Urban Forestry Master Plan Committee - 07/01/2009 City of Tigard
C
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee —Agenda
MEETING DATE: July 1, 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..................................................................................................................6:30-6:31
2. Introduction and Opening Remarks.........................................:
.............................................6:31-6:
33
3. Approve Minutes.......................................................................................................................6:33-6:35
4. Update on Additional Tree Canopy Studies..........................................................................6:35-6:45
5. Draft Plan Discussion...............................................................................................................6:45-7:15
6. Public Comment on Draft Plan..............................................................................................7:15-7:30
7. Consideration of Public Comment on Draft Plan................................................................7:30-8:00
Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee AGENDA—July 1, 2009
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 oft
° City of Tigard
e -
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 July 1,2009
Date: June 22,2009
INTRODUCTION
The following summarizes topics proposed for discussion at the July 1,2009 meeting of the Urban
Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee.
REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE MAY 6,2009 URBAN FORESTRY
MASTER PLAN CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
The Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee held a meeting on May 6,2009. The
minutes of the meeting have been summarized in Attachment 1 by Todd Prager for the Committee's
review and approval.
UPDATE ON ADDITIONAL TREE CANOPY STUDIES
In response to a request by the Citizen Advisory Committee, staff is in the process of completing two
additional tree canopy studies for inclusion in the Urban Forestry Master Plan. The first study has been
completed and involved estimating the possible percent citywide tree canopy for Tigard. This
information is being used to set realistic long term tree canopy goals. A canopy map and brief
description of the methodology used is included in Attachment 2.
The second study is ongoing and involves identifying the current percent canopy in Tigard's parking
lots. When completed,this information will be used to analyze the effectiveness of Tigard's current
parking lot requirements and will allow for the tracking of parking lot canopy in the future.
DRAFT PLAN DISCUSSION
A second draft of the Urban Forestry Master Plan has been completed by staff and provided for the
Committee's review and comment in Attachment 3. The draft Plan was significantly revised based on
comments received by the Committee on May 6,2009.
The draft Plan discussion will consist of three parts:
1. Discussion of the overall structure of the Plan.
Page 1 of 2
2.Discussion of any specific items/recommendations in the Plan that should be removed or revised.
3.Discussion of any specific items/recommendations that are not in the Plan that should be included.
Major changes to the overall structure or specific recommendations in the Plan will be subject to a
majority vote as well as staffing and financial resources. Please keep in mind that the role of the
Committee is to reflect the values of the overall community and balance the potential economic, social,
and environmental impacts that will result from the Plan.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON DRAFT PLAN
The draft Urban Forestry Master Plan is open for public comment from May 26,2009 through August
21,2009. Staff has advertised the comment period through many avenues including the Cityscape
newsletter,the City website,the Tigard Times Newspaper, the Neighborhood Network websites,and by
emailing copies to City staff,community stakeholders,public agencies,and professional organizations.
All of the comments received have been included in Attachment 4. There will also be an opportunity at
the July 1,2009 meeting for additional public comment.
CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC COMMENT ON DRAFT PLAN
After receiving written and oral public comment on the draft Plan, the Committee will be given time to
consider incorporating those comments into the draft Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
_. Attachment 1: Minutes From The May 6,2009 Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory
Committee Meeting
Attachment 2: Possible Citywide Tree Canopy Results
Attachment 3: Draft Urban Forestry Master Plan
Attachment 4: Public Comment
Page 2 of 2
Attachment 1
V
City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee - Minutes
MEETING DATE: May 6, 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—Dennis Sizemore,Janet Gillis, Morgan Holen,Tony Tycer,David Walsh, Matt Clemo,
Mort Ettelstein, Phil Hickey
Members Absent—
Staff Present—Councilor Marland Henderson,Todd Prager,Marissa Daniels,John Floyd
Visitors John Frewing, Karen Estrada, Ken Gertz
1. Introductions and Opening Remarks
The Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP), Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting began at 6:32 p.m.
with an opening statement by Todd Prager. Prager described the purpose of the meeting as being to
review stakeholder input, receive input from the CAC on the draft Urban Forestry Master Plan, and begin
forming implementation objectives.
Prager also explained that due to input from the CAC at the March 4, 2009 meeting, the City's GIS group
is conducting a study of parking lot tree canopy. In addition, Prager said that the potential canopy study is
ongoing and that it will be completed in time for the July 1, 2009 CAC meeting.
2. Review and Approve Minutes from the March 4, 2009 Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen
Advisory Committee meeting
At 6:35 p.m. the CAC approved the March 4, 2009 meeting minutes (Attachment 1, UFMP CAC May 6,
2009 meeting packet).
3. Results of Stakeholder Interviews
Prager then briefly summarized the highlights of the urban forestry stakeholder meetings that were held
over the past months (Attachment 2, UFMP CAC May 6, 2009 meeting packet).
Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Portland (HBAMP):
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meering Minutes—May 6,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 7
Attachment 1
• HBAMP members think the City should take a hands-off approach to tree management on private
property.
• HBAMP members want the City's current mitigation fee structure eliminated and replaced with a
more incentive based approach.
Clean Water Services (CWS):
• CWS wants barriers to habitat restoration eliminated from the Code.
• CWS wants more focus on long term maintenance of streamside vegetation.
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT):
• ODOT wants more coordination between the ODOT street tree requirements and the City's street
tree requirements.
Tony Tycer commented that the City needs to stand up to ODOT with regards to their tree management
practices.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board:
• No comment.
Portland General Electric (PGE):
• PGE wants to review development plans so that tree conficts with overhead utilities can be
avoided.
• PGE also has offered to partner with the City in removing problem trees that have been repeatedly
topped and replace them with more appropriate trees for beneath utility lines.
Tony Tycer commented that much of this could be avoided if utility lines were undergrounded as a
condition of development approval.
Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (PNWISA):
• PNWISA wants arbotists involved in tree preservation process earlier in the development process.
• PNWISA want future Code to not unfairly penalize owners with trees, and to shift to a more
incentive based approach.
Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce:
• No comment.
Tree Board:
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—May 6,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of 7
Attachment 1
• Tree Board wants future Code and programs to be focused.on areas outside of development.
• Tree Board wants future Code to be more user friendly.
Oregon Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA):
• ASLA wants more focus on preserving high quality trees and less on mitigation.
• ASLA wants a design manual with drawings that demonstrate what the City wants streetscapes and
parking lots to look like.
Tigard Tualatin School District (TTSD):
• Want to partner with City more on planting trees on school grounds.
Janet Gillis commented that there will need to be assurances that the trees will be maintained.
Tualatin Riverkeepers:
• Tualatin Riverkeepers want parking lot landscape standards to be improved with more focus on
water quality.
• Tualatin Riverkeepers want more focus on managing invasive plants in stream corridors.
Tony Tycer commented that he noticed Metro was not on stakeholder list. Prager responded that staff
decided that Metro as well as State and Federal agencies were regulatory groups rather than stakeholders.
Therefore,Metro was addressed in the policy framework section of the Master Plan rather than as a
stakeholder.
4. Draft Plan Discussion
Prager then shifted the discussion to the draft Urban Forestry Master Plan (Attachment 3, UFMP CAC
May 6, 2009 meeting packet). Prager explained that the draft Plan has been provided so that the CAC
would have all of the information available to begin formulating implementation goals later in the meeting.
He added that the draft Plan followed outlines of other urban forestry plans as well as ISA guidelines. He
said the draft will be extensively reorganized and edited over the coming months to make it more user
friendly.
Prager asked Mort Ettelstein to share some of his ideas and expertise with the group on how the draft Plan
could be reorganized.
Mort Ettelstein said that the Plan could be reorganized so that each section was specific to the overall
implementation objectives. Mr. Ettelstein said this will focus the document and make it more user friendly.
Dave Walsh added that it would be useful to separate out the sections so that it is in more manageable
chunks.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meering Minutes—May 6,2009
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 3 of7
Attachment 1
Tony Tycer said that when the document is posted on-line it would make it more useable if it could be
searched by key words.
The CAC generally agreed that flow charts, timelines,graphs, and images could be used to shorten the
document and make it more user friendly.
Morgan Holen suggested that a definitions section should be added to the appendix.
Dennis Sizemore said he thought it would be good to have the implementation matrix in the front of the
document after the executive summary.
Morgan Holen said that the terminology in the background section should be consistent with the
terminology in the vision.
Dave Walsh said that it will be important to boil the information down for Planning Commission and
Council into a 10-15 minute presentation.
Prager said he would work on revising the document with their comments and present them with a second
draft at the July 1, 2009 CAC meeting.
5. Implementation Goals Discussion
Marissa Daniels then led a discussion on implementation goals for the Urban Forestry Master Plan. She
asked Todd Prager to present to the CAC the draft goals that he discussed with Council the previous week.
Prager explained to the CAC that he had discussed organizing the Master Plan into the following six
themes based on direction he has received from Council and all of the background information in the draft
Urban Forestry Master Plan:
-Develop hazard tree program
-Revise landscaping ordinance (18.745, includes street trees and parking lot trees)
-Revise tree ordinance (18.790, includes development regulations and mitigation)
-Develop tree grove protection program (may involve a Goal 5 process)
-Develop urban forest stewardship program (involves education/outreach and some protection for
trees on private property)
-Improve management of City's urban forestry program
Mort Ettelstein asked if private property owners should be included as a stakeholder group. Prager
responded that private property owners were essentially interviewed through the community survey and
provided open ended responses in the survey that were recorded and documented. They have also been
invited to participate in the Urban Forest Master Plan through the Cityscape and will be invited to attend
three listening posts over the coming months.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meering Minutes—May 6,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.fprd-or.gov I Page 4 of 7
Attachment 1
Dennis Sizemore commented that the themes identified by Prager could form the basis of the executive
summary.
Dave Walsh added that the action measures that were developed during the Comprehensive Plan process
could be used to fill in the action items for the implementation goals.
The CAC supported using the implementation goals identified above to form basic structure for the Plan.
Marissa Daniels then solicited input from the CAC regarding how those goals could/should be
implemented. The results of the discussion are as follows:
Develop hazard tree program
Review current practices
Review regulatory constraints/conflicts
Develop and maintain criteria for what constitutes a hazard (define terms per ISA standards)
Develop and maintain criteria for mitigating risks (not necessarily always removal)
Develop procedures for hazard abatement
Develop procedures for mediating disputes
Assign financial responsibilities to the various parties
Make information about hazard program available to the public
Revise landscaping ordinance (18.745, includes street trees and parking lot trees)
Review current practices
Review regulatory constraints/conflicts
Define terms (per industry standards)
Create a manual (with design guidelines, species selection criteria,installation guidelines, and maintenance
requirements)
Perform cost/benefits analysis prior to requiring new technologies
Provide incentives for compliance
Develop a permit system to administer the ordinance
Revise tree ordinance (18.790, includes development regulations and mitigation)
Review current practices
Review regulatory constraints/conflicts
Define terms (per industry standards)
Ensure arborist is involved in the process from site planning to landscape installation
Ensure City review of tree plans
Less focus on mitigation and more focus on preserving quality trees
Provide incentives for preserving smaller diameter trees that are able to withstand development impacts
Limit pre-development clearing of sites
Ensure consequences for noncompliance
Involve public in process of Code development
Develop tree grove protection program (may involve a Goal 5 process)
Review current practices
16
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—May 6,2009
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.dprd-or.gov I Page g of7
Attachment 1
Review regulatory constraints/conflicts
Define terms
.00 Focus on preserving larger groves
Develop incentives for preservation
Build flexibility into the process
Involve public in the process of Code development
Develop urban forest stewardship program (involves education/outreach and some protection for
trees on private property)
Review current practices
Review regulatory constraints/conflicts
Define terms
Provide public pertinent education/outreach information (workshops, flyers, online tools, "ask the
arborist" service, etc.)
Tree Board assistance in reaching out to the community
Improve management of City's urban forestry program
The CAC agreed to have City staff fill in this goal. However, the following principles were suggested by
the CAC:
Review current practices
Review regulatory constraints/conflicts
Define terms
City should lead by example
Create written standards for City projects to be adhered to by all departments
6. Public Comment
At 8:00 p.m., the meeting was opened for public comment.
Karen Estrada began by suggesting mitigation funds could be used for tree planting and stewardship on
private property.
John Frewing commented that he thought there should be more focus on tree preservation after
development.
He also thought the Plan should focus on more than just trees, and include other types of vegetation.
Mr. Frewing added that the Plan should identify financing mechanisms to implement and expand urban
forestry programs in the future.
He also thought that the Plan should focus more on accountability such as tracking canopy changes over
time and enforcing long term urban forest management.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—May 6,2009
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 6 of 7
Attachment 1
Mr. Frewing suggested that the City protect resources through overlay zones as in the City of Portland
rather than through a Goal 5 process.
Ken Gertz said that education/outreach could be achieved through scout groups and in schools.
Mr. Gertz said that future Code should be more equitable with regards to mitigation, so that people with
trees are not unfairly penalized during development. He also said that future Code should have less
ambiguity, and that Code provisions should be answerable in a yes/no manner.
Mr. Gertz suggested that staff notice all Tigard property owners that would be affected by tree regulations.
Councilor Marland Henderson said that his vision was to create a sustainability division within the City,
and put that division on equal footing with other divisions. He said it was important to act now before too
much environmental damage is done. Councilor Henderson said that pursuing a sustainability department
would be a major goal during his tenure.
7. Closing Remarks and Adjournment
Todd Prager adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—May 6,2009
Cityof Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 7 of 7
Attachment 2
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Nate Shaub, GIS Analyst
Re: Possible Canopy Area Calculations
Date: June 24, 2009
Project Summary
For this analysis, "Possible Canopy Area"was considered to be the sum of the existing canopy
area (as outlined by Metro's 2007 existing canopy analysis) and an estimated "Potential Canopy
Area". "Possible Percent Canopy" was then calculated as the Possible Canopy Area divided by
the total taxlot area in Tigard. The approach used to arrive at a realistic estimate of Tigard's
Potential Canopy Area, is outlined in the next paragraphs.
Project Methodology
Starting with our Tigard Taxlot GIS layer, the first step in estimating Potential Canopy Area was
to clip out all larger streams and lakes where canopy coverage may not be possible. Next, the
taxlots were divided by residential and non-residential zoning due to the fact that there is an
existing GIS layer that defines building footprints within the non-residential areas of town, but
no such layer exists for residential areas. Creation of such a GIS layer would be very time
consuming, and there is promise of such a layer being generated by Metro perhaps by the end of
the year.
Once the taxlots were divided by zoning, two different approaches were used to calculate
potential canopy area. For non-residential taxlots, the approach was quite simple. First, the area
within fifteen feet of a building was clipped from the layer then the existing canopy area was
removed. The resulting shapes were considered to be candidate areas for canopy coverage;
however, following a sample analysis done in Los Angeles, their area was reduced by 50% to
account for residents' desire for no additional trees and conflicts with higher priority uses [e.g.
baseball diamonds, cemeteries]. The halved area was then used as the potential canopy area for
the non-residential taxlots.
Attachment 2
For the residential taxlots,the approach was slightly more complex. First, setbacks and
minimum landscaping requirements in city code were used to calculate an "Estimated
Landscaping Requirement Area" based on each taxlot's zone. Next the amount of park and
sensitive land area within each taxlot was calculated. Finally, the existing canopy area was
calculated for each taxlot. Once these three values were determined,it was first assumed that all
existing canopy area would be in the park and sensitive land area, and that any park/sensitive
land area above the existing canopy area would be a candidate for canopy coverage (i.e. would
be part of the potential). This canopy coverage could exceed the estimated landscaping
requirement area. However,if the park or sensitive land area coupled with the existing canopy
area did not meet the estimated landscaping requirement area, the potential was increased to
meet the requirement. If the existing canopy and park/sensitive land canopy exceeded the
estimated landscaping requirement area on buildable lands,it was assumed that the existing non-
park/sensitive land canopy could be reduced (developed) to the estimated landscaping
requirement area.
Here are a few final notes on this approach:
• The non-residential building footprint GIS layer was drawn in 2005, so it is possible for
some potential canopy area to now be occupied by a building.
• Parking lots are included in the potential canopy area
• Right of way is not included in the potential canopy area
C a
BROCKMAN ST " j O`F.`'O Attauneut 2
Possible Percent TAYLORS FERRY RD
>
a
Canopy •
z 3
o z,
D Y
1lsgR MAPS
v-RD.... w I B'Vwty
P PaIGnB C�ek
13123 SW Nsll Blvd
503.E1Q.4171
a NQ`a'yFERF r �. a•
i
Tig09.
f03
ti J
v
,�..
l0
I ._ g, V KERR RO
nuve,s .ys
r a
* 41
l
GAAR DQE ST
a M c aI_ / �MCDONA�LD�ST"'
IFh � r� � �,.
a
BULL MO
UNTAIN�
y
A
Mom*
x '� 1
Legend
BEEF BEND RD ... m.r�,a,tRJHAM RD. ,_
/ ^� Tigard City Limits
iA ,' QorMt ;
Citywide Possible Percent Canopy -' �P"° P ible Percent Canopy
° _ < 0-20%
Non-Residential Taxlots 44% rl�RlVe S � Z i 20-40%
Residential Taxlots 39%
------------------------------------------------- !: a 40-60%
Overall 41% o 80-100%
99
uaat n
77
Attachment 3
Urban Forestry Master Plan
Executive Summary
This Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP) sets a course of action for the City of Tigard's urban
forestry program from the time of its acceptance by Council until the year 2016. The Plan has been
developed through a public process involving community outreach and surveys,urban forestry
stakeholder interviews,departmental coordination meetings,and review of current City policies and
programs. Based on the information received throughout this process, the UFMP Citizen Advisory
Committee (CAC) recommends the following implementation goals:
1. Revise Tigard's tree ordinance (Chapter 18.790,includes development regulations and mitigation).
2. Revise Tigard's landscaping ordinance (includes street trees,parking lot trees,and other required
landscape trees).
3.Develop a tree grove protection program.
4. Develop a hazard tree program.
5. Improve the management of the City's urban forestry program..
6.Develop an urban forest stewardship program.
