District can contact City Arborist to find out if permits are required
for tree removal and/or planting.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Bring Facilities Division into the planning process from the beginning of tree
planting projects on School District properties.
• Focus on low maintenance plantings with evergreens and other trees with low
leaf litter.
Tualatin Riverkeepers Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• High level of involvement.
• Work closely with the City and Metro on restoration projects in Tigard.
• Provide comments on municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) permits.
• Provide comments on City of Tigard Parks plans and occasionally on private
development applications.
• Participated in the development of the Healthy Streams Plan by Clean Water
Services.
• Member of Oregon Community Trees, a non-profit organization that
promotes urban and community forestry in Oregon.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Mitigation fee structure provides an adequate budget for tree planting.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• Trees could be better utilized for stormwater management in developed areas
such as along street and in parking lots.
• Urban forestry funds could be collected and utilized more strategically. An
example would be to use stormwater management fees to fund restoration
programs.
• The City of Tigard could make more of a public commitment to sustainability
efforts such as by signing the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Improve parking lot design standards to incorporate stormwater treatment
features and more tree canopy.
• Retrofit existing parking lots to improve stormwater treatment and tree
canopy using grant money and other funding sources.
• Encourage/require the use of more evergreen species in parking lots and
streets so that the stormwater benefits of trees can be utiltized during the
winter rainy season.
• Collect urban forestry funds more strategically through stormwater fees,
development fees, etc. so that the funding sources are more sustainable and
can be used for more than just tree planting.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• Tualatin Riverkeepers can assist with volunteer recruitment for urban forestry
projects.
• Tualatin Riverkeepers can help educate kids about the importance of
environmental stewardship through camp and recreation programming.
• Tualatin Riverkeepers can help identify potential restoration sites.
• Tualatin Riverkeepers can provide training to Planning Commission, City
Council, City staff, and others on low impact development techniques.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Improve parking lot design standards to incorporate stormwater treatment
and more tree canopy.
• Increase stormwater incentives/requirements for development such as the
"no runoff" provisions as in Lacey Washington.
• Collect urban forestry funds more strategically through stormwater fees,
development fees, etc. so that the funding sources are more sustainable and
can be used for more than just tree planting.
• More public commitment to sustainability efforts such as signing the Mayor's
Climate Protection Agreement.
• More efforts in invasive species removal. Incentivize and/or require private
landowners to remove invasives.
Todd Prager
From: Alan DeHarpport[aland@roundstoneproperties.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:12 AM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: Re: Stakeholder Interview/Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan
Hi Todd,
I sent a draft to Ernie Friday. They are going to work up edits and send to you.
Alan DeHarpport
On Mar 24, 2009, at 7:04 AM, Todd Prager<todd�&,tigard-or.gov> wrote:
Hi Alan,
Any progress on the stakeholder questions?
Thanks,
Todd
From: Todd Prager
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 12:10 PM
To: 'Alan DeHarpport'
Subject: RE: Stakeholder Interview/Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan
Don't worry about it.
Just to let you know, the previous stakeholder notes have been recorded in bullet form. This will
make it easier to take out pieces of information and put it into the Urban Forestry Master Plan
later. It also makes it easy to see what the main points of the stakeholders are. I attached some
meeting notes from another stakeholder as an example. You can feel free to answer in any
format you want, but I thought I would just give you an example.
1
Thanks,
Todd
From: Alan DeHarpport [mailto:aland@roundstonepropgrties.com]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 12:02 PM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: RE: Stakeholder Interview/Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan
Monday should be fine. Again, my apologies about Thursday.
From: Todd Prager [mailto:todd0tigard-or.gov]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 12:01 PM
To: Alan DeHarpport
Cc: Erniep(@hbapdx.org
Subject: RE: Stakeholder Interview/Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan
Do you think you could have it by next Monday? Otherwise let me know what works for you.
Thanks Alan,
Todd
503.718.2700
From: Alan DeHarpport [mailto:alandCabroundstonepropgrties.com]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 11:05 AM
To: Todd Prager
Cc: Erniep( hbapdx.org
Subject: RE: Stakeholder Interview/Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan
Hi Todd,
2
I'm really sorry about last week. I forgot to put the date in my calendar and was out Friday.
I received your voice mail and am getting the response prepared. I will run it by HBA before
submitting it. When does it need to be submitted?
Alan
From: Todd Prager fmailto:todd@)tigard-or.govl
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 12:33 PM
To: aland(droundstoneproperties.com
Cc: Erniepahbapdx.org
Subject: Stakeholder Interview/Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan
Dear Alan,
This email is to confirm our meeting for next Thursday, March 12 at 2:00 to discuss the attached
stakeholder questions. You will be representing the HBA of Metro Portland. Your answers will
be incorporated into Tigard's Urban Forestry Master Plan and help guide the program
recommendations made by the Urban Forestry Committee.
Here is a link to the project website...
htti)://www.tigard-or.gov/community/trees/master plan.asp
Thanks,
Todd Prager
Associate Planner/Arborist
City of Tigard
3
G
503.718.2700
Todd Prager
From: Ernie Platt[Erniep@hbapdx.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:45 AM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: RE: Planning Commission Update on Urban Forestry Master Plan
I am working on finding another person to take Alan's place on the CAC, but do not have
anyone just yet. I will be back to you as soon as I can. In the meantime, keep notices
coming to me.
Thanks,
Ernie
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Prager [mailto:todd@tigard-or.gov]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:25 AM
To: Ernie Platt
Subject: RE: Planning Commission Update on Urban Forestry Master Plan
Hi Ernie,
One point of clarification, does Alan's resignation represent the HBAMP's resignation from
the CAC, or just Alan's. Not sure if you were interested in having another representative
take his place.
Thanks,
Todd
-----Original Message-----
From: aland@roundstoneproperties.com
[mailto:aland@roundstoneproperties.com]
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:19 AM
To: Todd Prager
Cc: Ernie Platt; John Floyd
Subject: RE: Planning Commission Update on Urban Forestry Master Plan
Todd, John, and and Ernie,
Here are my DRAFT edits. Ernie, you and Dave make the call on what the official HBAMP
wording will be.
Todd and John, I'm going to resign from the Citizen Advisory Committee.
I should have stepped down earlier and apologize for missing the last two meetings. I resign
disappointed with the lack of attention focused
on the common ground those of us who live in homes all share. I feel
that my continued involvement will be as fruitless as it would be divisive since it is
evident the City's forestry plan is not considering proposing changes to balance tree
preservation with the land development requirements. It is clear that the intent of this
forestry plan is to continue penalizing property owners for removing trees if they choose to
subdivide and develop their developable, treed property.
I've tried repeatedly to explain how difficult it is to save trees and meet other sections
the code such as streets and density, what developers are faced with when they lay out a site
plan, why trees must be removed, why roads and building pads should be exempt, to shine the
light on the bloated tree fund, and to explain why mitigation fees are counter-productive all
1
in an effort to bring balance to the forestry plan update. I feel my efforts have not been
taken seriously and have been largely dismissed by staff and the pro-tree/anti-development
sentiment felt at all meetings, worksessions, and hearings I have attended. It's evident
that staff has taken the anti-development view as the overall philosophy for Tigard's
forestry plan update and text amendment. We had a great opportunity for real dialogue where
staff, Tree Board, Planning Commission, and City Council could truly make an effort grasp the
soils, grading, engineering, utilities, and planning issues, but the situation has instead
been reduced to a simple-minded, black and white battle between good (trees) and evil
(development) with no acknowledgement in the proposed text of the potential economic impacts,
financial impacts, compliance with the engineering design manual, or a level of
reasonableness that anyone in the development community can support. Based on my experience
at Clean Water Services Advisory and Finance Committees and the City of Beaverton Planning
Commission, alienating stakeholders to the point where they no longer feel welcome to
participate in the process is not the way consensus is intended to be built.
I expect the end result of this lengthy exercise will be even more frustration from both
sides of the issue that will result in more legal battles, more attorneys, more appeals, and
more LUBA cases. The City attorney will be a busy man. If trees were simply removed at the
discretion of the private property owners (or at least be removed without significant
financial impacts) none of this controversy would even exist. But those days are gone. I
would still like to remain on the email lists and you are always welcome to contact me if you
have any questions about what actually happens in the real world. I might be able to attend
a meeting or two and would like to stay apprised of the text amendment process.
Good luck getting through all this to all of you.
- Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: "Todd Prager" <todd@tigard-or.gov>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 10:07am
To: "Ernie Platt" <Erniep@hbapdx.org>
Cc: "Alan DeHarpport" <aland@roundstoneproperties.com>, "John Floyd"
<Johnfl@tigard-or.gov>
Subject: RE: Planning Commission Update on Urban Forestry Master Plan
Hi Ernie and Alan,
I reformatted your responses in order to allow for easier comparison with the other
stakeholder meeting notes. Please review the attached document and let me know if there
needs to be any additions or deletions.
Thanks,
Todd Prager
Associate Planner/Arborist
City of Tigard
503.718.2700
From: Ernie Platt (mailto:Erniep@hbapdx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:18 PM
To: Todd Prager
2
Subject: RE: Planning Commission Update on Urban Forestry Master Plan
Yes. that was the intent, so please do reformat as necessary Ernie
From: Todd Prager [mailto:todd@tigard-or.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:04 PM
To: Ernie Platt; John Floyd; Grillo, Phillip
Cc: Darren Wyss; Ron Bunch; Tim Ramis; william.rasmussen@millernash.com; Dick Bewersdorff
Subject: RE: Planning Commission Update on Urban Forestry Master Plan Thanks Ernie,
Are your answers to questions 3, 4, 5, and 6 all answered in question 3?
If so I could either just make a note to that effect or try and rearrange your answers to
address the individual questions that were asked (and run the revisions by you for approval).
Please let me know if you want the document left as is, or if you would like me to reformat
it for your later approval.
Thanks for your participation in this important project.
Sincerely,
Todd Prager
Associate Planner/Arborist
City of Tigard
503.718.2700
From: Ernie Platt [mailto:Erniep@hbapdx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:42 AM
To: John Floyd; Grillo, Phillip
Cc: Todd Prager; Darren Wyss; Ron Bunch; Tim Ramis; william.rasmussen@millernash.com
Subject: RE: Planning Commission Update on Urban Forestry Master Plan
John and all,
Here are the comments that Alan prepared in response to the Urban Forest questionaire.
I would simply add, it seems much more expeditious and reasonable, if the objective is to
enhance the urban tree canopy, that they city have a program that encourages and
incentivises the planting of trees as well as other plants as part of a landscape requirement
for ALL new construction, thereby assuring appropriate trees get planted in locations they
can be expected to survive, and not focus the concern on 'saving' existing trees. If we are
to ever acheive our urbanization goals, including density, we are going to need to recognize
that existing trees, especially large trees in difficult locations, are going to have to be
removed, but that over time, the planted trees will m ore than adequately replace the canopy.
Ernie
From: John Floyd [mailto:Johnfl@tigard-or.gov]
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 5:07 PM
To: 'Grillo, Phillip'
Cc: Todd Prager; Darren Wyss; Ron Bunch; Tim Ramis; Ernie Platt;
'william.rasmussen@millernash.com'
Subject: FW: Planning Commission Update on Urban Forestry Master Plan Hello Phil,
Thanks for meeting with us this afternoon. I'm forwarding you an email and memorandum about
the Urban Forest Master Plan. This is the same memorandum being presented to the Planning
Commission this Monday
evening (April 6). It basically describes the UFMP and where we are
in the process.
3
Also, I spoke to Todd and he informed me that the last we heard about the HBA's stakeholder
comments was that they had been forwarded from
Alan to Ernie for final review and approval. We'd really like to get a
copy of those if possible.
Regards,
John Floyd
From: Todd Prager
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 3:38 PM
To: 'janet.gillis@beechercarlson.com'; 'David.Walsh@spnewsprint.com'; Matt & Susan Clemo;
'tonytree@easystreet.net' ; 'sizemore_dennis@msn.com' ; morgan_holen@pbsenv.com;
'ph@halsteadsarbor.com'; mettel@comcast.net; Alan DeHarpport
Cc: Marissa Daniels; John Floyd; Dick Bewersdorff; Ron Bunch
Subject: Planning Commission Update on Urban Forestry Master Plan
Dear Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee,
Attached is a copy of an update on the progress to date on the Urban Forestry Master Plan for
the Tigard Planning Commission. In October, the Planning Commission will consider approving
the Master Plan prior to adoption by City Council. This update is necessary to keep them
informed on what have learned from the process thus far, and where it is going. If time
allows, I will be giving a brief presentation to the Commissioners this Monday evening at
7:00 p.m. in Town Hall.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Todd Prager
Associate Planner/Arborist
City of Tigard
503.718.2700
4
" City of Tigard
. , Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Stakeholder
From: Todd Prager, Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry Coordination
Date: March 6, 2009
On June 3, 2008, Council adopted the Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan
(CPA2008-00002).
Council has prioritized implementation of Policy 2.2.11 of the Comprehensive Plan which
states, "The City shall develop and implement a citywide Urban Forestry Management
Master Plan."
The development of an Urban Forestry Master Plan will allow for a more comprehensive
approach to future City decisions concerning trees.
The following purpose statement for the Plan has been adopted by the Urban Forestry
Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee:
"The purpose of the Urban Forestry Master Plan is to implement the goals and
policies in the Urban Forestry section of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and to
guide the future of Tigard's urban forest by:
a. Documenting past and present conditions of the urban forest;
b. Providing recommendations and measurable goals that will improve urban
forest management;
c. Coordinating City departments with each other,with other jurisdictions, and
with the community's vision for trees in Tigard; and
d. Providing a legislative resource for future plans, policies, and ordinances."
The City is in the process of coordinating with the major stakeholders who regularly
contribute to the management of Tigard's urban forest. Please take some time to think
about your answers to the following questions that will be asked during stakeholder
interviews. Your answers will help shape the future management of Tigard's urban forest.
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program? I am a residential
land developer, homebuilder, and real estate broker and have developed treed property and cleared
property in the City of Tigard. I have developed tree preservation plans meeting City requirements
and have conducted tree mitigation with the City by planting 181 trees in Cook Park. I have
attended several tree board meetings and have provided input at several public forums at the City
including urban forest master plan workshops and public hearings on the adoption of the urban
forest comprehensive plan amendment. I am representing the Home Builders Association of
Metropolitan Portland consisting of approximately 1,000 members and hope to bring balance to the
tree plan.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well? Everyone agrees that a nice
tree planted in the right place is a good thing. The goal of preserving trees has merit and easy to
support. We also support the City's position of utilizing the expertise of independent, certified
arborists when evaluating the condition of trees and viability of survival with site development.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why? The issues
that resound most deeply with the HBA member ship are all based on the unreasonable and
punitive nature of the mitigation requirements.
1. The current mitigation structure defined in section 18.790.030 B2 a, b, c, and d is unreasonable
and onerous because it is often not practicable to retain even 25% of the trees on a site zoned for
medium to high density residential development (5 units per acre or more). I would venture to
guess that the City has never seen an application proposing 75% or greater retention with property
zoned R4.5 or higher density. Heavy equipment, grading, roads and utilities are very disruptive to
trees. When you consider 1 ni zcant amounts of grading must take place outside the right of way,
driveways need to be cut in, sidewalks need to be poured, and building footprints need to be cleared
for structures the only practicable place to retain trees is along the perimeter of any given site. Any
tree over 12"in diameter typically has a root system and canopy that stretches at least 10' from the
trunk. The larger the tree is, the larger the area that needs to remain undisturbed for survival.
2. If a younger, but potentially large species such as a Douglas Fir is close to being able to be
retained, it often makes the most sense to remove it to avoid a future hazard. However,with the
City's current program the incentive is to save any tree that is even close to being able to be retained
creating potential hazards in the future.
3. The fee structure associated with fee in lieu of mitigation far exceeds the actual cost to mitigate.
For example, my mitigation in Cook Park for Fletcher Woods has cost about$20,000 and the trees
are planted. My bond based on the caliper inch replacement value of$110 per inch was $106,000.