It is further recommended that the achievement of the above implementation goals occur through a
series of sub-goals and action measures which are outlined in the implementation matrix. The
implementation goals,sub-goals,and action measures are intended to frame the future urban
forestry ordinance and program development,and set a timeline for their completion. The Tigard
Tree Board will be charged with,overseeing implementation of the UFMP as part of their annual
work plan.. -
Implementation Matrix
The following implementation matrix contains all six UFMP goals (highlighted in blue), their
associated sub-goals (in,bold),and a series of action measures with the necessary level of detail
needed to implement the goals and sub-goals. Also included in the matrix are the divisions that will
be leading implementation, the Comprehensive Plan policies that are addressed (see Appendix E for
details),estimates of staff and financial resources required, and the schedule for implementation.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry MasterPlan (Draft) --Page 1 of 14
Attachment 3
Implementation Goals
p b ° ' y o v
a v �" Ua v 8
U
1�c\vcTi"ard's tree ordinance(Chapter I includes development
1.1 Revise tree ordinance in order to allow more flexibility and a qualitative approach to tree preservation.
a. Move tree ordinance from Tigard Development Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.1, Low $ 2010 2011
Code to Tigard Municipal Code in order to allow Planning 2.3.2,2.3.3,2.3.6,
for discretionary review. 2.3.7,2.3.9,2.3-10,
2.3.11
b. Focus Code less on mitigation and more on Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.9, High $$ 2010 2011
preserving long lived evergreens,broad- Planning 2.3.1,2.3.2,2.3.3,
spreading deciduous varieties,native species,and 2.3.4,2.3.6,2.3.7, pi
other trees identified as of high importance. 2.3.9,2.3.11
c. Require private arborists to be involved in the {{ Long Range i 2.2.1,2.3.1,2.3.3, Low $ 2010 2011
development process from site planning through ! Planning 2.3.6,2.3.7,2.3.8,
landscape installation. 2.3.9
d. Develop and implement regulations,standards, Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.1, High $$ 2010 2011
and incentives for transferring density and Planning 2.3.3,2.3.6,2.3.8,
seeking variances and adjustments to preserve 2.3.9,2.3.11 I
trees identified as of high importance. 4
e. Provide incentives for preserving smaller Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.9, Low $ 2010 2011
diameter trees due to their ability to withstand Planning 2.3.1,2.3.2,2.3.3,
development impacts. 2.3.4,2.3.6,2.3.7,
2.3.9,2.3.11
f. Ensure that in trees are exempt from Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, Low $ 2010 2011
preservation requirements through the adoption Planning 2.2.8,2.2.9,2.3.1,
of an inclusive invasive species list. 2.3.7,2.3.8,2.3.11
i`
g. Create tree manual with drawings and Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.8, High $$$ 2010 2011
specifications for development related tree Planning 2.2.9,2.3.1,2.3.2,
inventory and protection standards,and 2.3.3,2.3.6,2.3.7, i
preferred species/tree types for preservation. 2.3.8,2.3.9
h. Develop standards and procedures for how tree Long Range 2.2-1,2.2.2,2.2.3, Med. $$ 2010 2011
ordinance will be enforced. Planning 2.2.6,2.3.1,2.3.8,
2.3.9,2.3.11
i. Develop procedures for when and how protected Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 2012
trees will be inventoried and permit activities Planning
tracked.
j. Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GIS Current 2.2.1 Med. I $$ I 2011 Ongoing
and permit systems,a publicly accessible Planning
inventory of protected trees. -
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) -- Page 2 of 14
Attachment 3
0 0
o a �
•0 %
o C "
Implementation Goals 5 - V
�" 'v coA v a v
P cP, U 0 E U V
1.2 Revise tree ordinance so that standards do not solely impact owners of treed lots.
a. Develop canopy cover or tree density standards Long�Range 2.2.1,2-2.2,2.2.4, High $$ 2010��
for all lots that can be met by either preserving Planning 2.2.9,2.3.1,2.3.2, i
existing trees,or planting new trees. 2.3.6,2.3.7,2.3:9, I
2.3.11 - 1
b. Create an urban forestry systems development Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, High $$ 2011 2012
charge for new development in order to Planning 2.3.8
administer an ongoing tree and urban forest
enhancement program.
parking1. Revise Tigard's landscaping ordinance(includes street trees,
2.1 Revise street tree planting,maintenance,and removal requirements
a. Create design and maintenance manual with Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, High $$$ 2010 2011
drawings and specifications for species selection, Planning 2.2.5,2.2.6,2.2.7,
planting,and maintenance. 2.2.8,2.2.9,2.2.10,
2.3.5,2.3.7,2.3.8, f
2.3.11 {
2011
b. Revise parking lot design requirements to Current 1 2.2.1,2.2.2,2 2.4, Med. $$ 2010 t incorporate storwater management techniques Planning 2.2.7,2.2.8,2.2.10,
and methods that support increased tree canopy. i 2.3.5,2.3.7,2.3.8,
2.3.11
C. Clarify jurisdictional requirements along ODOT Current 2.2.1,2;2.2,2.2.4, Low I $ 2010 2011
right-of ways(99W,Hall Boulevard,Highway Planning 2.2.5,2.2.6,2.2.7,
217,and Highway 5). 2.2.8,2.3.5,2.3.8 I f
i
i
d. Revise Tigard Municipal Code to establish permit Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Med. $$ 2010 2011
system for planting,removal,and replacement of Planning 2.2.5,2.2.6,2.2.8, !
required trees. 2.2.9,2.2.10,2.3;5,
2.3.7,2.3.10,2.3.11
e. Incentivize the use,retention,and replacement of Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, 1 Med. $$ 2010 2011
long lived evergreens,broad-spreading deciduous Planning 2.2.5,2.2.6,2.2.7,
varieties,native species,and other trees identified 2.2.8,2.2.9,2.2.10,
as of high importance. 2.3.1,2.3.5,2.3.7,
2.3.8,2.3.11
f. Allow required landscape trees to count towards Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Low $ 2010 2011
mitigation,canopy cover,and/or tree density Planning 2.2.6,2.2.7,2.2.8,
standards. 2.2.9,2.2.10,2.3.5
g. Require landscape architects to develop Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, Low $ 2010 2011
landscape plans for projects of a certain type Planning 2.2.10,2.3.5,2.3.7,
and/or size. 2.3.11
It. Do not require new technologies that are cost Current 2.2.1,2.2.4,2.2.7 Low $ 2010 Ongoing
prohibitive. Planning
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) --Page 3 of 14
Attachment 3
y o 0
Y75
Implementation Goals A p,:� Cn V o"n v a v
-
2.2 Develop an inventory of tree plantings,removals,and replacements.
b. Develop procedures for when and how trees will Current 2.2J 1 —� Med. $$ 2011 2012
be inventoried and permit activities tracked. Planning
i
a. Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GIS Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 Ongoing
and permit systems,a publicly accessible Planning
inventory of tree plantings and permitted
removals.
3.7N clop a tree grove protectionprogram.
3.1 Focus on preserving large groves of native trees.
a. Establish standards and procedures for I Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2- 2.3, High $$$$ 2010 2011
identifying and inventorying large groves of I Planning 2.2.6,2.2.7,2.3.1,
native trees. 2.3.2,2.3.8,2.3.9,
2.3.11
b. Develop preservation and maintenance standards Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.3, High $$$ 2011 2012
and procedures for tree groves that are identified Planning 2.2.4, 2.2.6,2.2.7,
for protection. 2.2.8,2.2.9,2.3.1,
2.3.2,2.3.3,2.3.5,
2.3.6,2.3.7,2.3.8,
2.3.9,2.3._11
3.2 Develop flexible and incentive based grove preservation program that meets the needs of affected property owners.
a. Reach out to property owners with identified Long Range 2.3.8,2.3.11 Med. $$ 2010 2012
trees groves early in the process so they have Planning
ample opportunity to participate.
b. Ensure any future tree grove regulations have Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Med. $$ 2011 2012
flexibility and incentives built in. Planning 2.3.6,2.3.8,2.3.11
4.Develop a hazard tree program.
4.1 Establish City storm and hazard tree response protocols.
a. Prior to land acquisition conduct a tree hazard Parks 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.4, Med. $$ 2010 Ongoing
assessment. 2.3.8
b. Develop and implement formal emergency Streets 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.4, Low $ 2010 Ongoing
response system for tree hazards on City streets. j 2.3.8
C. Develop and impleformal emergency Parks 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.4, Low $ 2010 Ongoing
ment
response system for tree hazards in City 2.3.8
parks/greenspaces.
d. Hire greenspace coordinator to manage Tigard Parks 2.2.1,2.3.4,2.3.8 High $$$$ 2011 2011
natural areas and develop a proactive hazard
abatement program.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) --Page 4 of 14
Attachment 3
v
Implementation Goals
m D�Av CLv
P ti o
CJ U 99 CJ U
6
4.2 Establish City program to facilitate hazard abatement on private property.
T-
a. Revise Tigard Municipal Code to grant authority Long Range 2.2.1,2.3.4,2.3.8, High i $$ 2010 2011
to the City to become involved in private Planning 2.3.11
property tree hazards. I
b, Develop and maintain criteria for what Current 2.2.1,2.2.2 Med. $$— I 2010 2011
constitutes a hazard(define terms per ISA Planning
standards). IL
C. Develop and maintain criteria for hazard Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.4, Med. $$ 2010 2011
abatement procedures and mitigating risks(per Planning 2.3.11
ISA standards). i i
d. Develop procedures for mediating disputes Long Range 2.3.4,2.3 11 High $$$ 2010 2011
including assigning responsibility. Planning
e. Make information about hazard program Current -.3.4,2.3.8 Med. $$ 2010 2011
available to the public. Planning
5. Improve the management of urban
5.1 Begin developing a tree and urban forest inventor}.
a. Develop procedures for when and how protected Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 2012
trees,tree groves,street trees,heritage trees,and Plan
required landscape trees will be inventoried and
permit activities tracked.
b. Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GIS Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 Ongoing
and permit systems,a publicly accessible Planning
i
inventory of protected trees,tree groves,street
trees,heritage trees,and required landscape trees.
C. Develop and maintain,as part off Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7 the City's GIS Med. $$ 2011 � Ongoing
system,a publicly accessible inventory of sites Planning
where urban forestry fees are being utilized. Link
sites with the City's accounting system so detailed
analyses of urban forestry expenditures can be
obtained.
5.2 Improve management of City owned trees and forests.
�a. Create and route a budget sheet to appropriate Parks 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, Low $ 2010 2011
divisions prior to park and greenspace 2.3.4
acquisitions so anticipated costs and benefits can
be identified and evaluated.
�Tb. Hire greenspace coordinator to manage City Parks 2.2.1,2.3.4,2.3.8 High $$$$ 2011 2011
owned natural areas.
C. Develop a written set of urban forestry standards Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.5, High $$ 2011 2012
and specifications for City projects to follow. Planning 2.2.6,2.2.7,2.3.1, h I
2.3.3,2.3.7,2.3.9
d. Identify and secure long term funding Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7 Low $ 2014 2016
sources for urban forestry projects as Planning
mitigation funds decline.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) -- Page 5 of 14
Attachment 3
o 0
o v
Implementation Goals
p
CA
U a U � U
Develop0.
6.1 Develop and provide urban forestry outreach materials.
City to provide public with pertinent urban Current 2.2.7,2.3.8 Med. $$ 2012 2013
a. forestry outreach information(workshops,flyers, Planning
online tools,"ask the arborist"service,etc.)
Maintain a list of invasive plants,discourage their Current 2.2.1,2.2.7,2.2.8, Low $ 2012 2013
b. sale and propagation,and promote their removal. Planning 2.2.9,2.3.8,2.3.11
6.2 Fund urban forestry projects for private property owners.
Utilize mitigation and other funding sources for Current 2.2.7,2.3.8 High $$$ 2013 2014
a. tree planting and urban forest management on Planning
public and private property and public right-of-
ways. _
6.3 Prevent pre-development clearing of lots.
a. Develop standards that require tree removal Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, Med. $$ 2010 2011
permits prior to the removal of a specified Planning 2.3.1, 2.3.8
number of trees per year. 1
6.4 Regularly update Urban Forestry Master Plan,set achievable goals,and continually monitor progress.
Update Urban Forestry MasterPlan every 5-7 Current211,2.2.2,2.2:11, ` High $$$ 2015 2016
a. years. Planning 2.3.1,2.3.8
b. Strive to achieve no net loss in citywide tree Current 2.2.7,2.2.11,2.3.8 Low $ 2015 2015
canopy from 2007-2015. Planning
Strive to achieve 32%citywide tree canopy by Current 2.2.7,2.2.11,2.3.8 Low $ 2027 2027
C. 2027 Planning i
Strive to achieve 40%citywide tree canopy by Current 2.2.7,2.2.11,2.3.8 Low $ 2047 2047
d. 2047 Planning
*Low=0-8 hours of staff time ** $_ <$1,000
*Med. =8-40 hours of staff time **$$_$1,000-$10,000
*High,=over 40 hours of staff time **$$$=$10,000-$50,000
**$$$$ = >$50,000
Through implementation of the goals, sub-goals,and action measures in this Plan,progress will be made towards the
adopted vision of the UFMP CAC:
'Ti
gard'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 maximise aesthetic, economic, and ecological benefits."
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) -- Page 6 of 14
Attachment 3
Basis for Decision Makin
The following information was used as the basis for decision making when formulating goals, sub-
goals,and action measures for the UFMP.
Community Survey
An independent, scientific telephone survey of 400 randomly selected citizens about their attitudes
towards existing and potential urban forestry policies and programs was completed by Steve
Johnson and Associates in December of 2008. The survey was funded in part by a grant from the
Oregon Department of Forestry and USDA Forest Service. The survey was conducted in order to
allow for a more detailed understanding of community attitudes towards urban forestry issues in
Tigard. The exact questions and complete results from the survey are included in Appendix A.
Canopy Analysis
Mapping of the City's overall tree canopy cover was the method used to document and define urban
forest conditions. This has allowed for the tracking of urban forest extent and change on both
public and private property on a citywide scale to inform urban forest management decisions. It will
also allow Tigard to continually track canopy change in the future as Metro runs software that can
detect the presence of tree canopy cover onTigard air photos every two years. Full results of the
canopy analysis are in Appendix B.
Stakeholder Interviews
City staff interviewed major community stakeholder-groups and jurisdictions that regularly
contribute to and/or are affected by the management of Tigard's urban forest. The full stakeholder
interview_notes-are-included in'Appendix C._--
City of Tiikmd,Internal CooYdination Meetings '
The City of Tigard has multiple departments,,divisions,boards,and committees that administer and
implement the urban forestry program. Key City staff members with roles in coordinating and
implementing Tigard's-urban forestry programs,policies,and ordinances met to discuss urban
forestry coordination needs and.identify solutions. The purpose of the meetings was to provide for
more effective administration of the urban forestry program and inform recommendations made in
the UFMP. Full results of the internal coordination meetings can be found in Appendix D.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) --Page 7 of 14
Attachment 3
Review of Current and Historical Urban Forestr�Ordinances, Polices,and Programs
A thorough review and analysis of urban forestry related laws,ordinances,policies, and programs
was undertaken to inform recommendations in the UFMP. Particular attention was paid to the
Urban Forest Section of the Comprehensive Plan (Appendix E) which contains the goals,policies,
and action measures that guide Tigard's urban forestry program.
Appendix F contains a historical timeline relative to urban forestry in Tigard. Appendix G contains
a review and analysis of the major Federal,State, and Regional policies that provide a framework for
Tigard's urban forestry program. Appendix H contains a review and analysis of current urban
forestry related City ordinances.
Chapter 1• Development Regulations and Mitigation-Requirements
Implementation Goal 1•Revise Tigard's tree ordinance (Chapter 18.790.includes development
regulations and mitigation).
Revising Tigard's tree ordinance is purposely listed as goal 1 due to strong dissatisfaction with the
existing ordinance by those both inside and outside the development community.
The existing tree ordinance is in Chapter,18.790.of the Tigard Development Code. The tree
ordinance requires certain types of development projects to prepare a tree plan that identifies trees
to be preserved and removed.-Tree replacement,or mitigation,is required on an "inch for inch"
basis. This means that if,a'tree with a trunk that is,12 inches in diameter is removed,it needs to be
replaced with 6,2-inch diameter replacement trees. If a developer chose not to replant trees, the
City requires a "fee-in-lieu payment"to the Tigard'Tree Fund at the current rate of$125 per
diameter inch.
Some of the criticism of the tree ordinance from stakeholders are that the mitigation structure
incentivizes overplanting,it does not require preservation of quality trees,and it encourages the
retention of large diameter trees that are less-likely to survive development impacts. The Home
Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland (HBAMP) position is that the fee-in-lieu of
mitigation is excessive and that the tree ordinance does not adequately incentivize the preservation
of high quality trees. The HBAMP and other stakeholders agree that the tree ordinance unfairly
penalizes those property owners with existing trees more than those owners without trees. The tree
ordinance is also administratively difficult for the City because it is challenging to track protected
and replacement trees in the years and decades following development.
Interestingly,the tree ordinance that was in effect beginning in 1983 appears to have been more
preservationist than today because it required a permit prior to the removal of any tree on all
undeveloped land, developed commercial and industrial land,and public land. In 1997 the tree
ordinance was revised to its current form and allows any or all trees to be removed as long as they
are replaced. Due in part to dissatisfaction with the existing tree ordinance, the Tigard Tree Board
was charged with developing a"City Tree Stewardship and Urban Forest Enhancement Program"in
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) -- Page 8 of 14
Attachment 3
2007. Following over a year of work by the Tree Board, a comprehensive plan for the urban forest
was developed in 2008. The Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan contains two goals to
be implemented by 22 policies. The goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan guide the
recommendations made in this Plan.
While many are unhappy with the current tree ordinance, the community survey revealed that Tigard
residents still want the City to require that some trees are preserved and new trees planted during
development (-88% support). A majority (-57%) of residents say they would support new
development regulations even if they limit the size and extent of potential buildings or profits.
Approximately 32% of residents say they would oppose tree regulations that limit development.
Protecting that portion of the urban forest on the over 500 acres of buildable lands must be
balanced with State,Metro,and City planning goals and regulations that favor density in urban areas.
Specifically, development regulations must be clear and objective;and not discourage needed
housing through unreasonable cost or delay according to State law. However,approximately 93%
of Tigard's land area and 88%of its citywide tree canopy are outside the buildable lands inventory so
a comprehensive urban forestry ordinance and program must address areas outside of development.
As a result of input received from the community and stakeholders, the UFMP contains several sub-
goals and implementation measures that provide direction for how the goal of revising the tree
ordinance should be accomplished. The major recommendations include moving the tree ordinance
from the development code into the municipal code to allow for more qualitative review of tree
plans and to address areas outside development,less focus on mitigation and more on preserving
high quality trees,revising tree preservation incentives so that they are more attractive to developers,
and not unfairly penalizing property owners with treed lots. Also included in the recommendations
are steps the City_ should take to better track protected and replacement trees after development is
complete.,
Chapter-2:,Landscaping Requirements
Implementation Goal-2:Revise Tigard's laindscaping ordinance (includes street trees,parking lot
trees,and other required landscape trees.
Revising Tigard's landscapingdrdinance is the second goal of the UFMP. The intention of the
revisions will be to improve the,quality and protection of the City's streetscapes,and commercial
and industrial landscapes.
Existing landscaping ordinances are scattered throughout the Development and Municipal Codes.
Many of the provisions in the landscaping ordinances lack specificity, conflict,and present
administrative challenges for the City. There is also no set of City standards or design guidelines
that specify industry accepted installation and maintenance requirements for trees.
The stakeholders want the City to require the planting of high quality trees,and ensure that design
and maintenance of areas such as parking lots and street side plantings are sustainable and
aesthetically pleasing. The Oregon Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects
1
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) --Page 9 of 14
Attachment 3
(OASLA) suggested that the City create a tree and landscape design manual with drawings and
specifications so that landscape architects have a clear idea of what the City's overall tree and
landscape vision is. A tree and landscape design manual would also address the Tree Boards request
to translate Code revisions into something the public can understand.
Internally, the City has been having difficulty tracking street trees and required landscape trees due
to the lack of a comprehensive tree inventory.
Although the public is highly satisfied with the current overall state of Tigard's urban forest, 74% of
residents said that more street trees would be good for the City. The canopy analysis found that
Tigard's street trees only provide 9%canopy in City street right-of-ways which supports the public's
need for more street trees. The canopy analysis also found that the City's parking lot tree standards
are not effective due to the relatively low tree canopy in parking lots.
The sub-goals and implementation measures provide direction for the goal of revising the
landscaping ordinance. Specific recommendations include developing a landscape design manual
with drawings and specifications,improving parking.lot design,establishing'a permit system for the
planting,replacement,and removal of required trees,and improving the tracking and inventorying
of street trees and other required landscape trees.
Chapter 3:Tree Grove Protection
Implementation Goal 3:Develop a tree grove protection program.
The third goal of the UFMP is to develop a tree grove protection program which creates mechanism
for protecting Tigard's remaining groves of native trees.
Many tree groves in Tigard are currently afforded some.level of protection due to their location in
sensitive lands (stream corridors,steep slopes, significant habitat-areas,wetlands,and floodplains).
Tigard's-Development Code limits the type and intensity of development within sensitive lands,and
requires permits for tree removal in sensitive lands. However, the Development Code does not
explicitly protect tree groves in sensitive lands,and tree removal permits are automatically issued if
an erosion control plan is provided. Also,there are currently no protections for tree groves that are
not located within sensitive lands. Prior to enacting any regulations that protect tree groves, the City
must comply with Federal, State,and Regional regulations. Particular attention shall be paid to State
laws such as the requirement for an economic, social,environmental,and energy (ESEE) analysis
prior to protecting"Goal 5" (natural) resources.
Some of the stakeholders such as the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of
Arboriculture (PNWISA), the OASLA, the Tualatin Riverkeepers and Clean Water Services support
the City's efforts to preserve and maintain native trees and groves in Tigard. Multiple stakeholders
also suggested that the City take a leadership role in grove protection by hiring a greenspace
coordinator to provide long term maintenance of City-owned natural areas. The HBAMP wants
affected property owners to be directly notified that would be affected by regulations and incentives
to be incorporated into any City ordinance that calls for the preservation of trees groves.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) -- Page 10 of 14
Attachment 3
The community survey showed that Tigard residents want future regulations to protect native tree
groves. Most residents (-55%) would like to see regulations focused on larger groves of native trees
as opposed to individual trees of significant size (^28% support). In addition,37% of residents said
they would prefer to see new tree regulations focused on natural areas as opposed to ornamental
trees (-3% support). However,approximately 48% said they would like to see regulations applied
to natural areas and ornamental trees equally. 73% of residents said the decision of whether to
preserve trees should not be left solely to the developer, and a majority (57%) said they would
support tree regulations even if they limit the size and extent of potential buildings or profits.
While residents prioritize grove protection,the canopy analysis revealed that Tigard's tree groves are
disappearing. In 1996, there were 63 canopy clusters greater than'5 acres in size within the City
limits. In 2007, there were 48 canopy clusters greater than 5 acres in size. This represents a 24%
decline in large sized canopy clusters in eleven years.
As a result of trends shown in the canopy analysis, community preference, and stakeholder input,
the UFMP developed a number of sub-goals and action measures to guide the development of a tree
grove protection program that is compliant with Federal,State,Regional, and Local requirements.
Included are recommendations to contact all property owners that would be impacted by a tree
grove protection program and providing grove preservation incentives.
Chapter 4: Hazard Trees
Implementation Goal 4:Develop a hazard tree program.
The fourth goal in the UFMP is to develop a hazard tree program that adequately addresses tree
hazards on both public and private property.
Currently Tigard's Municipal Code prohibits hazard trees,but there is a lack of specificity on what
constitutes a hazard and what the mechanism is for abating hazards in a timely manner. There is
also no formal process for identifying and abating tree hazards on City property.
During the stakeholder interviews the Tree Board suggested that the City increase communications
between departments. Interdepartmental communication is integral to effectively addressing tree
hazards in a timely manner. Other stakeholders suggested that the City hire a greenspace
coordinator who could provide proactive management of tree hazards in City parks and
greenspaces. The HBAMP said the City should allow private property owners to manage their land
as they see fit,which implies the City should have limited involvement in private property tree
hazard issues.