4. The incentives in section 18.790.040 should be updated.
a) The density bonus allows for a 1% density bonus for 2% canopy cover retained does not yield
any practical benefit unless you have a very large site. For a site that is 10 lots, it would take 20%
retention for a 10% density bonus to add just one unit. Moreover, by adding a unit and decreasing
the amount of land available for infrastructure and buildings, the end result is lots that are
significantly smaller than the zoning allows creating a direct conflict between this section of the
code and the lot size requirements in section 18.510.
b)
It is the consensus of the HBA that tree regulation Tree plan requirements require additional
resources adding cost and time to any development project. Furthermore, the current program is
divisive and creates legal conflict in the form or appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals for tree
removal. . by eliminating the current punitive standards that cost developers large sums of money
for removing trees—trees which are required to be removed in order to develop property to its
potential and meet City standards. If the City feels that trees must be regulated, the program should
penalize only the unnecessary removal of trees associated with development. To me members,
regulation of trees on private property should not be included in the City code at all. I concur that
there should be no City forestry program. In my opinion, the benefit provided by such a program
does not outweigh the cost of such a program. It is the view of the HBA that private property
owners should be allowed to cut trees as they see fit on their property as they have done since the
establishment of the City. This "hands off' approach has successfully been done for decades with
virtually no loss (and perhaps even some gain) in tree canopy. Trees are not community property
and belong to the owner of the land. I can find nothing that works well about the urban forestry
program.
. " City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Alan DeHarpport and Ernie Platt, Home Builder's Association of
Metropolitan Portland
From: Todd Prager, Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry Coordination Meeting Notes
Date: April 9, 2009
Below are my notes (in red) of your answers to the stakeholder interview questions. Please
confirm their accuracy. Thank you for your participation in this important project.
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• The Home Builder's Association (HBA) 1000+ members develop treed
residential lands and build homes on treed lots in the City of Tigard. This
process often involves clearing trees from properties. Certainly not all of the
membership are land developers and builders. For the first sentence I would say
"The 1000+ members of the Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland
(HBAMP)relies on the homebuilding industry for their livelihood. It is in the
interest of the membership to develop land and create building sites for new homes.
Land development requires tree removal on sites that have trees and are zoned for
development."
•
1113A ffiefn Applications for land development are currently required to include
must de-,v-elap tree preservation/removal plans prior to development in order
to meet Tigard Development Code requirements.
• LTR" mefn fthg6 Under the current code section 18.780,Applicants may pay a
fee in lieu of mitigation or are required to mitigate tree removal by planting
replacement trees within in the City. Some of the rees are pla
an Gity property stteh as GeE)k Park.
• HBAMP members have attended Tree Board, Planning Commission, and City
Council meetings to provide input on tree related matters such as the Urban
Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan.
• The HBA has a representative on the Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen
Advisory Committee.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Tree planting when the right tree is planted in the right place.
• The City's overall goal of preserving trees.
• Requiring developers to utilize the expertise of independent, certified arborists
when evaluating the conditions of trees and their viability of survival with site
development.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• The HBA's position is that the City's mitigation requirements are
unreasonable and punitive.
• The mitigation structure in section 18.790.030.B.2(a-d) is unreasonable
because it is not practicable to retain even 25% of the trees on sites zoned for
medium to high density residential development (5 units per acre or more).
There has likely never been a development in Tigard with 75% or greater
retention on property zoned R4.5 or higher. Heavy equipment, grading,
roads, and utilities are very disruptive to trees. Significant amounts of grading
must take place outside the right of way when driveways are cut in, sidewalks
are poured, and building footprints are cleared for structures. This results in
tree retention being limited to the perimeter of developed sites.
• The City's current program incentivizes the preservation of trees that will
cause potential future hazards. For example, trees over 12" in diameter have
root systems and canopies that extend at least 10' from the trunk. Larger trees
have larger areas around them that need to remain undisturbed. This is not
practicable is high density situations. Even if a younger but potentially large
tree species such as Doug.-fir is able to be retained, it often makes sense to
remove it to avoid potential hazards in the future.
• The fee structure associated with fee in lieu of planting for mitigation far
exceeds the actual cost to plant trees. For example, a recent mitigation project
to plant trees in Cook Park for the Fletcher Woods development cost the
developer$20,000 to complete. However, the City required the developer to
submit a bond for$106,000 or $110 per caliper inch as assurance and to cover
the City's cost of planting should the developer fail to mitigate.
• The incentives in section 18.790.040 should be updated. For example, the
density bonus incentive allows for a 1% density bonus for 2% canopy cover
retained. This bonus does not yield any practical benefit unless the site is very
large. For a site that is 10 lots, it would take 20% retention for a 10% density
bonus to add just one unit. Moreover, by adding another unit and decreasing
the amount of land available for infrastructure and buildings, the result is lots
that are significantly smaller than zoning allows. This creates a direct conflict
with lot size requirements in section 18.510.
• Finally, it is the consensus of the HBA that tree regulation and tree plan
requirements require additional resources adding cost and time to any
development project. In addition, Tigard's current program is divisive and
creates legal conflicts in the form of appeals to the Land Use Board of
Appeals for tree related issues.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• The City should not regulate trees on
private property. Private property owners should be allowed to cut trees as
they have done since the establishment of Tigard. This "hands off" approach
has successfully been done for decades with virtually no loss (and perhaps
even some gain) in tree canopy. Trees are not community property and
belong to the owners of the land.
• Eliminate the punitive standards that cost developers large sums of money for
unavoidable tree removal. There is currently over$1,000,000 in the tree
mitigation fund. It is expected to grow to over $2,000,000 within the next
year. This fund can only be used to plant trees. Last years City budget for
tree planting was $50,000. There is little available land within the City where
future trees can be planted.
• If the City does continue to regulate trees in the future, developers should
only be required to mitigate only for unnecessary tree removal.
• The City should not incentivize the preservation of potentially hazardous
trees.
• The mitigation fee in lieu should be revised to reflect the actual cost of
planting trees.
• Revise incentives to create raore higher motivation for "ee preservation so
t -at developers areable to utilize the incentives.
• The re should be no City forestry program should be balanced with the right
to subdivide and develop private property.
war-ks well with the eurrent The cost of an urban forestry program
doesnotoutweigh the benefits.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• HBAMP and its members can continue to participate in the public process so
that their views are understood by the City's decision makers.
• It is the view of those HBAMP members who have participated in the process
that the RBA's views are dismissed while the views of the Tree Board and one
extremely active Tigard citizen are taken very seriously. It is always simple to
achieve "consensus" when everyone in the room shares the same view. The
key to real and balanced stakeholder participation is to find the people who
have concerns about the forestry program and openly discuss the views of the
stakeholders' concerns and have dialogue. The HBAMP has received virtually
no feedback received from City staff, the Tree Board or the Citizen Advisory
Committee about the information and testimony HBAMP's representatives
have provided at meetings, public hearings and worksessions. This needs to
be addressed.
• By requiring costly tree mitigation and/or fees for tree removal, it is the view
of the HBA members who have been involved in this process that the Tree
Board and City Staff are putting the interest of trees ahead of the interest of
property owners. This is unacceptable.
• City staff have not made a concentrated effort to contact those property
owners who have the most potential impact under the current and future tree
code. These owners should be contacted and advised of the financial impact
the current tree code could have on their property values. These are the single
most impacted stakeholder group, yet they have never been invited to any
meetings. This needs to be addressed.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• There should be no urban forestry program because the benefits of such a
program do not outweigh the costs.
• Do not regulate trees on private property, and allows owners to manage their
land as they see fit.
• However,if the City does continue to regulate trees in the future the following
should be included/excluded from the program:
o Eliminate punitive mitigation standards and only require developers to
mitigate for unnecessary tree removal.
o Revise fee in lieu of mitigation to reflect the actual cost of tree
replacement.
o Do not incentivize the preservation of large and potentially hazardous
trees.
o Revise incentives for tree preservation so that developers are able to
utilize the incentives.
imCity of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Alan DeHarpport and Ernie Platt, Home Builder's Association of
Metropolitan Portland
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry Coordination Meeting Notes
Date: April 9, 2009
Below are my notes (in red) of your answers to the stakeholder interview questions. Please
confirm their accuracy. Thank you for your participation in this important project.
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• The 1000+ members of the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan
Portland (HBAMP) rely on the homebuilding industry for their livelihood. It
is in the interest of the membership to develop land and create building sites
for new homes. Land development requires tree removal on sites that have
trees and are zoned for development.
• Applications for land development are currently required to include tree
preservation/removal plans prior to development in order to meet Tigard
Development Code requirements.
• Under the current code section 18.790, applicants may pay a fee in lieu of
mitigation or are required to mitigate tree removal by planting replacement
trees within the City.