As a result of the City's internal coordination meetings,specific methods for responding to public
tree hazards were developed and are detailed in Appendix D. The Parks Division echoed the
stakeholders by highlighting the need to hire a greenspace coordinator to proactively manage tree
hazards on City property.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) -- Page 11 of 14
Attachment 3
The community survey results indicate public support for a hazard tree program. Approximately
76% of residents think more resources should be directed to better maintain and protect existing
trees. A majority of residents said they would support additional funding from increased city fees,
charges,or property taxes to fund a more comprehensive tree program in Tigard parks and open
spaces (-56% support, —39% oppose). A portion of that funding could be used by the City for a
hazard tree program. Finally, a majority of residents said they would support the creation of a
program where the City would become involved in disputes between neighbors regarding hazardous
trees on private property (60% support, 38% oppose).
The sub-goals and implementation measures recommended in the UFMP support the creation of a
hazard tree program for public and private property. The recommendations include formalizing the
City's hazard response protocols,hiring a greenspace coordinator to help manage tree hazards on
City property,and developing a process whereby the City would have authority to become involved
in tree hazards on private property.
Chapter 5: Urban Forestry Program Management
Implementation Goal 5: Improve the management of the City's urban forestry program.
Implementation Goal 5 was developed to improve the coordination and management of the City's
urban forestry program.
Tigard's urban forestry program is currently implemented by multiple City departments and
divisions. In addition,code provisions relating to,urban forestry are scattered throughout the
Municipal and Development Codes. Management of City-owned tree and forest resources has been
declining as more land is acquired without additional funding for maintenance and proactive
management. Improved communication between City departments and divisions,unifying urban
forestry related Code provisions,and providing adequate staffing is needed for more effective
management of the City's urban forestry program. Also, securing a sustainable funding source will
be necessary to provide long term support of the urban forestry program as the Tree Fund declines
due to less future development.
Stakeholders such as,the PNWISA and Clean Water Services suggested that the City hire a
greenspace coordinator to proactively manage City tree and forest resources. The Tualatin
Riverkeepers said the City needs'to establish a sustainable source of funding for its urban forestry
program to assist in the long term management of invasive species. The Tree Board suggested that
there needs to be more coordination between City departments and divisions when administering
the urban forestry program. Although a minority view, the HBAMP's position is that there should
be no urban forestry program because the costs outweigh the benefits of such a program.
The City's internal coordination meetings highlighted the need for more communication between
departments and divisions. More communication would improve the management of tree hazards,
ensure City development projects are adhering to applicable Code requirements,improve the
tracking of trees after development, and provide more transparency as to how and where the Tree
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) -- Page 12 of 14
Attachment 3
Fund is being utilized. The internal coordination meetings also highlighted the need for a written set
of tree protection and replacement standards for City projects so that the City can take a leadership
role in urban forestry.
The community survey results demonstrate public support for increased funding through fees and
taxes for the City's urban forestry program (-56% support, —39% oppose). The public showed a
preference for urban forestry efforts to focus on streamside vegetation and other natural forested
areas. These results indicate that residents would support the hiring of a greenspace coordinator to
directly manage the nearly 180 acres of City-owned tree canopy in Tigard.
The sub-goals and implementation measures recommended in the UFMP to support the goal of
improved City management include developing methods for inventorying and tracking trees and
urban forestry related expenditures, developing a written set of,urban forestry standards for City
projects, securing a sustainable funding source for urban-forestry;and hiring a greenspace
coordinator to manage the City's natural areas.
Chapter 6: Stewardship
Implementation Goal 6:Develop an urban forest stewardship program.
Urban Forest stewardship has been a vital component of life in the,area now known as Tigard for
thousands of years. 3,500 years before present,Kalapuya (Native Americans) began managing the
forests of the Willamette Valley using fire (pyroculture). At about the,time of European settlement
in 1851,canopy coverage.within the current City limits,of Tigard was estimated to be 52.4% (3,966.9
acres).The predominant tree species were Oregon ash,red alder,bigleaf maple,willow,black
cottonwood, Oregon white oak,western red cedar,and Pacific dogwood in the riparian and wetland
areas. The upland areas were dominated by Douglas-fir,bigleaf maple,grand fir,Pacific dogwood,
western hemlock, Oregon white oak,red alder,western"red cedar,and ponderosa pine. As Tigard
become settled,native forests were cleared for agricultural uses and timber to help support
development. After Tigard was incorporated in 1961, the City began passing ordinances to manage
the urban forest beginning in 1967 with street tree planting requirements, and continuing in 1983
and 1997 with the passage of ordinances that regulated tree removal. The City hired its first urban
forester in 1998 and created the Tree Board in 2001. The City of Tigard has been named a Tree City
USA every year since 2001 and was awarded the Tree City USA Growth Award in 2009 for its
expanded urban forestry efforts.
In 2007,Tigard had 24%citywide tree canopy which is well below American Forests' target
recommendation of 40% for Pacific Northwest cities. While citywide tree canopy is currently
stabilized (1%decrease from 1996-2007),it is becoming increasingly fragmented (larger groves are
being replaced by individual trees). Because 78% of Tigard's tree canopy is on private property and
only 7% of Tigard's land area is on buildable lands,it is critical to develop an urban forest
stewardship program that includes all residents and property owners in the City.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) --Page 13 of 14
Attachment 3
Most stakeholder groups support the goal of developing and participating in an urban forest
stewardship program. The Tree Board wants future urban forestry ordinances to address areas
outside development and provisions translated into something the public can understand. They also
want more community education on urban forestry issues,and for the City to continually measure
progress on canopy changes and community attitudes so that policy effectiveness can be easily
evaluated in the future.
Portland General Electric and the Tigard-Tualatin School District have offered to partner with the
City on tree planting and maintenance projects. The Tualatin Riverkeepers and Clean Water
Services would like more focus on managing invasives in natural areas and have offered to assist the
public on long term resource management.
Although there is a high level of satisfaction with the current state of Tigard's urban forest, survey
results show the public would support an urban forest stewardship program with 76% of residents
wanting more resources directed towards maintaining and protecting existing trees. Many would be
willing to become directly involved with 52%of residents saying they would prefer volunteering to
plant and maintain trees rather paying a fee to the City to do it. Residents also want to protect the
trees in their existing neighborhoods with 75% saying they would support regulations for developed
private property that would protect large,healthy trees.
The sub-goals and implementation measures in.the UFMP that support the goal of developing an
urban forest stewardship program include increasing.urban forestry outreach materials,utilizing
funding for tree planting and maintenance on public and private property,and developing
regulations to prevent clear cutting. Also,long,term objectives include periodically updating the
Urban Forestry Master Plan in order to track progress and set new goals,achieving not net loss of
tree canopy between 2007 and 2015,and achieving 32% and 40% citywide tree canopy by 2027 and
2047 respectively.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) -- Page 14 of 14
Appendix A
CITY OF TIGARD
2008 URBAN FORESTRY SURVEY
STEVE JOHNSON& ASSOCIATES * P.O.BOX 3708 * EUGENE,OREGON 97403
TOPLINE FREQUENCIES
**Topline results include the text of each question, the response categories, and the number and percent of
responses in each category.All questions include categories for Refused(7 or 97), Don't Know(8 or 98)and No
Ansiver(9 or 99). In the interest of space, responses such as "I don't know," "I can't think of anything,"and
"no comment"have been removed from the document. The "open answers"are recorded verbatim. They have
been corrected for spelling but not grammar.
HELLOI Hello, I'm calling on behalf of the City ofTigard._They have asked us to conduct a
survey of residents 18 and older about trees in the city and urban forestry. The survey takes
about ten minutes and is voluntary and anonymous. I'd like to start now.
[INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF RESPONDENT SELF IDENTIFIES AS UNDER 18 ASK FOR
SOMEONE OVER 18. IF NO ONE IS AVAILABLE TRY AND SCHEDULE CALL
BACK. IF THIS IS THE LAST DIAL ATTEMPT GO TO NOQUAL]
PRESS START TO BEGIN—OR—PRESS DISPO TO SCHEDULE CALLBACK
*INTRO FOR PARTIALS: Hi, I'm calling back to finish an interview for the City of Tigard
that we began earlier. Is that(you/person available)?
SATISI I'd like to begin by asking if you are very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied or very
dissatisfied with the quantity and quality of trees in the following locations. First, what about
the trees on your street?
PROBE: Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the quantity
and quality of trees on your street?
1 VERY SATISFIED 103 25.75%
2 SATISFIED 246 61.5%
3 DISSATISFIED 32 8%
4 VERY DISSATISFIED 10 2.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 9 2.25%
400 100%
SATIS2 What about the trees in your neighborhood?
PROBE: Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the quantity
and quality of trees in your neighborhood?
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2003
Topline Frequencies Page I
Appendix A
1 VERY SATISFIED 104 26%
2 SATISFIED 242 60.5%
3 DISSATISFIED 43 10.75%
4 VERY DISSATISFIED 5 1.25%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 6 1.5%
400 100%
SATIS3 What about trees in the city as a whole?
PROBE: Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the quantity
and quality of trees in the city as a whole?
I VERY SATISFIED 61 15.25%
2 SATISFIED 251 62.75%
3 DISSATISFIED 59 14.75%
4 VERY DISSATISFIED 10 2.5%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 19 4.75%
400 100%
HOOD Does your neighborhood need more trees and landscaping to improve
its appearance and environmental quality?
1 YES 101 25.25%
2 NO 294 73.5%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 5 1.25%
400 100%
IWORTI Now I would like to read you some statements people have made about trees.
For each one, would you tell me if you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree.
First,trees are important to a community's character and desirability as a place to live.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 249 62.25%
2 AGREE 138 34.5%
3 DISAGREE 10 2.5%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 0.25%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 2 0.5%
400 100%
IWORT2 It is important to me to have a view of trees from my home.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 218 54.5%
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey-2008
Topline Frequencies Page 2
Appendix A
2 AGREE 148 37%
3 DISAGREE 28 7%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 4 1%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 2 0.5%
400 100%
IMPORT3 Trees contribute to the value of residential property.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
I STRONGLY AGREE 200 50%
2 AGREE 170 42.5%
3 DISAGREE 19 4.75%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 3 0.75%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 8 2%
400 100%
IMPORT4 Trees contribute to the value of commercial property.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 125 31.25%
2 AGREE 205 51.25%
3 DISAGREE 45 11.25%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 3 0.75%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 22 5.5%
400 100%
IMPORTS More street trees would be good for the City.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 97 24.25%
2 AGREE 202 50.5%
3 DISAGREE 62 15.5%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 9 2.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 30 7.5%
400 100%
IMPORT6 It would benefit the City if more resources could be directed to better maintain
and protect existing trees.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
I STRONGLY AGREE 102 25.5%
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Pave 3
Appendix A
2 AGREE 203 50.75%
3 DISAGREE 50 12.5%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 10 2.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 35 8.75%
400 100%
IWORT7 The City should require that some trees be preserved and new ones planted on
sites that are being developed.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 160 40%
2 AGREE 193 48.25%
3 DISAGREE 30 7.5%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 9 2.25%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 8 2%
400 100%
FORESTI All cities have an urban forest. The urban forest in Tigard consists of the trees in
parks, along streets, in yards, on empty lots and in forested areas. Do you think the overall
quality ofTigard's urban forest has increased, decreased or stayed the same in the last 10
years?
] INCREASED 73 18.25%
2 DECREASED 166 41.5%
3 STAYED THE SAME 117 29.25%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 44 11%
400 100%
FOREST2 In the future, do you expect the overall quality of Tigard's urban forest to
increase, decrease, or stay the same?
] INCREASED 113 28.25%
2 DECREASED 126 31.5%
3 STAYED THE SAME 138 34.5%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 23 5.75%
400 100%
FOREST3 On a scale of 1-10, where one is poor and 10 is excellent , how would you rate
the extent and appearance of trees in Tigard?
IONE 3 0.75%
2 TWO 0 0%
3 THREE 14 3.5%
4 FOUR 11 2.75%
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2003
Topline Frequencies Page 4
Appendix A
5 FIVE 61 15.25%
6 SIX 48 12%
7 SEVEN 96 24%
8 EIGHT(GO TO TAXI) 119 29.75%
9 NINE (GO TO TAXI) 19 4.75%
10 TEN (GO TO TAXI) 24 6%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 5 1.25%
400 100%
FOREST4 What could be done to improve the appearance and quality of trees in Tigard?
OPEN ENDED—RECORD EXACT RESPONSE
Not cut them all. They are cutting out more than they are putting in. They should require
developers to keep some of the existing trees.
Better maintenance.
More variety.
They need to plant more trees when they remove them. Do not just plant commercialized
trees.
Maintain the trees. Trimming them and things like that.
Ask the people to clean up more. During the fall, clean up sidewalk areas like they should.
More maintenance,
I say plant more,just preserve the ones that are there.
Certain areas. Save certain trees.
Taken care of the trees.
I don't have any good ideas. Don't cut down more big trees.
Trimmed when it comes to wires, and in areas with no trees new ones could be planted. When
they are doing commercial development they should plant trees when they are done
building.
In the vast expanses of parking lots there should be shade trees for the cars. It would help with
gas so people don't have to use the AC. Shade trees help a lot.
Public awareness.
Developers not remove existing trees as much.
One thing I don't like is the power company coming along and trimming them to look stupid.
Better trees that don't tear up streets and utilities.
Don't do anything. They'll grow by themselves. No sense in paying tax payers' money on
trees that can take care of themselves.
High quality maintenance.
Let the trees get older.
You know you do a good job. Keep up the good work.
Add trees along Durham Road and downtown Main Street.
More fir trees or pine green trees.
Plant more, I guess.
I think more of them. And better maintenance of the area around the trees.
Plant more trees;take care of them.
They don't have a nice setup in Tigard, lack of parks.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey-2008
Topline Frequencies Page 5
Appendix A
Maintenance
More maintenance from landowners and the city.
Better protection of the exciting trees in areas.
Keeping them clean, away from street signs and pruning them.
Quit cutting them down I think.
They could be taken care of.
Trimming.
Quit cutting them down.
They can be trimmed up so they can plant more trees.
Plant more trees.
Prevent cut down of existing ones, plant more trees.
They could put the areas back that used to be there, that are gone.
Plant more.
I think if they planted the proper trees so that the roots would not appear and break up the
sidewalks. I think people either put them down and don't pull out the roots.
Ones left are well maintained, pick up leaves off sidewalks and streets for bikers.
To trim them.
Plant more street trees on Greenburg Road.
Not letting people cut them down.
Grow more.
There are places where there are a lot of trees and places where there are none, trees should be
everywhere, especially where there are none. It would also be good to discus the
things people don't want to see, especially industrial areas. Trees should be used to
shield them from their neighbors.
Streets be lined with trees.
Leave them alone.
Basic maintenance.
I think if there is some sort of plan. When you build new housing areas and existing areas
you should have a comprehensive plan about the comprehensive trees. Whether the
city is going plant the trees or it is going to be left to individuals.
In some areas I think you need to have management people that know what is going on.
Placement of trees and people with knowledge of what is going on. It would be more
beneficial to have more parks. Percentage of parks in a residential area.
Protection of some of the areas, like stream land from development.
Maintenance around power lines.
More trees.Nothing else.
Trees aren't taken care of well, trees in vacant lots should become less neglected.
Fertilize.
Find a way to keep away all the leaves.
Pruning and maintained health, be maintained better.
More volunteers to maintain them.
Plant more trees! Plant more quality trees.
I think that we need to keep the landscaping up. We need to maintain our trees. If we have
more trees we will have a better community.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 6
Appendix A
Put them in strategic locations like downtown. They should put a ton of trees downtown.
They want to improve downtown they should put in good trees. Don't put them there
for no reason.
Just so much building going on more regulations about what.trees need to remain.
Probably the amount.
There could be more of them on major highways. Highway 99 has none on that road.
Plant more trees.
More placed in better locations, not be so messy.
Add more trees, keep the exciting trees.
Better pruning with trees along the streets a lot that have grown big and unruly.
Better maintenance. I think that some of the street trees get in the way.
Probably just more attention to them. The property owners need to pay more attention to their
trees probably. If we are going to have trees,they need to be maintained.
Not be willing to cut so many when they are developing.
Don't know, maintain them.
Get the city counsel in the city forest, they should be running the city not the trees.
Maintain damage is done.
Leave them standing, pruning assisting their health.
Maintain what they have and not let the new buildings do away with the trees. Plant new ones
after they have built homes or buildings.
Plant more and not chop down forest to put up condos.
I wish people would take care of trees better.
They could have more trees where there are no trees.
More street trees.
Don't think anything should be done.
Trim them.
Highway 99 at the bridge. Just be conscientious.
Plant more trees, when you remove trees, plant trees where the space is available. It should be
a law to plant trees.
Provide good maintenance.
Downtown area needs more trees.
Old trees be cut down, plant new ones.
Preserve during development.
Better overall maintenance.
Better maintained.
Pick up more leaves.
I don't have a problem with it, so nothing.
Need more trees in old town.
Cut them all down, too many large trees,they are blocking the view of everything. They need
to at least be trimmed.
Developer should put trees of appropriate size for the lot.
A little bit better maintained by people that take care of the trees.
More of them along the main streets.
They could be preserved. Planting the right trees. And more of them.
Trimming and landscaping around trees.
Like the downtown, they made it look all cutesie.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2003
Topline Frequencies Page 7
Appendix A
Plant more, let more streets be planted next to trees. Less shopping malls, have an area of
trees planted, 99 west. They put ugly storage unit, they cut down beautiful trees for
that.
Improve the city council decisions.
Pruning.
A little bit of pruning.
There could be improvements on highway 99 and on commercial properties. I see a lot of
death that needs to be maintained a little bit better. More trees on busier streets.
Plant more of them, take care of them, and cut their branches and everything.
First of all plant more trees if there is the space.
Largely, plant new ones and stop cutting down the old ones.
Probably more aggressive street tree planting program. Out reach to property owners that
have trees and preserve them.
Most of the trees are on private property. As to the ones that are on public domain,they
should be maintained professionally with an eye towards long term growth.
I like where homes don't go right to the creek and there is green spaces along creeks.
Maybe more trimming on trees.
Plant more.
Expert looking at the issue.
Old ones let go. Cleaned up.
By preserving existing trees.
Better maintenance.
Leave them alone.
Remove many of them. Public works departments are not funded to protect neighborhoods as
a result of leaf fall. There is not enough street sweeping services.
Downtown could plant trees.
Lining the streets and putting them in parks, but I think they're doing that right now. Where I
live there are many trees in the community.
More trees, as far as the existing trees, I'm not sure what to say about their quality and
appearance.
Proper maintenance of the trees and removal of the dead or improper growth.
Plant more, rip up cement and plant trees.
In certain neighborhoods there could just be more of them. And more yard debris pick-up, so
that people are not afraid to have trees. Anything that would make having a tree easier
would be good.
I would like to see their messes cleaned up quicker.
If they had left the old trees to live, it would have been better.They put up some new dinky
trees. And they just don't look as good. It's too late.
Maybe better maintained and kept trees.
Maintain existing trees.
Plant more. City to replace trees that are deceased or need to be replaced.
Cut down dying trees,take care of trees next to main roads.
Stop cutting them down. When a large tree is cut down, requires two of three tree in their
place.
Adding variety.
More of them in public areas. In downtown Tigard.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey-22008
Topline Frequencies Page 8
Appendix A
I think they need to plant more trees along streets and in newly developed areas.
Add some along 99.
Better trimming and maintenance.
Maybe more appropriate trees in the area they're going to be planted. I guess I'm thinking
about some trees are planted too close to the street, and that causes problems with
leaves in the sewer and sidewalks heaving from the roots.
Maintenance
Maintenance and replanting with trees that die.
Just encourage more people to plant proper trees and take care of the ones they have. And not
cut them down unnecessarily.
Pruning.
In the greenway, we have lots of English ivy that is destroying our trees. Dead trees.
Not cutting down massive amounts when they build new areas. Plants more trees along the
parks.
I don't know what could be done to make them better. I noticed when new development is
going in were their is a forestry areas and they take out the tress and I don't like that. I
don't like the ripping up of the stuff along Vano Creek.
Stop chopping down trees.
More maintenance and planting more trees.
Plant more decorative trees. Some of the ones that flower in the spring. More evergreens. The
big scrub maples, big yellow leaves. Replace stuff with more colors for spring and fall.
More red maples.
Planting more tress in the downtown Tigard area and taking care of trees that are at the end of
their life. Taking down and replacing trees that are dying.
They're in pretty good shape.
Maintain the one we have, and plant more.
Keep them trimmed away from the important stuff.
Replace trees as they are taken out.
Medians planted with trees. Uniform tree type on various streets so that it isn't so raged
looking.
Better up keep.
Get rid of the old ones that are dying. Just clean up.
Plant more. Help maintain the huge fir trees.
I think that the city needs to be a little more proactive in trimming them so things can be seen.
So that people who are unfamiliar with the area can see the street signs. It's a huge
sign. If people are elderly then they can't trim them themselves. Need to be more
proactive.
I really don't know if I like a tree in front of my house, I wouldn't plant it but I think trees are
important.