• HBAMP members have attended Tree Board, Planning Commission, and City
Council meetings to provide input on tree related matters such as the Urban
Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan.
• The HBAMP has a representative on the Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen
Advisory Committee.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Tree planting when the right tree is planted in the right place.
• The City's overall goal of preserving trees.
• Requiring developers to utilize the expertise of independent, certified arborists
when evaluating the conditions of trees and their viability of survival with site
development.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• The HBAMP's position is that the City's mitigation requirements are
unreasonable and punitive.
• The mitigation structure in section 18.790.030.B.2(a-d) is unreasonable
because it is not practicable to retain even 25% of the trees on sites zoned for
medium to high density residential development (5 units per acre or more).
There has likely never been a development in Tigard with 75% or greater
retention on property zoned R4.5 or higher. Heavy equipment, grading,
roads, and utilities are very disruptive to trees. Significant amounts of grading
must take place outside the right of way when driveways are cut in, sidewalks
are poured, and building footprints are cleared for structures. This results in
tree retention being limited to the perimeter of developed sites.
• The City's current program incentivizes the preservation of trees that will
cause potential future hazards. For example, trees over 12" in diameter have
root systems and canopies that extend at least 10' from the trunk. Larger trees
have larger areas around them that need to remain undisturbed. This is not
practicable is high density situations. Even if a younger but potentially large
tree species such as Doug.-fir is able to be retained,it often makes sense to
remove it to avoid potential hazards in the future.
• The fee structure associated with fee in lieu of planting for mitigation far
exceeds the actual cost to plant trees. For example, a recent mitigation project
to plant trees in Cook Park for the Fletcher Woods development cost the
developer$20,000 to complete. However, the City required the developer to
submit a bond for$106,000 or $110 per caliper inch as assurance and to cover
the City's cost of planting should the developer fail to mitigate.
• The incentives in section 18.790.040 should be updated. For example, the
density bonus incentive allows for a 1% density bonus for 2% canopy cover
retained. This bonus does not yield any practical benefit unless the site is very
large. For a site that is 10 lots, it would take 20% retention for a 10% density
bonus to add just one unit. Moreover, by adding another unit and decreasing
the amount of land available for infrastructure and buildings, the result is lots
that are significantly smaller than zoning allows. This creates a direct conflict
with lot size requirements in section 18.510.
• Finally, it is the consensus of the HBAMP that tree regulation and tree plan
requirements require additional resources adding cost and time to any
development project. In addition, Tigard's current program is divisive and
creates legal conflicts in the form of appeals to the Land Use Board of
Appeals for tree related issues.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• The City should not regulate trees on private property. Private property
owners should be allowed to cut trees as they have done since the
establishment of Tigard. This "hands off" approach has successfully been
done for decades with virtually no loss (and perhaps even some gain) in tree
canopy. Trees are not community property and belong to the owners of the
land.
• Eliminate the punitive standards that cost developers large sums of money for
unavoidable tree removal. There is currently over $1,000,000 in the tree
mitigation fund. It is expected to grow to over $2,000,000 within the next
year. This fund can only be used to plant trees. Last year's City budget for
tree planting was $50,000. There is little available land within the City where
future trees can be planted.
• If the City does continue to regulate trees in the future, developers should
only be required to mitigate only for unnecessary tree removal.
• The City should not incentivize the preservation of potentially hazardous
trees.
• The mitigation fee in lieu should be revised to reflect the actual cost of
planting trees.
• Revise incentives to create higher motivation for developers to utilize the
incentives.
• The City forestry program should be balanced with the right to subdivide and
develop private property. The cost of an urban forestry program should not
outweigh the benefits.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• HBAMP and its members continue to participate in the public process so that
their views are understood by the City's decision makers.
• It is the view of those HBAMP members who have participated in the process
that the HBAMP's views are dismissed while the views of the Tree Board and
one extremely active Tigard citizen are taken very seriously. It is always simple
to achieve "consensus" when everyone in the room shares the same view.
The key to real and balanced stakeholder participation is to find the people
who have concerns about the forestry program and openly discuss the views
of the stakeholders' concerns and have dialogue. The HBAMP has received
virtually no feedback from City staff, the Tree Board or the Citizen Advisory
Committee about the information and testimony HBAMP's representatives
have provided at meetings, public hearings and worksessions. This needs to
be addressed.
• By requiring costly tree mitigation and/or fees for tree removal,it is the view
of the HBA members who have been involved in this process that the Tree
Board and City Staff are putting the interest of trees ahead of the interest of
property owners. This is unacceptable.
• City staff has not made a concentrated effort to contact those property owners
who have the most potential impact under the current and future tree code.
These owners should be contacted and advised of the financial impact the
current tree code could have on their property values. These are the single
most impacted stakeholder group, yet they have never been invited to any
meetings. This needs to be addressed.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• There should be no urban forestry program because the benefits of such a
program do not outweigh the costs.
• Do not regulate trees on private property, and allow owners to manage their
land as they see fit.
• However,if the City does continue to regulate trees in the future the following
should be included/excluded from the program:
o Eliminate punitive mitigation standards and only require developers to
mitigate for unnecessary tree removal.
o Revise fee in lieu of mitigation to reflect the actual cost of tree
replacement.
o Do not incentivize the preservation of large and potentially hazardous
trees.
o Revise incentives for tree preservation so that developers are able to
utilize the incentives.
o Make a concerted effort to include the HBAMP and affected property
owners in the process.
Todd Prager
From: Peter Guillozet[GuillozetP@CleanWaterServices.org]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 12:37 PM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: RE: Tigard Urban Forestry Stakeholder Interview
Attachments: Stakeholder Interview Notes Clean Water Services with edits.doc
Todd,
I received comments from other staff and have attached your document with changes.
Please let me know if you have questions or concerns about them.
Regards,
Peter
From: Todd Prager [mailto:todd@tigard-or.gov]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 10:10 AM
To: Peter Guillozet
Subject: Tigard Urban Forestry Stakeholder Interview
Hi Peter,
Attached are my notes from our urban forestry discussion. Please review and let me know if there needs to be any
additions, deletions,or revisions.
Thanks for your participation, and don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Todd Prager
Associate Planner/Arborist
City of Tigard
503.718.2700
. " City of Tigard
. , Memorandum
To: Peter Guillozet,Water Resources Project Manager, Clean Water Services
From: Todd Prager, Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry Coordination Meeting Notes
Date: March 23, 2009
Below are my notes (in red) of your answers to the stakeholder interview questions. Please
confirm their accuracy. Thank you for your participation in this important project.
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• Watershed Management Department manages revegetation projects in
Tigard's stream corridors.
• Partnered with urban forester (currently unfilled) on many acres of tree
planting in Tigard's stream corridors including Englewood Park, Fanno Creek
Park, and Cook Park. These projects were funded by Surface Water
Management (SWM) fees which come from sewer system ratepayers.
• Development Services issues Service Provider Letters (SPL) for development
projects with potential impacts on stream corridors.
• CWS inspectors monitor Vegetated Corridor work of private developers to
ensure compliance with CWS standards.
• Some stream restoration projects require City of Tigard tree removal permits
and tree protection plans.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Tigard Public Works is effective at using volunteers for planting projects.
• In theory, the tree mitigation fund works well (if the money is actually used
for tree planting).
• Tigard has worked well with Clean Water Services on tree planting projects
and meeting"Tree for All" planting goals.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• Tree survey requirements can be counterproductive for restoration projects in
stream corridors. The money for tree surveys and protection plans in areas
dominated by non-native or invasive trees would be better spent on tree
planting.
• Invasive and non-native trees in Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors
should not be protected and/or require a tree removal permit. Protecting
invasives and non-natives is a barrier to restoration.
• Vegetated Corridor and other natural area plantings require long term
maintenance beyond the two-year maintenance period typically required of
developers.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• The City should be more diligent about taking a proactive approach to
inspecting Vegetated Corridors during the maintenance period if their Urban
Forestry Program includes CWS Vegetated Corridor requirements.
• Restoration projects in degraded Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors
should be exempt from tree survey and protection requirements.
• Tigard needs to adopt an inclusive invasive species list and exempt the
removal of invasive trees from Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors from
permit requirements.
• There needs to be more focus on long term maintenance of private and public
riparian plantings. This could be addressed through a combination of Code
requirements, SWM funds, and tree mitigation funds. The City should secure
a stable source of funding for vegetation maintenance.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• Continue stewardship of"Tree for All" sites even after the program ends.
• Coordinate public outreach about invasive plants and the responsibilities of
streamside property owners.
• Ensure City of Tigard and Clean Water Services regulatory requirements are
coordinated in future. Allow Clean Water Services to review/comment on
Code changes that affect stream corridors prior to adoption.
• Continue partnering to co-implement Stormwater Management Permits.
• Coordinate on implementing an integrated pest management plan.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Exempt stream restoration projects in degraded Sensitive Areas and Vegetated
Corridors from tree survey and protection requirements.
• Exempt invasive and non-native tree removal in stream corridors from permit
requirements.
• Adopt an inclusive invasive species list and exempt invasive tree removal from
permit requirements.
• Focus on long term maintenance of riparian plantings through Code revisions,
SWM funds, and tree mitigation funds.
• Secure a stable funding source for long term riparian vegetation management.
• Monitor expenditure of SWM funds to ensure that adequate funding is
provided for riparian vegetation management.
• Fill the urban forester position so that riparian revegetation projects
continue/expand in the future.
• Coordinate City planting standards in stream corridors with Clean Water
Services standards.
• Implement an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan in cooperation with
Clean Water Services.
Todd Prager
From: SCHALK Steven B[Steven.B.SC HALK@odot.state.or.us]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:05 PM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: FW: Tigard Urban Forestry Stakeholder Interview
Attachments: Stakeholder Interview Notes, ODOT.doc
Todd,
I added a couple things. Otherwise, looks good.
Steven Schalk
Dist 2A Access Management
& Engineering Coordinator
6000 SW Raab Road
Portland, OR 97221
Office 503-229-5267
Fax 503-297-6058
Steven.B.SchalkCa)_odot.state.or.us
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Prager [mailto:todd@tigard-or.gov]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:16 PM
To: SCHALK Steven B
Subject: Tigard Urban Forestry Stakeholder Interview
Hi Steve,
Attached are my notes from our urban forestry discussion. Please review and let me know if there needs to be any
additions, deletions,or revisions.
Thanks for your participation,and don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Todd Prager
Associate Planner/Arborist
City of Tigard
503.718.2700
i 1
I
- City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Steve Schalk, District 2A Engineering/Access Coordinator, Oregon
Department of Transportation
From: Todd Prager, Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry Coordination Meeting Notes
Date: March 26, 2009
Below are my notes (in red) of your answers to the stakeholder interview questions. Please
confirm their accuracy. Thank you for your participation in this important project.
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• During development, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
reviews street tree planting plans in ODOT right of ways for compliance with
ODOT specifications.
• ODOT reviews and grants permits for City tree planting projects in ODOT
right of ways (99W, Hall Boulevard, Highway 217).
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• No comment.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• Street tree planting under powerlines causes conflicts because traffic lanes are
closed for ongoing maintenance issues.
• Some trees cause damage to infrastructure (sidewalks, curbs, streets).
• Trees planted on top of underground utilities cause future conflicts due to
root interference.
• Some City tree planting and placement requirements are not coordinated with
ODOT requirements (root barriers, site distance, clear distance, limb
clearance)
• Deciduous trees require significant more maintenance work during the fall to
clean leaves from the roadway to prevent plugged inlets.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Require overhead utilities to be shown on site plans to avoid inappropriate
tree planting that will create future conflicts. Route plans to Portland General
Electric for review.
• Indicate existing street signs on plans to verify if conflicts with trees.
• Select street trees that will not conflict with hard features. Require root
barriers and other design feature that will help to minimize conflicts.
• Require development projects to locate utilities on planting plans prior to
MOT and City review. This help to ensure that trees are not planted on top
of existing utilities.
• Clarify jurisdictional requirements and coordinate during future Code updates.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• Clarify jurisdictional requirements and coordinate during future Code updates.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Prohibit the planting of trees that will conflict with powerlines. Route plans
to Portland General Electric for review.
• Require root barriers and other design feature that will help to minimize
conflicts with hard features.
• Require development projects to locate utilities on planting plans prior to
MOT and City review.
• Clarify jurisdictional requirements in MOT right of ways:
o MOT site distance requirements supersede Tigard requirements.
o MOT clear distance requirements supersede Tigard requirements.
o MOT branch clearance requirements supersede Tigard requirements.
o MOT has final signoff authority on any trees planted or removed in
ODOT right of way (ODOT permit required).
Todd Prager
From: Chad Burns [Chad.Burns@pgn.com]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 7:45 AM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: RE: Tigard Urban Forestry Stakeholder Interview
Sounds great Todd ! Thanks again for thinking of PGE when considering the urban forest in Tigard.
Chad
503-849-3589
From: Todd Prager [mailto:todd@tigard-or.gov]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 2:31 PM
To: Chad Burns
Subject: Tigard Urban Forestry Stakeholder Interview
Hi Chad,
Attached are my notes from our urban forestry discussion. Please review and let me know if there needs to be any
revisions or additions.
Thanks for your participation,and don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Todd Prager
Associate Planner/Arborist
City of Tigard
503.718.2700
1
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Chad Burns, Portland General Electric Western Forester
From: Todd Prager, Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry Coordination Meeting Notes
Date: March 13, 2009
Below are my notes (in red) of your answers to the stakeholder interview questions. Please
confirm their accuracy. Thank you both for your participation in this important project.
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• PGE continually trims trees away from overhead conductors in Tigard to
provide for the safe, reliable and continual source of electricity to meet the
needs of commercial and residential customers.
• PGE considers the City of Tigard an integral participant in this process in
terms of establishing approved street tree lists, encouraging appropriate and
responsible plantings, approving of ideal specimens for their heritage tree
program and having the long term vision to develop and maintain an urban
forestry program.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• As a whole, Tigard's urban forestry program works extremely well. There is
very qualified and attentive stewardship of trees in the City of Tigard.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• Some inappropriate street tree plantings in the City of Tigard.
• Several potentially hazardous tree/utility conflicts in the City of Tigard.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Remove and replace inappropriate street trees.
• Aid in the hazardous tree removal by providing the labor and equipment
necessary.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• PGE can contribute appropriate trees to new planting sites.
• Aid in hazardous tree removal where the threat of an overhead conductor is a
factor.
• Attend monthly City coordination meetings.
• Share in the exchange of information and of past experiences of what works
well and what doesn't work quite well in other municipalities.
• Assist in any educational capacity such as right tree/right place programs.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Future programs need to recognize the conflict between a static overhead
distribution system of electricity and the dynamic nature of vegetation
management around PGE facilities.
• Invite PGE to monthly City coordination meetings.
• Route tree plans to PGE for review.
Todd Prager
From: Chad Burns[Chad.Burns@pgn.com]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 7:52 AM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: RE: Tree Maintenance in Tigard
Todd,
I would stick with the$500,000.00 figure. Its an estimate but pretty close.
From: Todd Prager [mailto:todd@tigard-or.gov]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 10:52 AM
To: Chad Burns
Subject: RE: Tree Maintenance in Tigard
Thanks Chad. This is very helpful. So is the total cost$750,000-$775,000 per year then? I will add this data to our
Urban Forestry Master Plan so the financial implications of planting inappropriate trees under wires will be more
apparent.
Thanks again for your input, I and will keep you updated as the Plan develops over the next year.
-Todd
From: Chad Burns [mailto:Chad.Burns@pgn.com]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 10:18 AM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: RE: Tree Maintenance in Tigard
Todd,
The following numbers are a little rough as our mapping is based on township, range and section and not necessarily on
city boundaries, but to keep the trees in the city of Tigard clear of our wire costs about$500,000.00. We pretty much
have a crew almost full time in Tigard year round and our crew costs(with variations for flagging, climbing, etc.)cost
about 250-275k a year.
As far as I know we have never done an inventory of the number of trees pruned in Tigard. Wish I could help more..
Any questions please give a call !