Stop cutting down all the trees on all developments.
Keep them trimmed up a little bit nicer and leaves in the fall are a big problem, they make a
mess.
Nothing I think they are fine.
Take down the trees that drop leaves.
I'm not sure we need more trees.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 9
Appendix A
I don't really know, stop cutting down all the trees, build where they do not have to remove
trees.
Just prune and thin out the trees. Increase the health of trees.
More open green spaces and more trees in commercial areas._
Plant more trees.
Better maintaining by replanting. More planting.
Plant more.
I'm thinking of the one on the corner of my lot, it has pruning problems due to the power
lines. It really distorts the shape of the tree.
Stop building houses.
Cutting them back and some pruning them.
More planting.
Do not cut down anymore than they absolutely have to.
I think maybe stronger education on how to take care of trees.
More development of downtown,Tigard with lots of trees and landscaping.
Better management by the city and government.
When developing, keep more trees that are already existing. Or replanting trees that have been
taken down to build a new house.
Regular maintenance.
I think there should be more, plant more.
I feel that every time they cut one down they put new ones in. They've stopped doing that.
They don't replace anything, it looks like a concrete forest.
I think more of the visual stuff and getting the community more involved, too many
businesses.
I think they are okay.
I don't have an opinion on it.
Planting to include green space and park settings, Bull Mountain is an example of how not to
do it.
More trees. Better upkeep.
Not cut them down.
I would think that they could be better shaped, and trimmed when needed. I fit the location
where they fit size wise.
Leave the consumer alone. They have their own trees, so let them do what they want.
Some of them need to be shaped better.The ones on the road.
I don't know,just make sure they're maintained and plant new trees as ones die or become
available.
They are properly cared for and planted more of them.
Better maintenance.
Better care and clean up.
Variety and maintenance.
I would presume plant more.
We're going to suggest the city does a better job of maintaining them. To improve our park,
we're on Woodard park, it would improve the park if they would thin the trees that are
diseased and prune them, or remove them.
Quit cutting them down for new developments.
Planting more trees.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 10
Appendix A
Just constant vigilance.
More and just more.
Plant trees where there are no trees. Where I live there are lots of trees.
Leave them alone.
Better maintenance.
Plant more.
TAXI Currently, property owners are responsible for maintaining street trees in front of their
property. Would you strongly support, support,oppose, or strongly oppose a program that
transfers the responsibility for maintaining street trees to the City?
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 65 16.25%
2 SUPPORT 128 32%
3 OPPOSE 136 34%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 38 9.5%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 33 8.25%
400 100%
TAX2 Would you strongly support, support,oppose, or strongly oppose additional funding
from increased city fees, charges, or property taxes to fund a City street tree program?
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 25 6.25%
2 SUPPORT 151 37.75%
3 OPPOSE 132 33%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 63 15.75%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 29 7.25%
400 100%
TAX3 Would you strongly support, support,oppose, or strongly oppose additional funding
from increased city fees, charges, or property taxes to fund a more comprehensive tree
planting and maintenance program in Tigard parks and open.spaces?
PROBE: This would include trees throughout Tigard, not just on streets.
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 32 8%
2 SUPPORT 190 47.5%
3 OPPOSE 104 26%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 53 13.25%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 21 5.25%
400 100%
TAX4 Would you prefer volunteering to plant and maintain trees or paying a fee to the City
to do this?
PROBE: Even if you are not a property owner, which would you prefer?
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey-2008
Topline Frequencies Page I I
Appendix A
1 PLANT 208 52%
2 PAY 106 26.5%
3 IF VOL—NEITHER 61 15.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 25 6.25%
400 100%
CHOICEI Which of the following would be your first choice of where the city should plant
more trees?
(PROBE FROM LIST)
I ALONG STREETS 99 24.75%
2 IN PEOPLE'S YARDS 10 2.5%
3 IN COMMERCIALANDUSTRIAL AREAS 51 12.75%
4 IN PARKS 79 19.75%
5 NEAR STREAMS/NATURAL FORESTED AREAS 129 32.25%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 32 8%
400 100%
CHOICE2 Which of the following statements most closely represents your opinion about
trees.
I PRESERVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE 128 32%
2 WHEN TREES ARE REMOVED, REPLACE THEM 129 32.25%
3 PRESERVE LARGE OR UNIQUE TREES 60 15%
4 ALLOW INDIVIDUALS REMOVE TREES IF WISH 71 17.75%
5 IF VOL—NONE OF THESE STATEMENTS 1 0.25%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 11 2.75%
400 100%
HAZARD Currently, if there is a dispute between neighboring property owners regarding a
potentially hazardous tree,the City does not get involved, and instead directs the neighbors to
work out a solution through civil means. Would you strongly support, support, oppose,or
strongly oppose the creation of a program where the City would become involved in disputes
between neighbors regarding hazardous trees?
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 54 13.5%
2 SUPPORT 185 46.25%
3 OPPOSE 101 25.25%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 49 12.25%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 11 2.75%
400 100%
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 12
Appendix A
REG1 Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose
tree removal regulations during property development, even when they limit the size and
extent of potential buildings or profits?
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 59 14.75%
2 SUPPORT 168 42%
3 OPPOSE 99 24.75%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 32 8%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 42 10.5%
400 100%
REG2 If you had the opportunity to develop your property, would you be in favor of city tree
regulations that required preservation of existing large trees and landscaping or tree planting
afterwards?
1 YES 264 66%
2 NO 97 24.25%
3 IF VOL— IT DEPENDS 14 3.5%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 25 6.25%
400 100%
REG3 Should the City allow the decision to preserve trees to be left to the developer?
1 YES 80 20%
2 NO 293 73.25%
3 IF VOL— IT DEPENDS 17 4.25%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 10 2.5%
400 100%
REG4 If the City were to enact new tree protection measures, would you like to see them
focused on natural areas, ornamental landscape trees, both types equally, or on something
else.
I NATURAL AREAS 149 37.25%
2 ORNAMENTAL TREES 11 2.75%
3 BOTH 192 48%
4 SOMETHING ELSE 25 6.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 23 5.75%
400 100%
REGS Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose city regulations that
would provide some level of protection for large, healthy trees on developed private property?
PROBE: This would apply to all current private property.
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 78 19.5%
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 13
Appendix A
2 SUPPORT 224 56%
3 OPPOSE 60 15%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 20 5%
7REF/8DK/9NA 18 4.5%
400 100%
REG6 If the city were to enact new tree protection measures, where would you prefer to see
them focused: on larger groves of native trees or individual trees of significant size.
1 LARGE GROVES 221 55.25%
2 INDIVIDUAL TREES 113 28.25%
3 IF VOL—BOTH 31 7.75%
4 IF VOL—NEITHER 18 4.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 17 4.25%
400 100%
AGE In what year were you born?
Coded Categories:
AGE 18-24 3 0.75%
AGE 25-34 23 5.75%
AGE 35-44 59 14.75%
AGE 45-54 106 26.5%
AGE 55-64 91 22.75%
AGE 65 AND OLDER 118 29.5%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 0 0%
400 100%
GENDER Are you male or female?
1 MALE 160 40%
2 FEMALE 240 60%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 0 0%
400 100%
RENT Do you own your home, or do you rent?
1 OWN 344 86%
2 RENT 49 12.25%
7 REF/ 8 DK/9 NA 7 1.75%
400 100%
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey-2003
Topline Frequencies Page 14
Appendix A
STREET What neighborhood do you live in?
PROBE: What is your closest elementary school?
PROBE: What is your closest cross street?
OPEN ENDED—RECORD EXACT RESPONSE
END That's the end of the survey! On behalf of the City of Tigard, we would like to thank
you for your time and participation. Have a great day. Good bye.
NOQAL I'm sorry, we can only interview residents of who are 18 years of age or older). I'm
sorry to have bothered you. Have a nice(day/evening).
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2003
Topline Frequencies Page 15
Appendix B
Canopy Cover(both 1996 and 200 located within the June 2008 Tigard City Limits
City Limits,June 2008 7556 acres
1996 2007
Percent of Percent of
June 2008 June 2008
Acres City Limits I Acres City Limits
Canopy Cover 1952.75 25.84% 1852.69 24.52%
1996 2007
Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of
1996 Canopy 1996 Canopy 2007 Canopy 2007 Canopy
Size of Canopy Cluster Acres Cover Clusters Cover Acres Cover Clusters Cover
Less than 0.5 acres 366.55 18.77% 4356 90.94% 584.30 31.54% 7231 93.86%
0.5 to.99 acres 135.76 6.95% 197 4.11% 167.25 9.03% 242 3.14%
1.0 to 1.99 acres 159.25 8.16% 113 2.36% 177.88 9.60% 131 1.70%
2.0 to 4.99 acres 190.86 9.77% 61 1.27% 157.00 8.47% 52 0.67%
5.0 or more acres 1100.33 56.35% 63 1 1.32% 766.26 41.36% 48 0.62%
Total 1952.75 100% 4790 100% 1852.69 100% 7704 100%
Appendix B.
Urban Renewal Zone 191 acres,
1996 2007
Acres. Percent Acres. Percent
Cano 'Cover 'of Urban Renewal Zone 19.67- 10.3061. 18:41 9.64%
1
Appendix B
Within June 2008 City Limits
Jan 1,2008'Buildable Lands Inventory(BLD 528.75 acres
BLI 1996 1423.32 acres
Canopy Cover
Year BLI Acres Acres Percent
1996 1423.32 . 646.52 45.42%
2007 528.75 226.26 42.79%
1996 BLI Canopy Cover Change
1996 Canopy Cover within 2007 Canopy Cover within
1996 BLI 1996 BLI
Acres Acres T Percent Acres Percent
1996 BLI 1423.32 646.52 45.42% 495.24 34.79%
Appendix B
City Limits,June 2008 7556 acres
May 13,2008 Taxlots 2007 Can o y Cover
Percent
Ownership
Taxlot Ownership Number Acres Acres Cover
City of Tigard 235 388.41 179.18 46.13%
Public Right-of-Way n/a 1,288.30 117.45 9.12%
Other Public Entity 79 431.65 105.10 24.35%
Private 15,880 5,447.64 1,450.96 26.630/io
Total 16,194 7,556.00 1,852.69 24.52%
Appendix B
Significant Habitat Areas 2007 Canop Covera e 1852.69 acres
Acres in 2007 Can Coverage Percent of 2007 Cit}-wide
Habitat Class Ti yard Acres Percent Canopy Cover
Highest Value 590.51 267.84 45.36% 14.46%
Moderate Value 374.88 193.28 51.56% 10.43%
Lower Value 447.84 234.96 52.47% 12.68%
Total 1413.23 696.08 49.25% 37.57%
Appendix B
Sensitive Lands 2007 Canopy Coverage 1852.69 acres
1996 Canopy Coverage 1952.75 acres
Acres in 2007 Cano y Coverage 1996 Canopv Coverage Perecnt Change 1996 to
TVVe Tigard Acres Percent City-wide Percent Acres Percent Citywide Percent 2007
Local Wetland Inventory 290.91 116.01 39.88% 6.26% 145.98 50.18% 7.48% -10.30%
CWS Vegetated Corridor 704.78 302.85 42.97% 16.35% 348.16 49.409% 17.8340 -6.43%
FEMA 100-yr Hood Iain 592.6 188.05 31.73% 10.1540 213.17 35.97% 10.92% -4.24%
Slopes>25% 195.51 129.64 66.31'7. 7.00% 130.28 66.64% 6.67o/'o -0.339
Total 1783.8 736.55 41.29% 39.76% 837.59 46.96% 42.89% -5.66%
,w
1' -
Appendix-B •
Subdivision s:A roved in.. 996/97
Canopyoverage
1996 2007
Number Total Acres Acres Percent Acres Percent Chane 1996-2007
18 72.167 18.32 25:18% 12:89 1 1.7.17% 31.820/6
Appendix B
City Limits,June 2008 7556
1996 Canopy Cover 2007 Canopy Cover Percent Change 1996 to
Zoning 2008 Acres Acres Percent Acres Percent 2007
Commercial 800 88.13 11.02% 80.52 10.07% -0.95%
Industrial 863 139.81 16.20% 137.58 15.94% -0.26%
Mixed Use 701 150.3 21.44% 99.79 14.24% -7.21%
Residential 5192 1 1574.42 1 30.32% 1 1534.72 1 29.56% -0.76%
Total 7556 1 1952.66 1 25.84% 1 1852.61 1 24.52% 1 1 -1.32%
Appendix B
June 2008 Canopy Cover Analysis Protocol
Citywide Canopy Cover
1. Calculate area of June 2008 City Limits in acres(7556)
2. CGP tool on 1996 Canopy Cover with June 2008 City Limits
(CanopyCover_1996_Tig June2008)
a. Calculate area in acres(1952.75)
3. Clip tool on 2007 Canopy Cover with dune 2008 City Limits
(CanopyCover_2007_Tigj une2008)
a. Calculate area in acres(1852.69)
4. Query CanopyCover_1996_Tig june2008 for acres:
a. Less than 0.5(366.55)
b. 0.5 to 0.99(135.76)
c. 1.0 to 1.99(159.25)
d. 2.0 to 4.99(190.86)
e. 5.0 or more(1100.33)
5. Query CanopyCover_2007_Tig_junc2008
a. Less than 0.5(584.30)
b. 0.5 to 0.99(167.25)
c. 1.0 to 1.99(177.88)
d. 2.0 to 4.99(157.00)
e. 5.0 or more(766.26)
Buildable Lands Inventory
1. Clip tool on BLI_2008janl with Junc 2008 Tigard City Limits(BLI_2008jan1_'17G)
a. Calculate area in acres(528.75)
2. Clip tool on BLI1996 with June 2008 Tigard City Limits(131,11996_'1'IG)
a. Calculate area in acres(1423.32)
3. Intersect tool with BLI_2006jan1_TIG and CanopyCover_1996_'I'ig-June2008
(BLI_1996_intersect)
a. Calculate area in acres(646.52)
4. Intersect tool with 131.1_2008jan1_11G and CanopyCover_2007_Tig June2008
a. Calculate area in acres(226.26)
Appendix B
Tigard Urban Renewal District
1. Calculate area of Tigard Urban Renewal District in acres(191)
2. Intersect tool with Tigard Urban Renewal District and
CanopyCover_1996_Tig_June2008(f URD_1996_intersect)
a. Calculate area in acres(19.67)
3. Intersect tool with Tigard Urban Renewal District and
Can opyCover_2007_Tigaune2008(1'URD_2007_intersect)
a. Calculate area in acres(18.41)
Tigard Zoning Districts
1. Dissolve tool on Zoning_Tig_june2008 based on"Type"field
(Zoning_:rig-junc2008_dissolve)
a. Calculate area of Tigard'Zoning Districts
i. Commercial(799.9 acres)
ii. Industrial(862.55 acres)
iii. Mixed Use(700.24 acres)
iv. Residential(5191.71 acres)
2. Intersect tool with Zoning_:fig-june2008_dissolve and
CanopyCover_1996_'rig--June2008(Zoningl996_intersect)
a. Calculate area of Zoningl996_intersect
i. Commercial(88.13 acres)
ii. Industrial(139.81 acres)
iii. Mixed Use(150.3 acres)
iv. Residential(1574.42 acres)
3. Intersect tool with Zoning_Tig-june2008_dissolve and
CanopyCover_2007_Tig-june2008(Zoning2007_intersect)
a. Calculate area of Zoning2007_intersect
i. Commercial(80.52 acres)
ii. Industrial(137.58 acres)
iii. Mixed Use(99.79 acres)
iv. Residential(1534.72 acres)
Appendix B
Property Ownership
1. Query Washington County taxlot data(May 13,2008)for publicly owned property
within city limits(PubhcProperty_May2008_Ti9)and calculate area
a. City Ownership(235 properties,388.41 acres)
b. Other Public Ownership(79 properties,431.65 acres)
2. Calculate area of remaining taxlots to derive private ownership
a. Private Ownership(15,880 properties,5,447.64 acres)
3. Intersect tool with PubficProperty_May2008_Tig and
CanopyCover_2007_'I'ig_)une2008(PublicProperty2007_intersect)
a. Calculate area of PublicProperty2007_intersect canopy cover in acres
i. City Ownership(179.18)
u. Other Public Ownership(105.1)
4. Subtract PublicProperty2007_intersect acres from
CanopyCover_2007_Tig-june2008 acres to calculate canopy cover in private
ownership(1568.41)
Significant Habitat Areas
1. Clip tool on sig_hab_areas with June 2008 Tigard City Limits(1-labitat_TIG)
a. Calculate area of Habitat TiG in acres
i. Highest value habitat(590.51)
u. Moderate value habitat(374.88)
iii. Lower value habitat(447.84)
2. Intersect tool with Habitat_11G and CanopyCovcr_2007_'1'ig,June2008
(Habitat_intersect2007)
a. Calculate area of Habitat_intersect2007 in acres
i. Highest value habitat(267.84)
ii. Moderate value habitat(193.28)
iii. Lower value habitat(234.96)
Appendix B
Sensitive Lands
1. Clip tool on Tigard Local Wetland Inventory with June 2008 Tigard City Limits
(LWI_Tig)
a. Calculate area of LWI_I'ig in acres(290.91)
2. Clip tool on CWS Vegetated Corridor Buffer with dune 2008 Tigard City Limits
(CWS_Tig)
a. Calculate area of CWS_'I'ig in acres(704.78)
3. Clip tool on FEMA 100-yr Floodplain with June 2008 Tigard City Limits
(FEMA_Tig)
a. Calculate area of FEMA_Tig in acres(592.6)
4. Clip tool on Metro 25%or Greater Slopes with June 2008 Tigard City Limits
(Slope_Tig)
a. Calculate area of Slope_Tig in acres(195.51)
5. Intersect tool with LWI_Tig and CanopyCover_2007_Tig-june2008
(LW I_Tig_intersect2007)
a. Calculate area of 1,WI_'I'ig_intersect2007 in acres(116.01)
6. Intersect tool with CWS_rig and CanopyCover_2007_I'ig_junc2008
(CWS_Tig_intersect2007)
a. Calculate area of CWS_Tig_intersect2007 in acres(302.85)
7. Intersect tool Nvith FEMA_Tig and CanopyCover_2007_Tig_june2008
(FEMA_Tig_intersect2007)
a. Calculate area of FEMA_Tig_intersect2007 in acres(188.05)
8. Intersect tool with Slope_Tig and CanopyCover_2007_Tig-june2008
(Slope_Tig_in tersect2007)
a. Calculate area of Slope_Tig_intersect2007 in acres(129.64)
Random Subdivision
1. Queried Subdivisions approved in 1996/97[(Subdivl996_97(18 total)]
a. Calculate area of Subdiv1996_97 in acres(72.76)
2. Intersect tool Nvith Subdiv1996_97 and CenopyCover_2007_'rig—Junc2008
(Su bdiv_i n terseet2007)
a. Calculate area of Subdiv_intersect2007 in acres(12.49)
3. Intersect tool with Subdiv1996_97 and CanopyCover_1996 Tig�June2008
(S u bdiv_i n tersectl 996)
a. Calculate area of Subdiv_intersectl996 in acres(18.32)
Appendix C
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 fists,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'figard.
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. 1-low 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.
G. 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.
Appendix C
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.
• Nfitigation 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.
Appendix C
• 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. 1 Iow can we work together in the future to improve 1'igard'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.
G. 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.
Appendix C
Appendix C
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.
Appendix C
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. Flow 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.
G. 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.
App6ndix C
• .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.
Appendix C
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'I'igard'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.
Appendix C
• 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. Flow 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.
G. 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 powcrlincs to be shown on landscape plans to avoid future overhead
utility conflicts.
• Landscape architects should be a required member of the design team.
Appendix C
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. Flow 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.
G. 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
Etter.
Appendix C
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 futures
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. I-Iow 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.
Appendix C
• 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.
G. 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.
Appendix C
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
(FIBAMP)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
Appendix C
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 S110 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 I-IBAMP 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 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 S1,000,000 in the tree mitigation
fund. It is expected to grow to over 52,000,000 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?
Appendix C
• HBt,MP 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 vices of those FIBAMP members who have participated in the process that
the FIBAMP'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'concems 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
FIBAMP'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.
G. 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 FIBAMP and affected property
owners in the process.
Appendix C
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""free 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 fist and exempt the removal of
invasive trees from Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors from permit
requirements.
Appendix C
• 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.
G. 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.
Appendix C
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 MOT
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'I'igard's urban forestry program work well?
• No comment.
3. What features of'rigard'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).
• 'frees 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 ODOT
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. Flow can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• Clarify jurisdictional requirements and coordinate during future Code updates.
G. 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.
Appendix C
• Require development projects to locate utilities on planting plans prior to ODOT
and City review.
• Clarify jurisdictional requirements in MOT right of ways:
o MOT site distance requirements supersede Tigard requirements.
o ODOT 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).
Appendix C
The Parks and Recreation Advisory BoardStakeholder Interview Notes
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board declined to comment at their,Fe8nury 2.3,,2009 meeting.
Appendix D
City of'rigard 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,Pr/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);
G. 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
Appendix D
to discuss the coordination issues and formulate possible solutions that could improve
coordination efforts. The following Est 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);
Appendix D
• 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 G IS 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.
G. 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 AmcriCorps 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
greenspaee 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 CTP projects that
may be used as a template(contact Carissa).
Appendix D
• 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);
• T'his item should be further addressed during the Tree Code updates.
• However,for deed restricted trees,the City can require 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);
Appendix D
• 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 coordinates could develop a program based off of protocols developed
by the USDA Forest Service and/or International Society of Arboriculture.
• Altematively,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 tum 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 PGG if power
fines 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.
Appendix D
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 tum 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.'free 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.
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.
Appendix D
• 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 Leciuire private developers to
preserve trees if they choose not to.
17.No formal street tree maintenance process for hmb/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'figard 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 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 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.
Appendix E
04% LAND USE PLANNING
Section 2: Tigard's Urban Forest
A defining community feature of Tigard is its trees and the urban forest they
create. Unlike natural forests or managed timberland,Tigard's urban forest is a
mosaic of native forest remnants and planted landscape elements interspersed
with buildings,roads and other elements of the urban environment. The
protection,management, and enhancement of this resource is important not
only for Tigard's aesthetic identify and sense of place, but for the social,ecolog-
ical,and economic services it provides to the community.
Trees and other types of vegetation are integral to the quality of Tigard's
aesthetic, economic,and natural environments. Plants provide variation in color,
texture,line and form that softens the hard geometry of the built environment.
They also enhance the public and private realm through the provision of shade
from the sun and wind,providing habitat for birds and wildlife, enhancing
community attractiveness and investment,improving water quality and soil
stability,and promoting human health and well-being.
Tigard's trees and native plant communities have experienced significant disrup-
tion and displacement, first by agriculture and logging in the 19th century,and
by increasingly dense urban development in the 20th Century. Competition from
introduced invasive species such as English ivy,reed canary grass,and Himalayan
blackberries has made it difficult for remaining native plant communities to
thrive. However,remnant stands of native tree and associated plant commu-
nities still remain within the City Limits. Trees are important members and
contributors to natural resource systems including upland habitat areas and plant
communities,and functioning riparian corridors including the Tualatin River,
Fanno Creek and its tributaries,and their adjacent flood plains and wetlands.
In addition to remnants of the native forest,Tigard possesses a large number of
2-10 City of Tigard I Comprehensive Plan
Appendix E
n
LAND USE PLANNING 04
mature and outstanding specimens of native and non-native trees planted when
the area was rural country-side in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Aerial
photos demonstrate that increasingly more trees were planted on both public
and private property during a period of large lot residential subdivision develop-
ment from the late 1940's through the 1970's,many of which survive to this day.
Community attitude surveys reveal that Tigard Citizens place high value on the
protection of trees and are concerned about the impact of development upon
existing tree resources. Community surveys conducted in 2004 and 2006 show
that residents value their neighborhood as a suburban retreat,a place that allows
for views of trees and other natural areas. The 2006 Community Attitudes
Survey found"the protection of trees and natural resource areas" as rating
the highest of all "livability"characteristics posed to the respondents, scoring
8.4 out of 10 points. Preservation of trees and other natural resources scored
higher on resident's livability index than neighborhood traffic (8.2),maintaining
existing lot sizes (7.8),pedestrian and bike paths (7.7),and compatibility between
existing and new development (7.6). A follow-up question contained in the
2007 survey revealed that 84%of Tigard Residents supported regulations to
protect existing trees,with only 6% strongly disagreeing and 9% somewhat
disagreeing. In addition,90% of Tigard residents thought the City should take
the lead in preserving open space. These values are also shared by residents of
adjoining jurisdictions who maintain,or have begun significant updates to, their
tree protection ordinances.
The City of Tigard has been a Tree City,USA since 2001 because of aggres-
sive programs to plant trees on public property. In partnership with Clean
Water Services, the City of Tigard is in the early stages of a series of stream
restoration and enhancement projects intended to improve water quality,reduce
erosion, and provide shade,structure and food sources to fish and other wildlife.
Projects currently underway within the City's floodplains and riparian areas will
result in the planting of approximately 100,000 native trees over a 10 year period
(Fiscal Years 2001-2011). Through volunteer projects,cooperative efforts with
non-profits,contract services,and the labor of Public Works crews, thousands
of young trees are annually planted on public property.
Not including restoration projects, the City's Public Works Department annually
plants approximately 250 new or replacement trees on public lands, distributes
approximately 50 street trees each year to private property owners through the
Street Tree Program,and plants an addition 25 trees in celebration of arbor day.
Comprehensive Plan I City of Tigard 2-11
04%
LAND USE PLANNING Appendix E
Native species are given preference and are regularly planted along trails, riparian
areas,and in new park and green space areas. The objective is to increase the
total number of trees,particularly in areas where summer shade is desired such
as picnic areas and next to sidewalks. Money is budgeted each year to maintain
new trees being established and to remove hazard trees located on public
property. As more public property is added and trees grow older, the number
of hazard trees pruned or removed each year will continue to grow. The level
of new tree planting is limited by the maintenance capacity of City work crews.
Conditions and circumstances have significantly changed since the adoption of
Tigard's Comprehensive Plan in 1983. Rapid urban development has resulted
in a general perception that the City has experienced a significant loss of tree
canopy,and other vegetation essential for wildlife habitat,erosion control,
slope stability,water quality, air-quality, and community aesthetics. Driving
this perception are METRO land use regulations, failed annexation efforts and
changing market conditions resulting in higher density development than was
anticipated in 1983, further challenging the City to protect trees and canopy
cover while accommodating new development. Additionally, the City does not
currently have a comprehensive tree management and urban forest enhancement
program to address these issues in a unified and consistent manner. As a result
there is general feeling among residents,developers,and other stakeholders that
the existing regulatory structure is not adequate and hinders both the strategic
protection of trees and the orderly urbanization of the City.
The City has historically relied upon its Development Code to manage and
protect trees on private property,particularly heritage trees and those located
within steep slopes,wetlands,and other sensitive lands. Existing regulations
require new development to protect and/or replace existing trees wherever
possible, to pay into a mitigation fund when trees are removed,and to plant new
street trees and landscape trees as part of all new construction. In addition,
trees within vegetated corridors surrounding wetlands,riparian corridors,and
other natural bodies of water are also protected by Clean Water Services as part
of their stormwater management program.These regulatory structures do not
recognize or protect existing trees outside of those areas, and offer little protec-
tion unless a development action is pending, or prior conditions of develop-
ment approval designated the affected tree(s) for future protection. As a result,
the existing regulatory structure does not encompass a significant number of
trees across the city,which may be removed by the property owner without City
consultation or permit. Additionally, because the City does not have a compre-
2-12 City of Tigard I Comprehensive Plan
Appendix E
n
LAND USE PLANNING 04
hensive tree removal consultation or permit system,protected trees (such as
street trees) have been removed despite existing regulations or restrictions in
force.
KEY FINDINGS:
■ A defining community feature is Tigard's urban forest,a mosaic of native
forest remnants and planted landscape elements interspersed throughout the
City.
■ This urban forest provides social,economic,and ecological services that
create public and private value to residents,businesses,and visitors.
■ Mature and well-managed trees provide the maximum public benefits.
■ The City continues to allocate staff and resources to tree planting, tree main-
tenance, and outreach activities. Additionally, new development is required
to install street trees,landscape trees,and trees for mitigation purposes.
■ The existing urban forest continues to experience significant disruption and
displacement through the conversion of land to more intense urban land
uses and competition from invasive species.
■ Existing tree regulations are dispersed throughout the code;applied by
multiple divisions in a non-unified and inconsistent manner;and sometimes
conflicting between different code sections.
■ The City does not presently have a comprehensive and unified process to
monitor tree removal and enforce existing tree protections outside of devel-
opment permit review. Furthermore,landowners are not always aware of
regulatory protections applicable to their property or street trees adjacent to
their property.
■ Community attitude surveys reveal that Tigard residents place high value on
the protection of trees within the community, that they are concerned about
the impact of development upon existing tree resources,and are strongly in
favor of a regulatory structure that would protect additional trees.
GOAL:
2.2 To enlarge,improve and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the
economic,ecological, and social benefits of trees.
POLICIES:
1. The City shall maintain and periodically update policies,regulations
and standards to inventory,manage,preserve,mitigate the loss of, and
Comprehensive Plan I Cityof Tigard 2-13
O
� LAND USE PLANNING Appendix E
enhance the community's tree and vegetation resources to promote their
environmental, aesthetic and economic benefits.
2. The City's various codes,regulations, standards and programs relating
to landscaping, site development,mitigation,and tree management
shall be consistent with,and supportive of, one another;administration
and enforcement shall be regulated and coordinated by the variously
impacted departments.
3. The City shall continue to regulate the removal of trees,within environ-
mentally sensitive lands and on lands subject to natural hazards.
4. The City shall ensure that street design and land use standards provide
ample room for the planting of trees and other vegetation,including the
use of flexible and incentive based development standards.
5. The City shall require the replacement and/or installation of new street
trees,unless demonstrated infeasible,on all new roads or road enhance-
ment projects. Trees should be planted within planter strips,or at the
back of sidewalks if planter strips are not feasible or would prohibit the
preservation of existing trees.
6. The City shall establish and enforce regulations to protect the public's
investment in trees and vegetation located in parks,within right-of-ways,
and on other public lands and easements.
7. The City shall conduct an ongoing tree and urban forest enhancement
program to improve the aesthetic experience,environmental quality, and
economic value of Tigard's streets and neighborhoods.
8. The City shall continue to maintain and periodically update approved
tree lists for specific applications and site conditions, such as street trees,
parking lot trees, and trees for wetland and riparian areas.
9. The City shall discourage the use or retention of invasive trees and other
plants through the development review process.
10. The City shall require the appropriate use of trees and other vegetation
as buffering and screening between incompatible uses.
11. The City shall develop and implement a citywide Urban Forestry
2-14 City of Tigard I Comprehensive Plan
Appendix E
n
LAND USE PLANNING 04
Management Master Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES:
i. Develop and implement a comprehensive, coordinated update and
enhancement of all tree related regulations, standards,programs,and
plans.
ii. Develop and implement an inspection and enforcement program
that will ensure ongoing maintenance of trees and other vegeta-
tion required by development approval,with particular attention
to challenges introduced by the change of ownership of affected
properties.
iii. Develop and implement an inspection and enforcement program
that will ensure non-development related tree management and
removal complies with the City's tree protection ordinances such as
heritage trees, street trees,and trees on sensitive lands.
iv. Inventory and evaluate street tree,parking lot and landscape area
plantings that have failed to thrive,and determine if site conditions
or management practices can be modified, and/or if trees can be
planted elsewhere in order to satisfy conditions of development
approval or provide the benefits expected of the original planting.
v Develop and maintain, as part of the City's GIS and permit systems,
a publicly accessible inventory of tree plantings,permitted removals,
and the state of the City's urban forest.
vi. Develop and distribute educational materials and programs regarding
City policies,regulations, and good arboricultural practices for the
general public, developers and city staff regarding tree planting,
maintenance,and protection. Materials should be published in both
paper and electronic media and in multiple languages. Particular
focus should be given to new property owners who may be unfa-
miliar with the City's regulations and development related restrictions
affecting their property.
vii. Encourage and promote the removal of nuisance/invasive plants,
Comprehensive Plan I City of Tigard 245
04%
LAND USE PLANNING Appendix E
and the installation of trees and vegetation that are low maintenance,
drought tolerant, site appropriate,and require minimal chemical
applications. Strategies could include the production and distribu-
tion of approved tree lists to area nurseries,landscaping companies,
libraries and similar businesses and public resources.
viii.Utilize approved tree and plant lists that emphasize long lived
evergreens, broad-spreading deciduous varieties,and native species,
but allow flexibility to choose a wide variety of species that are
proven suitable for local climate conditions and for specific uses and
locations.
ix. Encourage efforts by community groups and neighborhoods to
plant trees and undertake other projects, such as restoration of
wetlands and stream corridors.
x. Maintain a list of invasive plants, discourage the sale and propaga-
tion of these plant materials within the City,promote their removal,
and prevent their reestablishment or expansion.
GOAL:
2.3 To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-
designed urban development that minimizes the loss of existing trees to
create a living legacy for future generations.
POLICIES:
1. The City shall develop and implement standards and procedures
designed to minimize the reduction of existing tree cover,with priority
given to native trees and non-native varietals that are long lived and/or
provide a broad canopy spread.
2. In prescribing the mitigation of the impacts of development, the City
shall give priority to the protection of existing trees, taking into consid-
eration the related financial impact of mitigation.
3. The City shall develop policies and procedures designed to protect
trees,including root systems, selected for preservation during land
2-16 City of Tigard I Comprehensive Plan
Appendix E
n
LAND USE PLANNING
development.
4. The City shall address public safety concerns by ensuring ways to
prevent and resolve verified tree related hazards in a timely manner.
5. The City shall develop and enforce site design and landscape require-
ments to reduce the aesthetic and environmental impacts of impervious
surfaces through the use of trees and other vegetation. _
6. The City shall,in order to preserve existing trees and ensure new trees
will thrive,allow and encourage flexibility in site design through all
aspects of development review
7. The City shall require all development,including City projects, to prepare
and implement a tree preservation and landscaping plan,with the chosen
trees and other plant materials appropriate for site conditions.
8. The City shall continue to cooperate with property owners,businesses,
other jurisdictions,agencies,utilities,and non-governmental entities to
manage and preserve street trees,wetlands, stream corridors,riparian
areas,tree groves,specimen and heritage trees, and other vegetation.
9. The City shall require,as appropriate, tree preservation strategies that
prioritize the retention of trees in cohesive and viable stands and groves
instead of isolated specimens.
10. Applications for tree removal and tree management plans shall be
reviewed by a certified arborist employed or under contract to the City.
11. The City shall recognize the rights of individuals to manage their resi-
dential landscapes.
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES:
i. Develop and implement regulations, standards, and incentives to
encourage developers to transfer density, seek variances and adjust-
ments necessary to preserve trees and natural open space in a
manner that optimizes tree preservation and protection.
Comprehensive Plan I Cityof Tigard 247
n
� LAND USE PLANNING Appendix E
ii. Develop tree-mitigation regulations and standards to guide the City
in assessing fees or compelling compensatory action resulting from
violation of its tree protection standards and/or conditions of devel-
opment approval. Consideration shall be given to off-site mitigation
on both public and private lands, and the maintenance of a publicly
accessible registry of mitigation sites both historical and potential.
iii. Conduct surveys,workshops, and/or other public outreach strategies
to identify and implement an appropriate strategy and form for tree
protection regulations outside of the development review process.
iv. Encourage other jurisdictions operating within and adjacent to
Tigard to prepare and implement a tree preservation and landscaping
plan as part of all development and infrastructure projects.
v Develop standards and procedures to identify and abate tree related
hazards on both public and private property.
2-18 City of Tigard I Comprehensive Plan
Appendix F
Tigard Urban Forestry Historical Timeline
Create a arcual timeline with dates,pictures,and bnef text tbat desmbes major landmarks. Include the following on
the timeh'ne:
• 3500 years before present Kalapuya(Native Americans)began managing the forests of the
Willamette Valley using fire(pyroculture)(Gray,2008). Use Kalapuya photo
• In 1851,canopy coverage within the current city limits of Tigard was estimated to be 52.4%
(3,966.9 acres).Refer to U of O map
• In the early 1850s,Tigard was settled by several families of European decent including the
Tigard family headed by Wilson M.Tigard. Native forests were cleared for agricultural uses
and timber help support development in the area(City of Tigard,2009).Use photo from
historic Tigard photo album
• In 1910,the Oregon Electric Railway arrived,triggering more rapid development at the rail
stop near Main Street. Fruit and nut packaging and canning plants and lumber mills set up
shop at that point to capitalize on the agriculture and logging activity(City of Tigard,2009).
Use photo from historic Tigard photo album
• In the 1940s,the population was about 300 people even after the arrival of the Capitol
Highway(99W)(Burrows,2009). Show 1950s photo of Tigard between the 40s and 60s
info.
• Tigard was incorporated as a City in 1961. 'There were 1,749 residents and 572 occupied
residences at the time of incorporation(City of Tigard,2008).
• The biggest boom period took place in the 1960s,averaging 26%population growth(City
of Tigard,2008).
• In 1967,Tigard adopted its first zoning ordinance. The only mention of trees in the zoning
ordinance was in Section 180-7,which required trees in industrial developments to provide
a buffer for streets and residential zones.
• In 1972,the Municipal Code contained provisions to protect the public from dangerous
trees and branches blocking streets and sidewalks. Planned developments were required"to
the maximum extent possible...to assure that natural features of the land are preserved"
and to provide"a preliminary tree planting plan(with)...all existing trees over sue inches in
diameter and groves of trees".
• In 1982,Tigard adopted its first Comprehensive Plan with several policies that call for the
preservation of stream corridors,fish and wildlife habitat,tree and timbered areas,and
wetlands.
• In 1983,the Community Development Code was revised to comply with the
Comprehensive Plan.The Tree Removal section of the ne%v Code required a City permit
prior to tree removal for all undeveloped land,developed commercial and industrial land,
and public land.
Appendix F
• In 1983,the Landscaping and Screening Chapter was also established and required street
tree planting,protection,and replacement during development. It also required trees to be
used as a buffer between differing land uses and for shading of parking lots.
• In 1985,the Sensitive Lands Chapter of the Community Development Code prohibited
development in or in close proximity to significant wetlands.
• In 1987,the Tigard Municipal Code was expanded to prohibit dead or hazardous trees that
pose a threat to the public and private property owners(Section 7.40.060).
• In 1997,the Tree Removal Chapter was significantly revised. Tree plans were required for
development,mitigation standards were established,and tree removal permits were required
for trees in sensitive lands.
• In 1998,the City hired its first Urban Forester.
• In 2001,the Tigard Triangle Design Standards in the Community Development Code
established additional landscaping and screening requirements for the Tigard Triangle(the
area bound by Highways 5,99,and 217).
• In 2001,the Tree Board was established to develop and administer a comprehensive tree
management program for trees on public property.
• "Tigard has been named a Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation every year
since 2001.Show Tree City USA logo
• In 2002,the Tigard Municipal Code was revised to increase protections for trees on City
property.
• In 2002,the Washington Square Regional Center Design Standards and the Durham Quarry
Design Standards established additional landscaping and screening requirements in the
Washington Square and Bridgeport areas respectively.
• In 2002,the Sensitive Lands Chapter was significantly revised in order to implement"Clean
Water Services(CWS)Design and Construction Standards",the"Metro Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan",and"Statewide Planning Goal 5(Natural Resources)".
• In 2006,the Heritage Tree program was established so that trees of landmark importance
could be officially recognized and protected.
• In 2007 the Tree Board's mission was expanded to develop a"City Tree Stewardship and
Urban Forest Enhancement Program"in part to ensure tree code revisions occurred in a
comprehensive manner.
• In 2007,the City adopted a"Significant Habitat Areas Map"which expanded the lands
where tree removal permits were required.
• In 2008,an Urban Forest section was added to the Comprehensive Plan following over a
year of work by the Tree Board. The Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan
contains two goals to be implemented by 22 policies. Goal 2.2 Policy 11 of the
Comprehensive Plan states,"The City shall develop and implement a citywide Urban
Forestry Management Master Plan." This Plan is intended to meet this policy requirement.
• In 2009,Tigard received a Tree City USA growth award for its expanded urban forestry
efforts.Show growth award logo
Appendix G
Federal/State/Regional Urban Forestry Policy Framework
The City of Tigard is required to comply with various Federal,State,and Regional requirements
when managing its urban forest. Urban forest management practices also have positive externalities
that further progress towards other jurisdictional goals and mandates. The following represent
major Federal,State,and Regional agencies and programs that influence or are benefitted by urban
forest management in Tigard:
Oregon Department of Forestry
The Oregon Department of Forestry(ODI)is responsible for administering the Forest Practices
Act(FPA). The FPA was designed to promote the proper management of Oregon's forests and
ensure that forests remain healthy and productive.The Oregon Legislature has given cities the
authority to regulate forests in place of having ODF administer the FPA as long as the local options
meet the EPA's minimum standard(Oregon Departments of Forestry and land Conservation and
Development,1999).
To meet the standards,local forest practice regulations must:
• Protect soil,air,water,fish and wildlife resources;
• Be acknowledged as in compliance with land use planning goals;
• Be developed through a public process;
• Be developed for the specific purpose of regulating forest practices;and
• Be developed in coordination with the State Forestry Department and with notice to the
Department of land Conservation and Development(Oregon Department of Forestry,2008).
Oregon Department of Transportation
The Oregon Department of Transportation(ODO'I)manages approximately 283 acres of right-of-
way in the City of Tigard including Hall Boulevard,and Highways 217,5,and 99W. ODOT Bulletin
RD06-03(B)provides specifications for street tree placement and maintenance in ODOT right-of-
ways. These specifications are intended to balance the need for safety along State roadways with
trees,and supersede Tigard street tree requirements within City limits.
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
The Oregon Department of land Conservation and Development(DLCD)administers Oregon's
Statewide Land Use Planning Program and ensures that the comprehensive plans of Oregon cities
comply with Oregon Statewide Land Use Planning Goals.