Chad
From: Todd Prager [mailto:todd@tigard-or.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 8:14 AM
To: Chad Burns
Subject: RE: Tree Maintenance in Tigard
Thanks Chad. I really appreciate it.
l -Todd
From: Chad Burns [mailto:Chad.Burns@pgn.com]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 7:52 AM
1
To:Todd Prager
Subject: RE: Tree Maintenence in Tigard
Todd,
Let me do some digging around. We break Tigard up in a couple different ways and our boundaries do not necessarily
coincide with city boundaries. We trim the entire area every two years however and I'm sure we can get together some
numbers for you regarding the amount of rate payer monies that go towards utility pruning in the Tigard area. The
number of trees that we trim might be more difficult to calculate, as far as I know no one has ever counted. Let me check
with my boss first however and we'll see what we can't put together.
Chad Burns
PGE western forester
503-849-3589
From: Todd Prager [mailto:todd@tigard-or.gov]
Sent:Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:00 PM
To: Chad Burns
Subject: Tree Maintenence in Tigard
Hi Chad,
I am doing some preliminary work on Tigard's Urban Forestry Master Plan,and am putting together a summary of some
of the major benefits and costs associated with Tigard's urban forest. Do you have any data on the annual expenditures
for PGE on utility pruning in Tigard? Also, do you know approximately how many trees are pruned by PGE/Asplundh in
Tigard? Any details you could provide me would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Todd Prager
City of Tigard
Arborist
503 718-2700
2
Todd Prager
From: Teragan &Associates[terry@teragan.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 9:46 PM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: Re: Tigard Urban Forestry Stakeholder Interview
Looks good Todd.
Terrence P. Flanagan
Board Certified Master Arborist#PN-0120BMT
Certified Tree Risk Assessor# PNW - 0152
Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists
Teragan& Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
(503) 697-1975 office
(503) 697-1976 fax
(503) 803-0017 cell
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Prager
To: Teragan &Associates
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: Tigard Urban Forestry Stakeholder Interview
Thanks for the clarification Terry. I have attached revised notes with deletions StFU61449UgI4 and additions underlined.
Please let me know if there needs to be further revisions.
Thanks,
Todd
From: Teragan &Associates [mailto:terry@teragan.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 11:23 AM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: Re: Tigard Urban Forestry Stakeholder Interview
Hi Todd,
After a quick review I included some comments and changes. Let me know if you have any questions.
Terrence P. Flanagan
Board Certified Master Arborist# PN-0120BMT
Certified Tree Risk Assessor# PNW- 0152
Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists
Teragan&Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
(503) 697-1975 office
(503) 697-1976 fax
(503) 803-0017 cell
-----Original Message-----
1
;From: Todd Prager_To: Teraaan &Associates-
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 10:12 AM
Subject: Tigard Urban Forestry Stakeholder Interview
Hi Terry,
Attached are my notes'from our urban forestry meeting last Friday. Please review and let me know if there needs to
be any revisions or additions.
Thanks for your participation,and don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Todd Prager
Associate Planner/Arborist
City of Tigard
503.718.2700
2
City of Tigard
. , Memorandum
To: Terry Flanagan, ISA Director, Pacific Northwest Chapter of the
International Society of Arboriculture
From: Todd Prager, Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry Coordination Meeting Notes
Date: March 3, 2009
Below are my notes (in red) of your answers to the stakeholder interview questions. Please
confirm their accuracy. Thank you for your participation in this important project.
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• High level of involvement with tree ordinance through development projects.
• Assist private property owners with tree management outside the
development process.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Tree code helps to incentivize preservation because increasing tree removal
requires increasing mitigation and associated costs.
• Bi-weekly arborist report condition of approval helps to ensure better project
oversight and tree plan implementation.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• Tree code penalizes property owners with heavily treed lots more than those
with un-treed lots. Mitigation is tied solely to tree removal. This may have the
effect of precluding development in heavily treed areas such as the Tigard
Triangle that are zoned for dense development.
• Mitigation standards encourage overplanting of trees or planting of small
stature trees to meet mitigation requirements. Requiring tree replacement on a
caliper inch basis may not be appropriate for every tree and contributes to
overplanting.
• No sustainable funding for urban forestry programs. There needs to be a
stable funding source for Tigard's urban forestry program that can be utilized
for tree maintenance, not just tree planting.
• Bi weekly arbarist r-eperts eaft be hard for- the City to traek, espeeift4y dtifing
the transition fiam site develeptnent to building phase.
Project arborists are hired to protect their clients. This eaf r-esu t in ftfba ist
reports with false or feAsleading infarmatian-.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Determine tree stocking levels based on plantable areas as is done in the City
of Vancouver,WA. This could be accomplished by matching available soil
volumes for lots of various sizes with trees.
• Allow required trees such as parking lot and street trees to count for
mitigation. This will help alleviate overplanting of mitigation trees.
• Provide incentives for planting of natives and large stature mitigation trees.
One incentive could be to offer more mitigation credit for planting natives
and large stature trees. This will help alleviate overplanting and encourage the
planting of trees that offer the most environmental benefits.
• Develop spacing standards based on the mature size of trees to improve long
term growth and health.
• Urban forestry funding can be more sustainable if it tied to stable sources such
as stormwater fees, permit fees, transportation fees, etc. This will also allow
for the urban forestry funds to be used for long term tree maintenance.
• Bi-weekly arborist reports should be required in future code updates. The
City should require a copy of the contract for bi-weekly reports and require
the project arborist to send a notice to the City if the contract is terminated.
preservation plan.
• The City should require more personal accountability for project arborists to
discourage false or misleading information.
• An alternative method to limit false or misleading reports would be for the
Ci1y to hire a third partly the arborist to do the tree preservation report and bi-
weekly inspections.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• ISA can provide input and review on future tree code revisions.
• ISA can be a resource for code provisions that have been successful in other
jurisdictions and may be appropriate for Tigard.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Require mitigation based on stocking levels, not on a caliper inch basis.
• Develop clear and specific mitigation requirements that favor native and large
stature trees, and require spacing per industry standards. Allow required
landscape trees and street trees to count towards mitigation requirements.
• Do not unfairly penalize property owners with heavily treed lots that will have
trees that are overcrowded and not in good condition.
• Incentivize protection and replanting of natives and large stature trees.
• Identify sustainable funding sources for urban forestry programs. Fund long
term maintenance of trees, not just tree planting.
• Require project arborists to be brought onto the project team as early as
possible.
• Allow the project arborist to drive the tree preservation plan in future code
updates, not the project engineer.
• Require metal fencing in future code updates.
• Develop a zone of clearance for building footprints, and don't penalize
developers for removing trees in clearance zones. This zone could be 5'-10'
or 3 to 5 times the diameter of the tree. However, site and species
characteristics should be considered when crafting code revisions.
• Increase planting strip size and require root barriers to protect streets and
sidewalks.
• Require utilities to be under the street, not in the planter strip where trees
should be.
• Hire a greenspace coordinator to manage the City's greenspaces.
U
City of Tigard
Tree Board — Minutes
MEETING DATE: April 1, 2009, 6:30-8:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Library, 2nd Floor Conference Room,
13500 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223
Members Present Janet Gillis,David Walsh,Dennis Sizemore
Members Absent—Tony Tycer, Matt Clemo
Council/Staff Present—Councilor Marland Henderson,Todd Prager,John Floyd
Visitors—John Frewing, Karen Estrada
1. Introduction and Opening_Remarks
At 6:36 p.m.,Janet Gillis called the meeting to order and thanked staff for the urban forestry informational
materials in Attachments 1 through 4 in the April 1, 2009 Tree Board meeting packet.
2. Review and Approval of January 28, 2009 Meeting Minutes
At 6:37 p.m.,Janet Gillis made a motion to approve the January 28, 2009 Tree Board minutes (Attachment
5,April 1, 2009 Tree Board Meeting Packet). Dennis Sizemore seconded the motion, and thus the minutes
were approved.
3. Tree Stewardship Award Recipient Selection
At 6:38 p.m.John Floyd described the following nominees for the 2008 Tree Stewardship Awards:
• Phil Thornburg of Tigard Friends Church has volunteered with the City on preparing flagging for
native tree and shrub planting for the Healthy Streams Program. Mr. Thornburg has included
people of all ages and physical abilities in preparing flags that indicate the species and location of
trees and shrubs to be planted during restoration work.
• Sue Manning, science teacher at Fowler Middle School, has led students over the years in the
restoration of the Fowler Forest, and recently in a rain garden installation project on the Fowler
parking lot.
r
TIGARD TREE BOARD MEETING MINUTES—Lril 1, 2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of S
i
• Michael O'Loughlin, parent volunteer, has led projects to plant trees and gardens on Woodward
Elementary campus, and restore a native tree grove on the Alberta Rider campus. He also helped
design the Arbor Day tree planting at Alberta Rider and will participate in long term maintenance.