The City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan is required to be consistent with 12 of the 19 Oregon
Statewide Land Use Planning Goals.
The following statewide planning goals directly relate to the urban forestry in Tigard:
Appendix G
Goal 5."To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open
spaces."This goal requires local governments to develop programs to protect resources including
fish and wildlife habitats,stream corridors,and natural areas. Urban forestry programs and policies
can further progress towards achievement of Goal 5. Economic,social,environmental,and energy
(ESEF_)analyses are required to protect Goal 5 resources.
Goal 6."To maintain and improve the quality of the air,water and land resources of the
state."it is well documented that urban trees and forests contribute to air and water quality
improvement.
Goal 7."To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards."'frees roots,
canopies,and leaf fitter in natural hazard areas help to prevent erosion and flooding(Portland Urban
Forest Management Plan).
Goal 10."To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state"This goal requires the City
to balance the needs of tree and forest preservation with the need for housing and efficient use of
urban land.
Local jurisdictions within the Metro regional planning boundary must also be consistent and
coordinated with relevant Metro requirements such as the Urban Growth Management Functional
Plan which is described in more detail below.
DLCD has approved or"acknowledged"the City's Comprehensive Plan(including the Urban
Forest section)as being in compliance with statewide planning goals,and consistent with Metro
requirements(Oregon Department of land Conservation and Development,2009).
Oregon Division of State Lands
The Oregon Division of State Lands(DSL)establishes criteria and procedures for the identification
of wetlands. In 1997,Tigard's Local Wetland Inventory was approved by DSL.Approval by DSL
means that the inventory meets State standards,and therefore becomes part of the State Wetlands
Inventory and must be used in lieu of the National Wetlands Inventory(City of Tigard,
Comprehensive Plan,2009).
Development in these areas is regulated by a variety of federal,state,regional,and local laws. 'Tigard
Development Code Chapter 18.775(Sensitive Lands)contains specific-provisions to protect
wetlands from development and requires concurrent approvals from the U.S.Army Corps of
Engineers,Oregon Division of State Lands,and Clean Water Services.As a result,trees and native
vegetation in Local Wetlands gain a highly protected status.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Appendix G
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(DF_Q)is responsible for protecting Oregon's
air quality by issuing permits,developing programs,and monitoring air pollution to ensure
communities meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS),and to protect Oregon's
pristine views.Air pollutants identified in the 2005 Dl--,'Q Air Quality Report as the greatest concern
in Oregon are:Ground-level ozone,commonly known as smog;Fine particulate matter,Hazardous
air pollutants;and Carbon monoxide(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan,2009).
Regional efforts have been established to monitor and plan for pollutants.The City of Tigard is part
of the Portland Area Airshed(PAA),which is defined by the Metro service boundary.The DEQ is
responsible for ensuring the PAA meets the national standards,and for developing the necessary
plans to continue compliance.Currently,the PAA meets all NAAQS standards. However,DEQ is
required to develop maintenance plans for carbon monoxide and ozone to ensure continued
compliance(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan,2009).
Trees have a natural ability to convert and sequester compounds that contribute to air pollution.
'frees also offset power plant emissions by shading and sheltering buildings from sun and wind
(McPherson et al.,2002). At the local level,the City can protect existing natural areas and mature
trees,and promote and participate in tree planting efforts to improve air quality and decrease
building energy usage. Within urban areas,air quality is often much worse along major roadways.
Trees strategically planted along or near roadways have an increased ability to filter air pollutants and
improve air quality before exhaust is released in the atmosphere(City of Tigard,Comprehensive
Plan,2009).
DEQ is also charged with establishing standards,regulating,and monitoring Oregon's waters for
compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act(CWA)and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System(NPDES)(COMP PLAN. Within Tigard,run-off from impervious surfaces,pet waste,and
erosion/sedimentation are the most problematic sources of water pollution. Planting and
maintaining tree canopy,water quality facility construction and maintenance(vegetated swales and
retention basins),and stream corridor and wetland enhancements are all urban forestry activities that
help to improve water quality and meet State and Federal requirements(City of Tigard,
Comprehensive Plan,2009).
Oregon Public Utility Commission
The Oregon Public Utility Commission(PUC)regulates utility industries to ensure that customers
receive safe and reliable services at reasonable rates. In order to ensure safety,the PUC requires
Portland General Electric to maintain zones surrounding overhead utility fines clear of trees for
safety and in order to help prevent outages. The result is increased maintenance costs and trees that
become eyesores as a result of heavy pruning. Portland General Electric spends approximately
$500,000 annually pruning trees away from the utility lines(Chad Bums,PGF.,personal
communication 10/6/08). 'These costs are passed on to utility ratepayers. The urban forestry
Appendix G
program can help to decrease maintenance costs and improve the aesthetic quality of local trees by
aiding in the selection of appropriate trees near overhead lines(Oregon Public Utility Commission,
2009).
Metro
Metro helps the region's cities implement Statewide Planning Goals through the Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan(functional plan). Metro cities are required to adopt comprehensive
plans and implementing regulations that correspond with the titles and policies in the functional
plan. The functional plan contains 13 titles,some of which directly or indirectly impact urban forest
management in Tigard. DLCD has acknowledged Tigard's Comprehensive Plan as being in
compliance with statewide planning goals,and consistent with Metro's functional plan(Metro,
2009). The following excerpts from the functional plan have significant impact on urban forestry in
Tigard:
Tide 1 of the functional plan is intended to meet Statewide Planning Goal 10,and focuses on
increasing housing capacity in order to use land within Urban Growth Boundaries(an invisible line
that separates rural areas from suburban)efficiently. To meet Title 1,each jurisdiction was required
to determine its housing capacity and adopt minimum density requirements.'Tigard adopted an 80%
of minimum density requirement for development in 1998,which means that a development must
build 80%of the maximum units allowed by the zoning designation(City of Tigard,Comprehensive
Plan,2009). The Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland(FiBAMP)and others have
cited this requirement as a significant impediment to preserving trees in urban areas,particularly for
those properties that are zoned for high density.
Tide 3 protects the region's health and public safety by reducing flood and landslide hazards,
controlling soil erosion and reducing pollution of the region's waterways. Title 3 implements
Statewide Planning Goals 5,6 and 7 by protecting streams,rivers,wetlands and floodplains-by
avoiding,limiting or mitigating development impacts on these areas. The areas subject to these
requirements have been mapped and adopted by the Metro Council,specifically,the FEMA 100-
year floodplain and the area of inundation for the February 1996 flood. 'fide 3 also protects rivers
and streams with buffers that are typically 50 feet wide,requires erosion and sediment control,
planting of native vegetation on stream banks when new development occurs,and prohibits the
storage of new uses of uncontained hazardous material in water quality areas. Title 3 results in
significant protection and enhancement of that portion of the urban forest in streams and
floodways. Finally,Title 3 establishes performance standards to protect regionally significant fish
and wildlife habitat areas to implement Statewide Goal 5(Metro,2009).
Tide 12 of the functional plan protects residential neighborhoods by prohibiting cities from
increasing density in certain areas and requiring easy access to parks and greenspaces for City
residents(Metro,2009).
Appendix G
Title 13 is intended to"(1)conserve,protect,and restore a continuous ecologically viable streamside
corridor system,from the streams'headwaters to their confluence with other streams and rivers,and
with their floodplains in a manner that is integrated with upland wildlife habitat and with the
surrounding urban landscape;and(2)to control and prevent water pollution for the protection of
the public health and safety,and to maintain and improve water quality throughout the region"
(Metro,2009).
One of the results of Title 13 was the creation in the City of Tigard of 588 acres of habitat
designated as"highest"value(i.e.Metro inventoried Class I and 11 riparian resources within the
Clean Water Services Vegetated Corridor).An estimated 370 acres of Class I and II riparian habitat
situated outside the Clean Water Services'vegetated corridor are designated as"moderate"value.In
addition,422 acres of non-Class I and II riparian resources within the City are designated as
"lowest"value,including both upland forests and lower-value riparian habitat areas. The highest
and moderate value habitat are currently protected through other regulatory processes and agencies
such as CWS. The lowest value habitat consists of primarily upland forests and is currently
vulnerable.Additional ESEE analyses would be required to protect lower value habitat and
additional Statewide Planning Goal 5 resources in the future(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan,
2009). At the time of the writing of this document,the City of Tigard has proposed budgeting
funds in IY2009-10 to protect additional upland tree resources.
Clean Water Services
The City collaborates with Clean Water Services(CWS),the surface water management and sanitary
sewer system utility for urban Washington County,to protect local water resources.Through CWS
Design and Construction Standards,local governments in the Tualatin Basin(including Tigard)
developed a unified program to address water quality and flood management requirements for Title
3 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan,
2009).
In 2002,the City of Tigard adopted regulations restricting development within,and adjacent to,
sensitive water resource areas,including streams,through standards in the CWS Design and
Construction Standards.The CWS standards provide for vegetated corridor buffers,ranging from
15 to 200 feet wide,and mandate restoration of corridors in marginal or degraded condition.Native
trees over G inches in diameter in vegetated corridors arc protected,and their removal requires
replacement on a tree for tree basis. In addition,land-use applicants proposing development near
streams and wetlands are required to prepare a site assessment and obtain approval from CWS prior
to submitting a land use application to the City(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan,2009).
The City of Tigard also collaborates in implementing CWS'Healthy Streams Plan(June 2005).The
goal of this plan is to improve watershed and stream health for community benefit by
recommending a number of policy and program refinements,as well as outlining a capital projects
Appendix G
program.The capital projects focus on stream preservation and enhancement,flow restoration,
community tree planting,stormwater outfall and culvert replacement. Tigard's Public Works
Department is instrumental is achieving the goals of the Healthy Streams Plan through its Surface
Water Quality program(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan,2009). Many of goals of the Healthy
Streams Plans are met through proper urban forest management activities such as invasive species
control and streamside tree canopy restoration.
Large municipalities typically have NPDLS permits for their wastewater treatment facilities and for
stormwater runoff,called a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System(MS4)permit.In urban
Washington County,which includes the City of Tigard,the permits have been combined and are
held by CWS.The combined permit was issued for the entire Tualatin River watershed to guide a
basin-wide effort to improve water quality.It requires CWS to submit a Stormwater Management
Plan and a Wastewater Management Plan to DEQ.These two plans outline the best management
practices that CWS,its member cities,and Washington County commit to employ to reduce
pollutant discharges,regulate temperature,and comply with any Total Maximum Daily Load
(INIDL)levels that have been established(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan,2009). "frees and
urban forests are excellent stormwater managers and contribute to the achievement of water quality
goals,yet are not typically addressed in Stormwater Management Plans.
Appendix H
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Policy Framework
The City of Tigard has various policies and laws that frame and implement the urban forestry program.
Comprehensive Plan
The City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan acts as the City's"land use constitution."It is the document that
provides the broad policy basis forTigard's land use planning program and ultimately guides all actions
relating to the use of land in the City.The Plan also signals that the City's land use planning efforts will
implement state and regional requirements,including Oregon's land use planning goals and related
laws,state administrative rules,and applicable Metro plans and requirements. The Comprehensive Plan
contains goals,policies and recommended action measures that identify the intent of the City to
accomplish certain results.The Urban Forest Section of the Comprehensive Plan contains two(2)goals,
22 policies,and 11 action measures specific to urban forestry in Tigard(include in appendix). The goals
and policies are obligations the City wishes to assume.The City must follow relevant goals and policy
statements when developing other plans or ordinances which affect land use. Therefore,the Urban
Forestry Master Plan and future revisions to the tree ordinance must be consistent with Comprehensive
Plan goals and policies. Recommended action measures support the obligations to achieve a desired
end,but do not signify an obligation themselves.The discretion to what degree Plan policies are
implemented belongs primarily to the City Council(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan,2009).
Zoning Map
The Zoning Map implements the Comprehensive Plan and guides development throughout the City.
Zoning determines the type and intensity of development,as well as applicable Code provisions such as
density requirements. As a result,zoning can impact the extent and feasibility of tree preservation for a
given site.
Code Provisions
The Tigard Municipal Code and Development Code contain specific provisions that regulate trees and
urban forestry in Tigard. The following is a list of the major tree and urban forestry related Code
provisions,as well as commentary on those provisions that present administrative challenges.
Chapter 7.40(Nuisances)requires property owners to maintain minimum branch clearances of eight(8)
feet over sidewalks and ten(10)feet over streets(section 7.40.060.A). It also prohibits owners from
retaining dead or hazardous trees that threaten public or private property(section 7.40.060.6).
However,there is no procedure established for abating hazards on private property such as trees that
are in imminent danger of falling.
Appendix H
Section 7.40.050(Noxious Vegetation)requires property owners to maintain vegetation and weeds so
that they do not become unsightly or a hazard. However,it is unclear if invasive species control is
required by this Code provision.
Section 7.40.090(Greenway Maintenance)establishes standards for greenway maintenance and
prohibits the removal of non-hazardous trees over five(5)feet in height in greenways. However,the
term"greenway"is not well defined.
Chapter 9.06(Trees on City Property)regulates the planting,maintenance,and removal of trees on City
property including parks and public right-of-ways. It also authorizes Council to adopt by resolution a
Tree Manual that provides detailed tree related standards and the City to create an approved Street
Tree List.The Chapter defines a"tree"as a standing woody plant with a trunk diameter of two(2)inches
at 4.5 feet above ground level. Chapter 18.790(Tree Removal)defines a"tree"at six(6)inches in
diameter at four(4)feet above ground level.
Section 9.06.030(Tree Planting)requires written permission from the City prior to planting street trees
or trees on public property. Section 9.06.050(Tree Protection)requires development projects on City
property to protect trees according to the specifications in the Tree Manual. Section 9.06.060(Removal
of Hazardous Trees from City Property)obligates the City to inspect reports of hazardous trees on City
property and prioritize their removal based on the level of hazard.
Section 9.06.070(Removal of Trees from City Property)requires written permission for tree removal
from City property and right-of-way,and requires mitigation per the requirements in the Tree Manual.
The Tree Manual,which was adopted in 2002,provides detailed specifications for Chapter 9.06.
However,administering the provisions in the Tree Manual are challenging because there are some
conflicts with Code provisions elsewhere in the City Code. For example,street tree planting
specifications in section 030 of the Tree Manual are different than the street tree planting specifications
in Chapter 18.745(Landscaping and Screening). Also,the branch clearance requirements for sidewalks
and streets in the Tree Manual are different than those in Chapters 7.40 and 18.745. Finally,referencing
the Tree Manual is a challenge because the index at the beginning of the Manual does not correspond
with the sections in the body.
A tree plan and mitigation is required by sections 070 and 090 of the Tree Manual,but there it is unclear
what triggers the tree plan requirement and what the scope of the tree plan should be.
Chapter 9.08 of the Municipal Code contains the requirements for the City's Heritage Tree Program. The
Chapter recognizes and protects trees or stands of trees on public or private property that are
designated to be of landmark importance due to age,size,species,horticultural quality or historical
importance. Participation in the program is voluntary and administered by the Tree Board,City Council,
and staff.
Appendix H
Title 18(Community Development Code)defines a tree as a standing woody plant with a trunk that is
two(2)inches in diameter at four(4)feet above the ground. This definition is inconsistent with the
definitions of tree in Chapter 9.06 and 18.790 of the Code.
' Chapter 18.330(Conditional Use)authorizes the hearings officer to require conditional use
developments to improve landscaping and increase tree and habitat preservation as a condition of
development approval.
Chapter 18.350(Planned Developments)states as one of its purposes"to preserve to the greatest
extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities(trees,water resources,ravines,etc.)
through the use of a planning procedure(site design and analysis,presentation of alternatives,
conceptual review,then detailed review)that can relate the type and design of a development to a
particular site". Specific provisions in the Chapter require plans that identify areas of significant natural
resources and methods for their maximized protection,preservation,and/or management. Planned
Developments are approved by a Type III process by the Planning Commission. Therefore,Planning
Commissioners have discretionary authority to require that sites are developed in a manner that trees
and other natural features are incorporated into the project design. However,the Home Builders'
Association of Metropolitan Portland(HBAMP)and others have commented that the Planned
Development provisions are in need of revision because they are not conducive to infill development.
The approval criteria in Site Developement Review section 18.360.090,includes many provisions
requiring the preservation of trees and natural areas. For example,approval criteria A.2.a requires
buildings to be"...located to preserve existing trees where possible based upon existing site
conditions".The approval criteria also requires trees to be preserved to the extent possible(A.2.b)and
the use of innovative methods to preserve fish and wildlife habitat located on the"Significant Habitat
Areas Map". Site Development Review applications are reviewed and approved by staff through a Type
II process which limits the amount of staff discretion. Therefore,the non-specific approval criteria
above does not provide the tools needed to implement tree and habitat preservation.
Chapter 18.370(Variances and Adjustments)allows for Type I adjustments to use existing trees as street
trees or to vary from the street tree requirements in Chapter 18.745(Landscaping and Screening)if
there are space constraints.
_i Section 18.385.040(Sensitive Land Permits)requires development within the 100-year floodplain,steep
slopes,drainageways,and wetlands to obtain permits to preserve the safety and functionality of these
areas. Tree Removal permits are required for the removal of trees in sensitive lands by section
18.790.050 of the Code. However,there is no tree protection plan requirement(section 18.790.030)for
development within sensitive lands.
Chapters 18.510,18.520,and 18.530 describe the development standards for residential,commercial
(including mixed use),and industrial zones respectively. Among the provisions are minimum
landscaping requirements,minimum and maximum density requirements,minimum building setback
Appendix H
requirements,and minimum lot sizes and dimensions. These standards may have the greatest impact
on the extent of tree and forest retention during development.
Chapters 18.620(Tigard Triangle Design Standards),18.630(Washington Square Regional Center Design
Standards)and 18.640(Durham Quarry Design Standards)increase the caliper size of all required
landscape and street trees in those planning areas. Some of the planting provisions in these special
planning areas conflict which make interpretation difficult. For example,the landscaping and screening
provisions in section 18.620.070,require tree spacing at a maximum of 28 feet on center. However,the
provisions on page 18 of the Triangle Design Standards specify one parking lot tree for every seven
parking spaces(this creates spacing of more than 28 feet on center). In addition the definition of tree
types on page 18 are overly specific and therefore difficult to apply.
Chapter 18.745(Landscaping and Screening)specifies street tree,parking lot tree,buffer tree,and other
landscaping requirements. The Chapter specifies that it is applicable to all development,but it does not
detail what types of permits trigger the standards. The landscaping provisions are administratively
applied to those developments that require a tree plan(section 18.790.030). The General Provisions
(Chapter 18.745.030)require trees and landscaping to be appropriately planted,pruned,maintained,
and protected during development. However,there is a lack of specificity in these requirements that
make it challenging to ensure that trees and landscaping are properly installed,protected,and
maintained. Section 18.745.040(Street Trees)specifies the location and spacing of variously sized street
trees. However,these specifications differ from those in section 030 of the Tree Manual. Also,there is
no minimum spacing requirement for street trees and the branch clearance requirements for sidewalks
and streets in Chapter 18.745.040 are different than those in Chapter 7.40 and in the Tree Manual.
Section 18.745.050(Buffering and Screening)requires trees and landscaping to be used as a buffer
between differing land uses,aesthetics,and to provide shading for parking lots. The parking lot tree
requirements(18.745.050.E)have not resulted in successful shading of parking lots. This is likely due to
the limited soil volumes the provisions allow(minimum parking island dimensions are three feet by
three feet)and the lack of specificity on installation requirements(e.g.irrigation is not specified for
parking lot trees).
The Sensitive Lands Chapter 18.775 protects sensitive lands for safety,functionality,and fish and wildlife
habitat. It also implements"Clean Water Services(CWS)Design and Construction Standards",the
"Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan","Statewide Planning Goal 5(Natural Resources)"
and meets the National Flood Insurance Program requirements. The chapter requires a CWS
Stormwater Connection permit when tree removal occurs in sensitive lands(section 18.775.020.A.9).
Lawns and gardens are permitted in sensitive lands except in"CWS Water Quality Sensitive Areas or
Vegetated Corridors"and"the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River"
(18.775.020.8.1). Exemptions from the provisions of the sensitive lands chapter are emergency repair,
stream restoration projects,non-native vegetation removal,and routine maintenance as long as they
comply with City Standards and Specifications for Riparian Area Management(section 18.775.020.C).
Section 18.775.020.D requires development to obtain permits from regulating jurisdictions such as the
Army Corps of Engineers or CWS prior to development in jurisdictional wetlands. Section 18.775.070
Appendix H
specifies the approval criteria for sensitive lands permits.Section 18.775.100 allows for adjustments to
dimensional standards such as setbacks,building heights,or lot areas to preserve habitat and vegetation
cover such as trees. Section 18.775.110 allows for density transfers in order to better protect vegetated
corridors. While tree removal permits are required for sensitive lands areas by section 18.790.050,and
habitat protection is a stated purpose for the sensitive lands chapter,there are no implementing
provisions in either Code Chapter that explicitly require the protection of trees and forests in sensitive
lands.