John Floyd recommended to the Tree Board that they approve all three nominations.
David Walsh asked what are the approval criteria for the awards. Mr. Floyd responded that the criteria are
expansive since this is only the second year of the awards and the program is still evolving.
Dennis Sizemore said all three are worthy candidates and he likes their diversity. Mr. Sizemore said he
would support approving all three nominations.
Janet Gillis commented that she liked the focus on long term tree maintenance for Michael O'Loughlin,
the longevity of Sue Manning's work, and inclusiveness and practicality of the church's efforts.
The Tree Board voted to unanimously approve all three nominations.
Marissa Daniels reminded the Tree Board that they were invited to the Arbor Day Celebration at Alberta
Rider Elementary at 10:00 a.m. on April 7, 2009.
4. Tree Code Update
At 6:50 p.m.John Floyd provided the following updates to the Tree Board regarding Tree Code Revisions:
• On March 16, 2009, Planning Commission approved the "Tree Preservation" revisions to the Tree
Code.
• On April 21, 2009 Council will hold a workshop, and on May 12, 2009 Council will hold a public
hearing before adopting the revisions.
• Following adoption of the Tree Preservation standards, staff will begin comprehensive tree code
revisions including 18.790, 18.745, 18.350, 9.06,minimum density, and mitigation standards.
• The City Attorney is working on mediating the Home Builder's Association Appeal of the Urban
Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan. Possible mediation measures include adopting a policy
stating the City will adhere to Statewide Planning Goal 5 requirements whenever applicable.
Prager added that Ron Bunch wanted to communicate to the Tree Board through his memo (Attachment
7,April 1, 2009 Tree Board Meeting Packet) that the Urban Forest Master Plan is not delaying updates to
the Tree Code.
5. Urban Forestry Master Plan Stakeholder Interview
Prager then requested that the Tree Board provide responses to the Urban Forestry Master Plan
stakeholder interview questions that he has been asking of other stakeholder groups. Prager said the
TIGARD TREE BOARD MEETING MINUTES—4611, 2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of 5
answers will allow for future programs and Code revisions to incorporate the needs and suggestions of
major stakeholders.
The Tree Board provided the following responses (in red) to the stakeholder questions (in black).
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• The Tree Board is an oversight body for Tigard's urban forestry program.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• The City actively works to include the greater community in developing its urban forestry program.
• The City collects substantial fees to be used for the planting of trees.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• The City's departments are not well coordinated on urban forestry issues due to lack of
communication.
• Tree management provisions are scattered throughout the Code and not unified.
• The Tree Code is too focused on development.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• More communication between City departments.
• Unify tree related provisions in Code.
• Focus future Code on areas outside development, and fix the mitigation issue.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest.
• The Tree Board can help create a plan for the future management of Tigard's urban forest.
• The Tree Board can help execute the action measures in the plan. Mitigation funds can be used to
implement the plan.
• The Tree Board can continue to reach out to stakeholders when implementing the plan.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Increase communication between City departments.
• Unify tree related Code provisions.
TIGARD TREE BOARD MEETING MINUTES —A ril 1, 2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 3 of 5
• Focus future Code revisions on areas outside development.
• Make sure Code revisions can be translated into something the public can understand.
• Expand community education on urban forestry issues. Use Eastmoreland outreach materials as a
model.
• Continually measure progress on canopy preservation/expansion and community attitudes.
• Plan for future annexations of tree resources in areas outside of the City limits.
Prager said he would summarize the Tree Board's responses for their review and approval in the next Tree
Board meeting minutes.
Prager then asked the Tree Board what their main frustrations were with regards to current realities. David
Walsh expressed a need to get moving forward on action measures and that there has been too much
planning. Mr. Walsh also said there needs to be a work plan with regards to Code updates and follow-up
on the Urban Forestry Master Plan.
Dennis Sizemore agreed that the Urban Forestry Master Plan needs to continue the momentum towards
implementation. Mr. Sizemore said that the action items need to be specific enough that progress will be
measurable.
Janet Gillis then reminded the Tree Board that the next meeting will be an Urban Forestry Master Plan
meeting on May 6, 2009. Ms. Gillis then opened the meeting up to public comment.
7. Public Comment
At 7:27 p.m. Karen Estrada provided the Tree Board a copy of a letter she sent to the Planning
Commission. In the letter, Ms. Estrada explained a situation in her neighborhood where a developer let a
land use decision expire in order to remove approximately 20 protected trees and gain exemption from
mitigation requirements. She suggested to the Tree Board that the Code be revised to require mitigation
for trees removed within two years prior to development. Ms. Estrada emphasized future Code should
consider infill requirements with respect to tree preservation.
David Walsh commented that closing loopholes to mitigation requirements has been an ongoing problem
in Tigard. Mr. Walsh said that he would support a two year requirement, but that Council needed to hear
this request. He said that in the past Council has not supported a tree removal permit system.
Dennis Sizemore agreed that Council needs to deal with this issue.
Janet Gillis said that the Tree Board has been trying to move this issue along for three years.
TIGARD TREE BOARD MEETING MINUTES—A ril 1, 2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 4 of 5
John Floyd said the current amendments to the Tree Code do not address mitigation requirements, but he
encouraged her to submit testimony to Council on April 21, 2009 and May 12, 2009.
Prager explained that in 1983, the Tree Code required removal permits for trees over 6 inches in diameter
on industrial, commercial, and undeveloped residential property. He said that in 1997 the Code was
revised to its current requirements. Dennis Sizemore said that Council should be informed of these
historical Code provisions and understand that tree preservation with respect to infill development needs
to be seriously considered.
Councilor Marland Henderson, Tree Board Liaison to Council, suggested that Ms. Estrada voice her
opinion at the fifth Tuesday Council meetings where she would be given five minutes for public comment.
8. Closing Remarks and Adjournment
Chairwoman Gillis adjourned the meeting at 7:57 p.m.
TIGARD TREE BOARD MEETING MINUTES—Lri11, 2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 5 of 5
Todd Prager
From: Todd Prager
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 2:50 PM
To: 'Troy Mears'
Subject: RE: Stakeholder Interviews
Thanks.
From: Troy Mears [mailto:troym@srdllc.com]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 2:21 PM
To:Todd Prager
Subject: RE: Stakeholder Interviews
Your welcome Todd, looks like you interpreted pretty well. I would go with it.
Thanks.
Troy
From: Todd Prager [mailto:todd@tigard-or.gov]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 1:40 PM
To: Troy Mears
Subject: Stakeholder Interviews
Hi Troy,
Attached are my notes from our urban forestry meeting the other day. Please review and let me know if there needs to
be any revisions or additions.
Thanks for your participation in the project.
-Todd
1
" City of Tigard
. , Memorandum
To: Troy Mears, Urban Forestry Stakeholder
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry Coordination Meeting Notes
Date: February 18, 2009
Below are my notes (in red) of your answers to the stakeholder interview questions. Please
confirm their accuracy. Thank you for your participation in this important project.
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• High level of familiarity with Tigard's tree and landscape ordinances.
• Regularly implements codes during development projects to meet landscape
and mitigation requirements.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Tigard actually has a tree and landscape ordinance whereas some cities do not.
• Tigard staff is easily accessible to discuss issues with and work out solutions.
• The Urban Forestry Master Plan will result in a more comprehensive
approach to future tree and landscape ordinance updates.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• Replanting on a caliper inch basis does not work because it incentivizes
overplanting.
• Site planning is focused too heavily on building needs and not on existing site
conditions. This causes an excessive amount of clear cutting.
• Landscape architects do not have enough flexibility in landscape design
because landscape code requirements are overly specific.
• Street tree list is outdated, and many of the species are no longer appropriate
or relevant.
• Street trees and streetscapes are non-uniform. Different development projects
choose different types of trees so city blocks become a hodgepodge of street
trees.
• Many parts of the tree code are overly vague, which creates loopholes and a
wide variety of interpretations. For example, there are no spacing, species, or
nursery stock quality standards with respect to mitigation trees.