Chapter 18.790(Tree Removal)is what most people think of as the"Tree Code". This portion of the
code regulates tree removal and replacement during certain types of development projects,requires
tree removal permits for trees in sensitive lands,and prescribes the penalties for illegal tree removal. It
also prohibits commercial forestry within the City limits. Section 18.790.020 provides definitions for
some of the words used in the Chapter. Many have commented that some of the definitions need
revision or clarification. For example,a"tree"is defined as a woody plant with a diameter of six inches
when measured four feet above the ground. This definition is inconsistent with the definition of tree in
the Municipal Code and does not account for trees that are less than six inches such as required
mitigation trees. Also,the definition of"hazardous tree"is non-specific and could potentially include
trees that are not intended to be defined as hazardous such as those in a forested area with little
potential of striking people or other high value targets. Finally,the definition of commercial forestry is
specific to the removal of 10 or more trees for sale per acre,per year. The definition is unclear whether
the acreage should measured for the entire property,or for the stand of trees where the removal is
occurring.
Section 18.790.030(Tree Plan Requirement)requires a tree protection,removal,and replacement plan
for Subdivision,Partition,Site Development Review,Planned Development,and Conditional Use
projects. Missing from the list are Sensitive Lands projects,building additions,demolitions,and other
development projects with significant potential to result in tree damage or removal.
Tree plans require mitigation for tree removal on an"inch for inch"basis.Therefore,developers are
required to replant the number of diameter inches of existing trees removed from a development site
with an equivalent amount of diameter inches of replacement trees. For example,if a 24 inch tree is
removed from a development site,the City may require replacement with up to 12,two inch diameter
trees.
J
Also,as the percentage of trees removed from a site is increased,the percentage of replacement trees
required for mitigation is increased. This has resulted in the overplanting of development sites to meet
mitigation requirements as well as the preservation of inappropriate trees in order to avoid mitigation
requirements.
If developers are unable or unwilling to plant replacement trees,there is a fee in lieu of planting option
(18.790.060.E)to cover the City's cost of replanting. This fee is currently assessed as$125 per diameter
inch removed,and viewed as excessive by many of those in the development community. Also,the
Appendix H
methodology used to create the fee in lieu is not well defined and has resulted in many questions as to
the legitimacy of the$125 per inch figure.
A The tree protection requirements of the tree plan are not defined,and are left to the discretion of the
project arborist. This has resulted in wide inconsistencies between protection methods for
development projects,and limits the City's ability to require increased levels of tree protection.
Trees removed within a period of one year before a development application are required to be
inventoried and mitigated as part of the tree plan. This provision has created a loophole that some
developers have exploited by removing trees from a site,waiting one year,and then submitting a
development application in order to avoid tree mitigation requirements.
Section 18.790.040(Incentives for Tree Retention)provides developers incentives and flexibility options
in order to preserve trees. However,the incentives are seldom utilized,and often criticized for their
impracticality. Many in the development community have called for an overhaul of the incentives so
that they are more appealing and practical for developers.
Section 18.790.040.B requires preserved trees to be protected after development through a deed
restriction. This requirement is difficult for City staff to administer as development plans are archived
and difficult to quickly and easily assess in responses to inquires that occur years and decades after
development.
Section 18.790.050(Permit Applicability)requires tree removal permits for trees in sensitive lands areas.
However,the approval criteria relate strictly to erosion control and not the other benefits provided by
trees. Therefore,if an appropriate erosion control plan is provided by the applicant,any or all trees may
be removed from sensitive lands areas. While hazardous trees are exempt from permit requirements,
there is not a clear definition of what constitutes a hazardous tree and who is qualified to deem a tree
hazardous.
Section 18.790.060(Illegal Tree Removal)outlines the penalties for illegal tree removal and specifics the
tree replacement requirements for violations and mitigation. The tree replacement requirements in
18.790.060.D are vague and difficult to administer. The most challenging aspect is the lack of spacing
requirements,which further contributes to overplanting and lack of adequate spacing for mitigation
trees. There is also little specificity on species requirements,which tend to lead to the planting of small
stature and narrow crowned trees so that more trees can be planted to meet the"inch for inch"
replanting requirements. Finally,the fines for illegal tree removal include the appraised value of the
tree illegally removed. This can be challenging when there is not clear documentation of the previous
condition of the tree. One solution may be to set a minimum penalty for cases where there is no
evidence of the species or condition of the illegally removed tree.
Section 18.810(Street and Utility Improvement Standards)specifies the minimum planting strip width
for street trees(5 feet per table 18.810.1)and allows for adjustments to street standards to protect
Appendix H
trees,habitat areas,and other existing natural feature(section 18.810.030.7). Section 18.810.070.0
allows adjustments to planting strip widths to protect existing trees and natural features. Currently the
City adheres to standard specifications for street widths from curb to curb regardless of existing trees
and natural features.The City does actively allow adjustments to sidewalk and planter strip standards in
order to preserve trees. Finally,the five foot standard planter strip width limits the selection of large
stature street trees due to the high likelihood of tree root damage to curbs and sidewalks. There are
currently no street tree planting specifications such as the use of root barriers aimed at reducing future
tree root conflicts.
Findings from City of Tigard Policy Framework:
• The Comprehensive Plan complies with State and Regional requirements and contains two(2)goals
and 22 policies specific to urban forestry that must be adhered to when developing other urban
forestry plans or ordinances which affect land use.
• The Zoning Map implements the Comprehensive Plan,and frames the type and intensity of
development for various areas of the City. Code provisions in Chapter 18.500 provide specification
for development based on development in the various zones. These Development Code provisions
may have the greatest impact on the extent of tree and forest retention during development.
• Tree and forest related Code provisions are scattered throughout the Municipal Code and the
Development Code. Some of the Code provisions in the Municipal Code and Development Code
conflict.
• Tree provisions in Chapter 7.40(Nuisances)of the Municipal Code address hazardous trees and
vegetation. There is lack of specificity in the provisions,thus limiting their ability to be enforced.
There is also no program established to abate immediate hazards.
• Chapter 9.06(Trees on City Property)of the Municipal regulates public trees. The Chapter contains
definitions and requirements that conflict with those in the Development Code. The Chapter and
associated Tree Manual also lack specificity regarding when the Code.provisions are applicable and
how they can be met.
• Chapter 9.08 regulates the City's Heritage Tree Program and is a functional Chapter.
• Many Chapters in the Development Code contain aspirational statements regarding tree and
habitat preservation,but few implementing provisions that specifically require preservation.
• Chapters 18.620(Tigard Triangle Design Standards),18.630(Washington Square Regional Center
Design Standards)and 18.640(Durham Quarry Design Standards)contain provisions that increase
the type and size of landscaping in these districts. Some of the provisions within the Chapter
conflict.
• Chapter 18.745(Landscaping and Screening)specifies street tree,parking lot tree,buffer tree,and
other landscaping requirements during development. The Chapter lacks a level of specificity to
ensure that trees are properly installed,protected,and maintained after development. Planting and
maintenance provisions differ from those in the Municipal Code,and parking lot tree requirements
have not been successful at providing long term canopy.
• Chapter 18.775(Sensitive Lands)protects steep slopes,drainageways,floodplains,and wetlands
from development. Trees and forests located on sensitive lands are therefore protected as well.
Appendix H
• Chapter 18.790(Tree Removal)regulates tree removal and replacement during certain types of
development projects. Some development such as development in sensitive lands and building
additions are not subject to the Chapter's provisions even though there is significant likelihood that
trees will be impacted.
• Some of the definitions within Chapter 18.790 are inconsistent with those in the Municipal Code and
lack clarity making them difficult to administer.
• Mitigation for tree removal on an"inch for inch"basis is required by Chapter 18.790,and seen as
excessive by many in the development community. It also contributes to overplanting of trees.
• The fee in lieu of mitigation tree planting is$125 per caliper inch,which is also seen by developers
as excessive. The methodology used to create the fee in lieu is not well defined and has resulted in
many questions as to its legitimacy.
• There is a loophole in Chapter 18.790 that some developers have exploited by removing trees from
a site,waiting one year,and then submitting a development application in order to avoid tree
mitigation requirements.
• Incentives for tree preservation in Chapter 18.790 are not appealing or practical for developers.
• Tree Removal permits are required for trees in sensitive lands by Chapter 18.790,but the approval
criteria do not require preservation as long as erosion is adequately controlled.
• Penalties for illegal tree removal in Chapter 18.790 can be challenging to apply when the condition
and species of the tree removed are not known.
• The tree replacement guidelines in Chapter 18.790 lack specificity and are difficult to administer,
especially with regards to species and spacing requirements.
Throughout the Code,tracking of protected trees is a continual challenge in the years and decades after
development is complete.
Attachment 4
Todd Prager
From: mettel@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 11:01 AM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: Re: Packet for Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting
Hi Todd
There is a wealth of information in the report but too much for me to absorb. I believe the report could be
sharpened up to make it easier to use.. Here are suggestion for your consideration.
1. Organize the report on the basis of work/management activities/functions that are assigned to one
oganization, or more then one coordinated organization elements. For example::
a. Review/approval of development plans
b. Preservation of wetlands and wildlife habitat
c. Tree planting
d. Management of trees in City parks, greenspaces
e. Preservation of Wetlands and wildlife habitat
f. Fallen tree removal.
2. Provide a chapter for each activity or group of related work activities. For each activity., provide pertinent
information contained in the draft report.This to includet,for example:
a. History of the activity and present status
b. Comprehensive plan !guidance
c. Existing codes and ordinances
d. Impacts of federal,state, metro programs
e. Stakeholder views
f. Analysis
g. Recommended implementation actions
Mort Ettelstein
i
,I
1
i
Attachment 4
Morton S. Ettelstein
15890 SW Greens Way
Tigard, OR 97224
503-639-5614
May 13, 2009
Hi Marissa
Here is some work that might be of help for your development of the Urban Forest
Program Work Breakdown Structure. You can see my work was done before the
use of the term Work Breakdown Structure and PCs.If you haven't already done it,
you can get some insights with Google. WBS is used for both program and project
planning.
Also enclosed is a reference to an excellent book on writing policies and procedures.
You can get the book from the'library. I think you will have a lot of this to do.
Let me know if you have any questions on my materials or I can be of any help to
you.
Have Fun
Mort
Attachment 4
HIERARCHY OF WORK
EXAMPLES
Environmental General
Order and Definition Protection Agency Motors
MISSION Clean up Maximum return
.(General Goals of environment on investment
Organization)
PROGRAMS
(Area of Common Outputs ' Air Pollution Control Passenger
and Services and Resource Water Pollution Vehicles
Inputs) Control Rail Transport
Water Supply Home Appliances
FUNCTIONS
(Work involves one job (Water Supply) (Passenger
family/discipline ; done Quality Monitoring Vehicles)
in same program area) Enforcement Engineering
Facility Operations Manufacturing
Marketing
SUB-FUNCTIONS (Quality Monitoring) (Manufacturing)
(Workload can be dimen- Sample Collection Foundry
sioned; work count ca'n Laboratory Opera- Machine Shop
be identified and measured) tions Production Con-
Quality Control trol
Quality Control
TASKS (Laboratory Opera- (Machine Shop)
(Distinct identifiable tions) Set up machine
work activity performed Perform analysis - set up men
by individuals) of samples - Operate machine
Technician - operator
Clean glassware
Aide
Plan laboratory
procedures - Chemist
OPERATIONS (Clean Glassware) (Set up machine)
(Necessary activities to Load machine Mount cutting
bring about task accom- Fill with detergent tools
plishment) Unload machine and Adjust feeds and
replace in cabinets speeds
ELEMENTS (Load Machine) (Mount cutting
(Smallest unit into which Pick up glassware tools)
work can be divided Place glassware in Pick up tools
machine Place tools on
machine
HIERARCHY OF 'WOMI _ Attachment 4
EPA SAFE DRIl1'�ING WA'1'L.R P.ROGRA111
p. U.17 C
IPersonnel. Cat_egcries
LABORATORY SERVICES >-- PUBLIC 'NATER SUPPLIES
Professionals
#� Technicians
Aides
LABORATORY L,.30RATORY �.. SAMPLES
Professionals
- Technicians
BIOLOGICAL SORT C11ZHIC_L,
-;�- CHEMI CAL ANALYSES
Chemists
- Lab Technicians
CRGANIC INORGANIC
. - INORGANIC ANALYSES
Inorganic chemists
ATOMIC
F�( TITRATION COLORI:•STRY —�—ATOMIC ABSORPTION
., ABSORPTION ANALYSES
Atomic Absorption
I Specialist
Page 1 of 1
Attachment 4
�- #,F Title: Writing effective policies and procedures : a step-by-step resource for
;!�r�Ut•1_9 clear communication
;;:')rill Ve1998
i. Author: Campbell, Nancy, 1949 Dec. 15-
' j Publisher/Date: New York : American Management Association, c1998., 1998
Description: xiii, 397 p. ; 29 cm.
ISBN: 08144796OX
I
I
i
i
about:blank 5/6/2009 F
R
Attachment 4
Todd Prager
From: jfrewing ofrewing@teleport.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 4:41 PM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: Tigard UFMP Comments of June 8
Todd,
Below are some comments I have developed over the weekend. Please share with the CAC,and include and consider them as the
UFMP goes forward. Thanks, John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane,Tigard 97223
URBAN FORESTRY MASTER PLAN—FREWING COMMENTS OF JUNE 8, 2009
Following last week's meeting of the Tree Board and disclosure of a schedule for completion of the UFMP and
some tree code changes, I have had a chance to see the online version of the UFMP and have the comments
below. It is not clear how much of the structure and substance of the online UFMP are,for city staff and
council, a matter of'faith', not subject to reason and therefore not subject to change by reason, but I hope
that at least some of the points below will be considered. I ask that you incorporate my comments of March 5
and April 2 as well as the comments below, and at least make some annotations as to your consideration given
to them,for transference to me.
A It is not clear to me, by example, how the online UFMP advances Tigard's protection, management and
enhancement of our urban forest beyond the stated goals of the comp plan. I have expressed concern earlier
that the present material seems only a schedule of things to do in the future; the Tree Board on June 3
seemed to have some of these same concerns, namely that the substance of Tigard's management of its urban
forest gets again pushed to the future. For example, what does the city think it might do to increase
accountability for compliance with the tree code, particularly in light of changing site ownership over time?
For example,will the city design and implement overlay zones for protection of native forest remnants or tree
groves? For example,what policies, programs and regulations will be offered (give examples)to protect
understory in Tigard's urban forest? For example,what policies (or even what are possible policies which will
be adopted)for protection of our urban forest in 'non-development' situations?
B I cannot find significant background information (dated 2009)which forms the basis for our UFMP. For
example,where is the discussion of the benefits of an urban forest? Where is a description of our urban
forest? Will the canopy maps of this year and prior years be archived, perhaps in digital form, and become
part of the UFMP for research in later years?
C In the Implementation Matrix, I want to suggest that a significant revision be undertaken to Tigard's street
design standards to accommodate and encourage trees near streets (providing more canopy) and provide
regular flexibility for things like pervious parking lanes, curb stub outs at street intersections and sidewalk
meanders to save trees.
D The sustainability aspect of Tigard's urban forest seems not to be treated at all. It is nice and good to save
large trees, but equally important is to ensure that such trees have understory, such that when they die,there
will be some substantial trees to replace them in a short time. Such replacement trees may be of different
species (ie they grow in substantial shade), but the UFMP should note this need in both programs and
regulations and recommend appropriate species for this 'sustainability' aspect of the UFMP.
i
Attachment 4
E I didn't find in the UFMP any action plans to enhance the Heritage Tree Program which already exists in
Tigard; such should be-a part of the UFMP.
F One comp plan policy is to'recognize the right of individuals to manage their residential landscapes. Th,e
preamble to.the UFMP provides'a basis for a parallel public right of Tigard residents 'to enjoy a substantial
urban forest throughout the community'. Such public right and obligation of the city to promote and enforce
should be clearly stated in the UFMP.
G The UFMP section on hazard trees should explicitly note the importance of tree maintenance and pruning as
a first-line alternative to declaration of a tree as 'hazardous', thereby removing such tree from any-regulation.
H The UFMP should specifically mention the role of ODFW in both planning and implementing steps for
protection, management and enhancement of native forest remnants in Tigard, both before and after hiring a
`greenway coordinator'. I recommend that an additional 'stakeholder' interview be held with ODFW and
results incorporated into UFMP work.
I The Tigard UFMP should identify areas and goals for enhancement of our urban forests beyond those actions
and regulations called for by the Tualatin Basin Partnership, which called basically for CWS standards to meet
Oregon State Goal 5 requirements, but which thereby create no action program nor any enforceable
mechanism to preserve open space and 'nature in the neighborhoods' on uplands. This is especially
important, based on the fact finding in the preamble to the UFMP,that 90 percent of Tigard's citizens
(scientific survey) say that the city should take the lead in preserving open space.
J Implementation item 2.1.h states the landscape code should be revised to not require technologies which
are cost prohibitive. Such an action should-have as its parallel a requirement to revise the landscape code to
require the use of techniques and practices which have been,used and are required for comparable size
projects in the Portland area. An applicant can always say that any regulation is 'cost prohibitive'; as a
minimum,there should be standards established as to what the city considers 'cost prohibitive'.
K Under Implementation Actions 4.x,the UFMP should include action to document the value of dead trees in
an urban forest and include in any'hazard'tree planning, provision to protect appropriate dead or down trees
as part of a functioning forest. The UFMP should provide more guidance on the term 'hazard' beyond the
current 'known and immediate hazard' definition—to include a consideration of both the extent of possible
damage and the probability of damage if a'tree were to fall.
L The discussion of bases for development of UFMP Chapters 1 through 6 mentions specific items raised by the
several entities interviewed by Tigard planning staff, yet ignors the substantial body of work done by METRO
in developing its Goal 5 program over the past several years. METRO staff should be added to the list of
interviewees regarding elements of an urban forest plan, on an equal basis as the HBA and ISA
representatives.
M I am concerned about moving the Tigard regulations for tree management from the development code to
the municipal code, 'allowing for discretionary review'. This action has not been discussed at any CAC meeting
and seems to limit citizen opportunity for participation in the urban forest management programs, particularly
the regulatory aspects. The text of the plan should explain what this action will do. The UFMP should be clear
that this will not weaken the need for a tree plan for developing properties, and the resulting regulations will
still call for the city to make a finding that trees have been preserved on a developing property wherever
possible.
2
Attachment 4 .
N Section 2 of the Implementation Matrix.(Landscape) does not include any actions to reduce the amount of
invasive species in Tigard, both in development situations, on public land and in 'non-development' situations.
An amendment to the 'nuisance' regulations of the city should be developed to incentivize and regulate
invasives throughout the city. This section refers to `trees' a number of times; the action plan should be more
specific to man-created landscape elements; natural plantings should be protected, but should not be
considered landscape actions.
0 Section 5.d of the Implementation Matrix should.identify possible financing arrangements to implement the
UFMP. One specific financing tool,the city purchase of easements rather than purchase properties, should be
included, as this has been the discussion of the CAC and Tree Board over the past year.
i
i
Attachment 4
Todd Prager
From: Summers,Lori [Isummers@ci.oswego.or.us]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 2:23 PM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: City of Tigard Draft Urban Forestry Master Plan
Attachments: append ixBcomments.pdf; StateoftheForestReport.pdf
Hello Todd.
I looked over the draft plan, and first of all, it's great that there seems to be so much support from the public for tree
protection and program improvement! Never mind the HBAMP. No urban forestry program because the costs would
outweigh the benefits! I wonder how they might justify that idea...And I also have a few comments. I was mostly interested
in Appendix B since it has a lot of valuable information regarding canopy cover. I am sure the formatting will be changed a
lot, but I attached some comments in a pdf. I also recall that you were interested in the State of the Urban Forest report
that I presented to Lake Oswego Natural Resources Advisory Board. It is finalized, and I have attached it as well. Good
luck with the UFMP.
Lori Summers
Community Forestry Coordinator
AmeriCorps NW Service Academy
City of Lake Oswego
(503)675-2543
I
i
i
i
i
i
Appendix B
Canopy Cover(both 1996 and 200 located within the une 2008 Tigard Ci Limits
Ci Limits,June 2008 7556 acres
1996 2007
Percent of Percent of
June 2008 June 2008
Acres City Limits Acres City Limits
CanopyCover 1952.75 25.84% 1852.69 24.52%
understand what
these columns
indicate, but having
the same column
header twice is
confusing. 1996 2007
ercent of Percent of Pe7,nf nCanopy
1996 Canopy 1996 Canopy 2007 Canopy Size of Cano Cluster Acres Cover Clusters Cover Acres Cover Clusters
Less than 0.5 acres 366.55 1877765. 4356 9 /0 584.30 31.54°i0 7231 .86%
0.5 to.99 acres 135.76 6.95% 197 4.11% 167.25 9.03% 242 3.14%
1.0 to 1.99 acres 159.25 8.16% 113 2.36% 177.88 9.60% 131 1.70%
2.0 to 4.99 acres 190.86 9.77% 61 1.27% 157.00 8.47% 52 0.67%
5.0 or more acresl 1100.33 56.35% 63 1.32% 766.26 41.36°!0 48 0,62°l0
Total 1 1952.75 100% 4790 100% 1852.69 100% 1 7704 1 100%
Appendix .B
Urban Renewal Zone 191 acres
1996 2007.