• Need more tree and landscape related expertise on the Tree Board.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Focus tree code revisions on preservation and less on mitigation. If
preservation requirements are increased, then mitigation could occur on a tree
for tree basis rather than inch for inch.
• Need to be stricter on grading with respect to trees. This can occur by
focusing more on existing conditions and how trees can be incorporated into
the building design. Also, landscape architects should be required to
collaborate more with project arborists in order to identify which trees are
appropriate for preservation, and how to adjust grading to preserve trees.
Perhaps there should be a dual sign off on preservation plans between the
landscape architect and project arborist.
• Allow for more flexibility in landscape requirements in future updates.
Require landscape architects to be part of the design team, and sign off on
planting before, during, and after installations.
• Update street tree list.
• To improve uniformity of streetscapes, the developers should have to survey
the street trees in a 4-5 block radius and choose trees that complement
existing plantings.
• The tree/mitigation code sections need more specificity. The City of Salem
has a detailed development design handbook with detailed drawings and
specifications that are referred to in their development code. This allows for
more clarity as to what is expected of the development.
• When advertising Tree Board vacancies, specify that you are looking for
members with tree and landscape expertise. Advertise vacancies with local
professional organizations.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• Sends drafts of tree and landscape code revisions to ASLA for review and
comment.
• Contact ASLA to see if members could get credit hours for developing codes
and design handbooks.
• Hire ASLA members to help develop code and design guidelines.
• Share example codes that require maximum preservation of existing trees.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• More focus on preservation through improved grading plans, less focus on
mitigation. The City needs to take a leadership role in this.
• More focus on sustainable landscapes. Not necessarily native trees, but trees
that are appropriate for site conditions.
• Need detailed design/preservation manual with illustrations.
• Need to have a warranty period for required landscaping to ensure
establishment.
• Need to require powerlines to be shown on landscape plans to avoid future
overhead utility conflicts.
• Landscape architects should be a required member of the design team.
Todd Prager
From: Phil Wentz[pwentz@ttsd.kl2.or.us]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 2:15 PM
To: Todd Prager; mescriva@ttsd.kl2.or.us
Subject: RE: Tigard Urban Forestry Stakeholder Interviews
Thanks Todd! We look forward to working with you.
Phil
Phil Wentz, M.Ed., Facilities Manager
Tigard-Tualatin School District
6960 SW Sandburg St.
Tigard, OR. 97223
office: 503-431-4017 fax: 503-431-4020 mobile: 971-563-1605
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This email may contain confidential and privileged information.The information contained in
this transmission is intended for the addressee ONLY. If you are not the addressee of this
email, please do not review, disclose, copy or distribute any of the information enclosed. If
you have received this transmission by mistake, please telephone us immediately.
Thank you!
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Prager [mailto:todd(a@tigard-or.gov]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 1:18 PM
To: Phil Wentz; mescriva@ttsd.kl2.or.us
Subject: Tigard Urban Forestry Stakeholder Interviews
Hi Phil and Maryann,
Attached are my notes from our urban forestry meeting today. Please review and let me know
if there needs to be any revisions or additions.
Thanks for your participation in this project, and we'll keep in touch about future planting
projects.
Todd Prager
Associate Planner/Arborist
1
City of Tigard
503.718.2700
Z
SCity of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Phil Wentz, Facilities Manager, and Maryann Escriva, Custodial Manager,
for Tigard-Tualatin School District
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry Coordination Meeting Notes
Date: February 23, 2009
Below are my notes (in red) of your answers to the stakeholder interview questions. Please
confirm their accuracy. Thank you both for your participation in this important project.
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• Somewhat limited.
• Participation in the Tigard Neighborhood Trails Study.
• Manage trees on School District property.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Adequate budget for tree planting and early establishment.
• City of Tigard is very cooperative with the School District.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• Lack of communication prior to planting trees on School District property. It
is important to coordinate with Facilities Division so that long term
maintenance issues can be addressed prior to planting.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Bring Facilities Division into the planning process from the beginning of a
tree planting project.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• School District properties may offer opportunities to utilize City tree planting
funds.
• Wetlands on School District properties may offer wetland mitigation
opportunities for the City.
• Facilities Division would be able to provide guidance as to the types of trees
and planting layouts that will facilitate long term maintenance by the District.
• School District can contact City Arborist to find out if permits are required
for tree removal and/or planting.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Bring Facilities Division into the planning process from the beginning of tree
planting projects on School District properties.
• Focus on low maintenance plantings with evergreens and other trees with low
leaf litter.
Todd Prager
From: Brian Wegener[brian@tualatinriverkeepers.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 4:47 PM
To: Todd Prager
Cc: Darren Wyss; Doreen Laughlin; Gary Pagenstecher; Lyn Bonyhadi;
wantlands@cleanwaterservices.org
Subject: Re: Tigard Urban Forestry Stakeholder Interview
Todd,
The notes look great.
The Low Impact Development presentation should take 15 minutes+questions. I could do longer depending on how
much depth you want to go into, but it seems like the PC agendas are very packed so I can keep it brief.
Brian Wegener
Watershed Watch Coordinator
Tualatin Riverkeepers
Office: 503-620-7507
Cell: 503-936-7612
www.tualatinriverkeepers.org
Click here to sign up for the monthly Heron
Now E-zine, Citizen Action Alerts, or
Volunteer Opportunities e-mail lists.
Secure donations through
KetWDrk forGood
Todd Prager wrote:
Hi Brian,
Attached are my notes from our urban forestry meeting today. Please review and let me know if there needs to be any
revisions or additions.
I also spoke with Ron Bunch, Community Development Director, about your presentation to Planning Commission on
low impact development techniques. He thought it was a good idea and would like to get you scheduled for a
presentation. May 4th would probably be the first available date. Could you please let me know how long you expect
the presentation to be (taking into consideration questions from the Commissioners)?
Thanks for your participation, and we'll keep in touch.
Todd Prager
Associate Planner/Arborist
City of Tigard
503.718.2700
1
- City of Tigard
. . , Memorandum
To: Brian Wegener, Tualatin Riverkeepers
From: Todd Prager, Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Urban Forestry Coordination Meeting Notes
Date: February 24, 2009
Below are my notes (in red) of your answers to the stakeholder interview questions. Please
confirm their accuracy. Thank you for your participation in this important project.
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• High level of involvement.
• Work closely with the City and Metro on restoration projects in Tigard.
• Provide comments on municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) permits.
• Provide comments on City of Tigard Parks plans and occasionally on private
development applications.
• Participated in the development of the Healthy Streams Plan by Clean Water
Services.
• Member of Oregon Community Trees, a non-profit organization that
promotes urban and community forestry in Oregon.
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Mitigation fee structure provides an adequate budget for tree planting.
3. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program do not work well, and why?
• Trees could be better utilized for stormwater management in developed areas
such as along street and in parking lots.
• Urban forestry funds could be collected and utilized more strategically. An
example would be to use stormwater management fees to fund restoration
programs.
• The City of Tigard could make more of a public commitment to sustainability
efforts such as by signing the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement.
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well?
• Improve parking lot design standards to incorporate stormwater treatment
features and more tree canopy.
• Retrofit existing parking lots to improve stormwater treatment and tree
canopy using grant money and other funding sources.
• Encourage/require the use of more evergreen species in parking lots and
streets so that the stormwater benefits of trees can be utiltized during the
winter rainy season.
• Collect urban forestry funds more strategically through stormwater fees,
development fees, etc. so that the funding sources are more sustainable and
can be used for more than just tree planting.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• Tualatin Riverkeepers can assist with volunteer recruitment for urban forestry
projects.
• Tualatin Riverkeepers can help educate kids about the importance of
environmental stewardship through camp and recreation programming.
• Tualatin Riverkeepers can help identify potential restoration sites.
• Tualatin Riverkeepers can provide training to Planning Commission, City
Council, City staff, and others on low impact development techniques.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Improve parking lot design standards to incorporate stormwater treatment
and more tree canopy.
• Increase stormwater incentives/requirements for development such as the
"no runoff' provisions as in Lacey Washington.
• Collect urban forestry funds more strategically through stormwater fees,
development fees, etc. so that the funding sources are more sustainable and
can be used for more than just tree planting.
• More public commitment to sustainability efforts such as signing the Mayor's
Climate Protection Agreement.
• More efforts in invasive species removal. Incentivize and/or require private
landowners to remove invasives.