'Acres' Percent Acres " Percent
Canopy Cover of Urban Renewal Zone 19.67, 10.30% 18.41 9.64%
F
Appendix B
Within June 2008 City Limits
Jan 1,2008 Buildable Lands Inventory(BL4 528.75 acres
BLI 1996 1423.32 acres
Cano Cover
Year BLI Acres Acres Percent
1996 1423.32 646.52 45.420
2007 528.75 226.26 42.79%
1996 BLI Canopy Cover Change
1996 Canopy Cover within 2007 Canopy Cover within
1996 BLI 1996 BLI
Acres Acres Percent Acres Percent
1996 BLI 1423.32 646.52 45.42% 495.24 34.79%
This information seems less valuable since the BLI acres changes so much between your
two time periods. Having only the 1996 BLI canopy cover change at the bottom of the chart is
confusing.
Appendix B
City Limits,June 2008 7556 acres
May 13,2008 Taxlots 2007 Can o y Cover
Percent
Ownership
Taxlot Ownership Number Acres Acres Cover
City of Tigard 235 388.41 179.18 46.13%
Public Right-of-Way n/a 1,288.30 117.45 9.12%
Other Public Entity 79 431.65 105.10 24.35%
Private 1 15,880 5,447.64 1,450.96 26.63%
Total 16,194 7,556.00 1,852.69 24.52%
Appendix B
Significant Habitat Areas 2007 Canopy Covera&e 1852.69 acres
Acres in 2007 Canopy Coverage Percent of 2007 Citywide
Habitat Class Tigard Acres Percent Canopy Cover
Highest Value 590.51 267.84 45.36% 14.46%
Moderate Value 374.88 193.28 51.56% 10.43%
Lower Value 1447.84 234.96 52.47% 12.68%
Totall 1413.23 1 696.08 49.25% 37.57%
This is confusing at first glance. When giving info about canopy cover within a particular
area or region, maybe say "Percent Canopy Coverage within Significant Habitat Areas"
and then "Percent of Tigard's Total Canopy"
Appendix B
Sensitive Lands 2007 Canopy Coverage 1852.69 acres
1996 Canopy Coverage 1952.75 acres
Acres in 2007 Canopy Cove 1996 Cano y Coverage Percent Change 1996 to
Type Tizard Acres Percent Ci wide Percent Acres Pcrcent Ci ide Percent 2007
Local Wetland Inventory 290.91 116.01 39.88% 6.26% 145.98 50.18% 7.48% -10.30%
CWS Vegetated Corridor 704.78 302.85 42.974% 16.35% 348.16 49.401% 17.83"o -6.430/.
FEMA 1 00- r Floodplain 592.6 188.05 31.73% 10.15% 213.17 35.97% 10924 o -4.24%
Slopes>254 o 195.51 129.64 66.31% 7.00% 130.28 66.640/- 6.67% -0.33%
Total 1783.8 736.55 41.29% 39.761/6 837.59 46.96% 42.89% -5.661/9
This is the only chart with inverse chronological labeling. Every other chart shows 1996 on
the left, then 2007 on the right. And again, "Citywide Percent"could be clarified with
something like "Percent of Tigard's Total Canopy Cover".
Appendix B
Subdivisions.A roved in 1996/97
Canopyoverage
1996 2007
Number Total Acres Acres Percent Acres Percent Chane 1996-2007
18 72.76 18.32 1 25.18% 12.49 17.177 31.82%
t
Appendix B
City Limits,June 2008 7556
1996 Can y Cover 2007 Canopy Cover Percent Change 1996 to
Zoning 2008 Acres Acres Percent Acres Percent 2007
Commercial 800 88.13 11.02% 80.52 10.07% -0.95%
Industrial 863 139.81 16.20% 137.58 15.94% -0.26%
Mixed Use 701 150.3 21.44% 99.79 14.24% -7.21%
Residential 5192 1574.42 30.32% 1534.72 29.56% -0.76%
Total 7556 1952.66 25.84% 1852.61 24.52% -1.32%
Attachment 4
Todd Prager
From: meftel@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, June 19,2009 3:06 PM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: draft comments
Todd.
Here are some thoughts for you to consider.
Need to have a structure for the various items in the implementation goals. My first cut is
- Ordinance naw/code
- Program—a continuing activity of functions,policies and procedures and one time projects
- Project—a one time activity composed of sub-projects project tasks—develop maual,develop
procedure. (Note Software is a available for project planning and management)
- Feature—special aspect of any of the above
Following is how I w-old categorize the elements of the first couple of Goals
1.1 Revise Tigards Tree Ordinance. This is Project(suggest more interesting term for"revise"—Enhance,
update,extend, improve)
a, b, c. These are features, benefits of rhe change
d. This is a sub-project with a number of tasks
e. f features, benefits
g. h I Project
j. Develop is project, maintain is continuing activity-program element
1.2 a,b- Projects
2.1 Update code and develop technical guidelines for Tigards landscaping ordinance
a, b,c,d project s
e e, f, g, —features,
h—criteria, guideline for project
2.2 Develop and maintain ...
b. project
a. Maintain - program element
I suggest each of the goals be covered in a consistent sequence. lit might be
City codes to be changed
Activities to be established,or changed, (Program, functions.)
Procedures,technical guidance to be developed
Features of the above
On a second look—I suggest the goal statements be more consistent. I like 1.1
Let me know your reaction to this. You can call me any time.
Mort
i
MEETING
M N UTES
v
City of Tigard
' ' Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee - Minutes
MEETING DATE: July 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—Dennis Sizemore,Janet Gillis, Morgan Holen, David Walsh, Matt Clemo,
Mort Ettelstein, Phil Hickey
Members Absent—Tony Tycer
Staff Present—Councilor Marland Henderson,Todd Prager, Marissa Daniels,John Floyd
Visitors —Karen Estrada
1. Introductions and Opening Remarks
The Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP), Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting began at 6:30 p.m.
with an opening statement by Todd Prager. Prager described the purpose of the meeting as being to form
consensus on the implementation recommendations in the UFMP.
2. Review and Approve Minutes from the May 6, 2009 Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen Advisory
Committee meeting
At 6:31 p.m. the CAC approved the May 6, 2009 meeting minutes (Attachment 1, UFMP CAC July 1, 2009
meeting packet).
3. Update on Additional Tree Canopy Studies
Prager then provided an update on the additional tree canopy studies that the CAC requested. First, he
explained that staff completed the "possible percent citywide canopy" study and determined that Tigard
does have the potential to reach American Forest's recommended 40% canopy cover for Pacific
Northwest cities. Prager briefly explained the methodology used by staff detailed in Attachment 2 (UFMP
CAC July 1, 2009 meeting packet).
David Walsh asked what baseline was used for percent canopy. Prager responded that staff used the 2007
canopy layer provided by Metro and the citywide baseline was roughly 24%. He said the study informed
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—July 1,2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.dgard-or.gov I Page 1 oM
the goals in the UFMP of no net loss of canopy by 2015, 32% citywide canopy by 2027, and 40% citywide
canopy by 2047.
Morgan Holen commented that canopy is not the most important aspect of urban forestry, and instead the
City should be focusing on maximizing net benefits. Ms. Holen highlighted the importance of canopy
cover over roads and parking lots, and suggested the City focus its efforts on areas where trees provide the
highest benefit to cost ratio. She also noted the importance of species and age diversity and said that
canopy cover does not take these factors into account.
David Walsh responded that canopy cover is the most cost effective method for creating a baseline at this
time.
Prager acknowledged the importance of diversity and maximizing benefits in urban forestry and that
canopy studies do not take that into account. He said that in the future that type of detailed analysis
should be done, but for the City's first UFMP a more cost effective and time efficient method for
measuring the urban forest is needed.
Ms. Holen agreed that a more detailed study should be conducted in the future.
Prager mentioned that the parking lot canopy study is ongoing and should be completed by the next
meeting. He explained that the purpose of the parking lot study is to set a baseline for parking lot canopy
so that it can be tracked in the future as planting efforts increase and parking lot designs are improved.
4. Draft Plan Discussion
Prager then shifted the discussion to the draft Urban Forestry Master Plan (Attachment 3, UFMP CAC
July 1, 2009 meeting packet). He said that he would first like to talk about the overall content of the plan,
and then work on achieving consensus on the recommendations. He reminded the CAC that Council is
the primary target audience because they will ultimately need to accept the proposed work plan regarding
code updates and program implementation.
Phil Hickey said the UFMP was nicely organized and presented although an appendix and glossary are
necessary additions.
Morgan Holen said that an urban forest benefits section should be added and that it could be in the
appendix. Prager responded that he removed the benefit/cost section in response to the CAC's desire to
reduce the size of the previous draft. He added that there is a discussion of urban forest benefits and costs
in the Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan which is currently in the appendix.
David Walsh and Dennis Sizemore supported referencing the Comprehensive Plan rather than adding a
separate discussion of urban forest benefits and costs. Morgan Holen and the rest of the CAC agreed that
the Comprehensive Plan should be referenced in the narrative.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—July 1,2009
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of6
Prager then shifted the discussion to the implementation recommendations. He said that substantial
additions, deletions, or revisions to the recommendations by CAC members will only be made if a majority
of CAC members approve.
In response to a question from Morgan Holen, Prager confirmed that the implementation goals are listed
in order of importance and revising the tree code is the top priority.
Morgan Holen responded that before the tree code is revised, there should be more evaluation of the
current code and its impact on the existing urban forest.
David Walsh said that Council has been asking the Tree Board to evaluate and revise the code for years
and now is the appropriate time for implementation.
Prager added that the UFMP is intended to evaluate the existing urban forest and code so that future
decisions could be more informed.
The Tree Board members of the CAC agreed that it is necessary to begin code revisions first.
Morgan Holen asked the group if recommendation 1.1.g (create a tree preservation manual) is necessary.
Her experience with cities that have a tree preservation manual has been that they limit the flexibility and
professional judgement of project arborists. She said in her opinion, a tree preservation manual would
make the future code more complicated.
Phil Hickey disagreed and thought a tree preservation manual could be a good thing so that minimum
standards could be enforced. Mr. Hickey commented that some arborists are not skilled at tree
preservation so a minimum standard is appropriate.
Dennis Sizemore supported a tree preservation manual so the public can understand what the standard
requirements are.
Morgan Holen said that the implementation recommendations under goal 4 (Develop a hazard tree
program) should specify that the tree risk assessment methodology established by the Pacific Northwest
Chapter of the ISA is to be used when performing hazard inspections and abatement.
Janet Gillis suggested that recommendations 4.1.d and 5.2.b be combined because they both cover hiring a
greenspace coordinator.
In addition to the changes suggested at the meeting, the substantial changes to the recommendations in
Mort Ettelstein's email dated June 19, 2009 (Attachment 4, UFMP CAC July 1, 2009 meeting packet)
where discussed.
Mort Ettelstein's email suggested moving the following recommendations into the narrative section of the
document:
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—July 1,2009
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 3 oM
1.1.b Focus code less on mitigation and more on preserving long lived evergreens, broad-spreading
deciduous varieties, native species, and other trees identified as being of high importance.
1.1.c Require private arborists to be involved in the development process from site planning through
landscape installation.
1.1.e Provide incentives for preserving smaller diameter trees which have a higher ability to withstand
development impacts.
1.1.f Ensure invasive trees are exempt from preservation requirements through the adoption of an
inclusive invasive species list.
2.1.e Incentivize the use, retention, and replacement of long lived evergreens, broad-spreading deciduous
varieties, native species, and other trees identified as of high importance.
2.1.f Allow required landscape trees to count towards mitigation, canopy cover, and/or tree density
standards.
2.1.g Require landscape architects to develop landscape plans for projects of a certain type and/or size.
2.1.h Do not require new technologies that are cost prohibitive.
3.2.a Reach out to property owners with identified tree groves early in the process to allow them ample
opportunity to participate.
3.2.b Ensure any future tree grove regulations have flexibility and incentives built in.
In addition, Mr. Ettelstein suggested adding the following recommendations:
-Conduct a cost/benefit study for a leaf pickup program from all City streets.
-Designate a lead division to provide leadership and coordination for the hazard tree program.
-Designate a lead individual to coordinate all urban forest related activities.
Marissa Daniels displayed all of the CAC member's suggested changes on a poster and asked the CAC as a
group to decide whether to accept them.
Karen Estrada asked if items are removed from the matrix would they be less likely to be followed up on.
Prager responded that the items in the matrix have a specific timeline for implementation, so removing
items from the matrix will make them less enforceable.
Dennis Sizemore said that he objects to removing any recommendations because they implement the
Comprehensive Plan.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—July 1,2009
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.dggard-or.gov I Page 4 oM
Janet Gillis added that removing recommendations related to mitigation would be counterproductive
because it is a central issue that needs to be resolved.
Marissa Daniels suggested combining some of the recommendations to cut down on the total. David
Walsh objected to this because if Council ends up rejecting a recommendation, then it would eliminate
multiple items all at once.
Prager suggested reordering the recommendations within each goal so that the ordinances, programs,
projects, and features are in groups rather than scattered throughout.
Mort Ettelstein said that he thought that approach would work, and that the important thing is for the
document to be useable in the future.
At Prager's request, Marissa Daniels took a vote on the substantial changes to the recommendations. The
results were as follows:
-The CAC voted unanimously not to remove any of the existing implementation recommendations.
-The CAC voted unanimously to include the following recommendations:
-Conduct a cost/benefit study for a leaf pickup program from all City streets.
-Designate a lead division to provide leadership and coordination for the hazard tree program.
-Designate a lead individual to coordinate all urban forest related activities.
-The CAC voted unanimously to substantially revise the recommendations as follows:
- Specify that the tree risk assessment methodology established by the Pacific Northwest
Chapter of the ISA is to be used when performing hazard inspections and abatement.
-Combine recommendations 4.1.d and 5.2.b because they both cover hiring a greenspace
coordinator.
5. Public Comment on Draft Plan
Prager told the CAC to consider all of the public comments (Attachment 4, UFMP CAC July 1, 2009
meeting packet) as well as those forwarded via email in recent days. Prager said that staff would be making
additional edits to wording, etc. over the coming months, but if the CAC would like to put forward any
substantial revisions to the UFMP in response to public comment, they were welcome to do so after
testimony is received from the public.
At 7:21 p.m., Karen Estrada commented that she was happy with the direction the UFMP was moving.
Ms. Estrada added that coordination of the UFMP among City departments will be important in the future
and that any new regulations should pertain to all Tigard citizens.
Ms. Estrada added that all Tigard citizens are impacted by the actions of their neighbors, especially during
infill development projects. She then passed around a photo (Exhibit A) of a development project
adjacent to her residence with tall weeds that she says resulted from trees being cut down and left in place.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—July 1,2009
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 5oM
Ms. Estrada also claimed that the lack of trees is causing drainage issues on the site and that the City codes
do not adequately address this type of situation.
Ms. Estrada added that the blight caused by the development project in this and other areas of town is
reducing property values and the City's overall tax base.
She said that she likes the recommendation to prohibit clear cutting because it protects existing
neighborhoods. Ms. Estrada stressed the importance of not removing items from the recommendation list
because if they are not in writing, they will not be enforced.
6. Consideration of Public Comment
After considering all of the written and verbal public comments received, the CAC unanimously voted to
not substantially alter the UFMP aside from the revisions previously approved.
7. Closing Remarks and Adjournment
Prager reminded the CAC that the final meeting will be September 2, 2009. He also told the CAC that
staff will be meeting with Council on August 11, 2009 to update them on the UFMP, as well as receive
direction on implementing code revisions. John Floyd added that Council will be considering interim code
revisions on July 14, 2009 and further direction on code revisions may be received at that time. Todd
Prager adjourned the meeting at 7:44 p.m.
Urban Forestry Master Plan, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes—July 1,2009
Cityof Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 6oM
PUBIC
COMMENT
OF DRAFT
PLAN
Attachment 4
Todd Prager
From: mettel@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:58 PM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: Comments on Draft Urban Forestry Master Plan
Todd,
Here are my comments and suggestions on the Implementation Matrix part of the Urban Forestry Master Plan
Report. I found the narrative part well written and cannot offer any changes. However I do suggest that the
following comments and suggestions be considered for revision of the narrative.
1. Implementation Matrix Format. Suggest the sequence and content of action measures be more
consistent. Also do not include descriptive items. A sequence might be
a. Ordinance/law/code
b. Program—An operation/activity/program to be continued or established. Also the item might
indicate if the activity is new or continuing.
c. Project—a one time activity—develop manual, develop procedure
d. Descriptive items/features can be better covered in the narrative. Examples: "provide incentives
for small diameter trees","ensure invasive trees are exempt". This will simplify understanding
and reduce the size of the matrix
e. Hour and Dollar Estimates. Will the reader know if these are annual or one time costs?If
task/activity will not require a staff increase, should a cost be assigned to it? .
2. Revise Tree Ordinance- 1
a. 1.1 Features that could be covered in narrative—b, c, e, f,
b. 1.2.b should be covered in another section devoted to charges for tree services?
3. Revise Landscaping Ordinance-2
a. Move 2.1 Features to narrative—e,f, g,h
b. Suggest adding a cost-benefit study for leaf pickup from all city streets
4. Tree Grove protection program- 3
a. Combine 3.1 and 3.2. Isn't it one program? Descriptive info in titles can be covered in
narrative\- 3.2 a, b
5. Hazard Tree Program-4
a. Combine 4.1,4.2—together they describe all Hazard Tree Program actions
b. Green Space coordinator(4.1.d)also covered in 5.2.b
c. 4 divisions involved. Suggest one be designated lead division to provide leadership,coordination
for this program
6. Improve management of Urban Forestry Program—5
a. For 5.1 title, suggest use data base/information system or other up to date term. Then list tasks
needed to develop and operate it.
b. Suggest that one division or position be designated to provide leadership/coordination for urban
forest related activities. This to include budgeting, standards and specifications, securing long
term funding, update urban forestry. Might use the Green Space Coordinator position for this.
c. Green Space Coordinator also covered in(4.Ld).
7. Develop Urban Forest Stewardship Program
a. Revise title to"develop and conduct ....."On the other hand, don't the items in the sections 1 to
4 come under the stewardship? i
b. 6.4 Update Plan should be task of program management(goal 5
Attachment 4
Todd Prager
From: jfrewing Ofrewing@teleport.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 11:52 AM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: July 1 UFMP CAC Meeting-Citizen Input
Todd,
I find that I cannot attend the July 1 UFMP CAC meeting,but want to provide citizen input,as I have attended all other meetings of
the CAC.
ATTACHMENT
1.The definition of'canopy'is not in this memo,and it should be clarified up front. Does canopy include blackberries? Does canopy
include grass? Does canopy include bushes and gardens? Is canopy limited to perrenial plants growing more than 8 feet above
ground level,excluding invasive species? Or? I think this latter definition seems suitable,but the CAC may have other opinions.
Please clarify'canopy'in the text. A parallel concern regards the definition of'landscape'or'landscaping'.The code requirements for
landscaping are vague at best(the Planned Dev section does have one requirement for 20%gross area landscaping). Chapter 18.745
does have requirements for buffering between adjacent uses and these should be considered as potential canopy cover areas between
different zones.
2. The most amazing thing that concerns me regarding a canopy goal is that the city would give up before starting on trying to
provide canopy on public right of way(a text note says that this is the case!). The values of the city citizens want more canopy cover
along streets and it is possible. Why should the city get a free ride on canopy cover when all others have to provide canopy cover?
The city code requires street trees,which,when grown,will provide canopy cover for a significant part of public right of way. Maybe
one solution would be to give up on providing canopy cover for portions of streets more than 40 feet from the edge of right of
way where 1)the right of way is more than 80 feet wide AND 2)there is no medianplantingstrip. As an example of what can be
done for right of way canopy cover,just drive down State Street,Lake Oswego's main street,and see what great cover is provided
there. When defining the location of public right of way,the full width of right of way,as shown on the TSP should be considered,
notwithstanding that some widening of a street will happen in some cases when development occurs. Please add back public right of
way when computing what is a good goal for canopy cover in Tigard.
i
3. I believe that the CAC should consider the recent study by Audubon for METRO regarding tree policies(see Oregonian of June 29
article)and would bring my copy if I were able to attend,but believe an electronic copy can be obtained for the CAC.
THE URBAN FORESTRY MASTER PLAN
4. The concept of sustainability has not been incorporated adequately. I have earlier suggested the creation of overlay zones for
particular areas,including tree groves. Tigard will not develop a strong urban forest if each case has to be reviewed one at a time.
Such overlay zones or other mechanism can be the basis for strong rules on maintenance of both planted and natural trees at times
beyond specific development review,and should be developed.
5. The plan gives almost no consideration to inclusion of open space,ie areas not developed by mankind,in the Tigard urban forest.
There do exist limited such areas(on both public and private lands)in the city and they should be highlighted and protected. The
CAC has previously discussed protection strategies such as zoning,purchase of easement,etc.which should also be considered here.
These open space areas are important as refuge areas for wildlife which then often moves to other parts of the city(ie birds fly from
nests in natural areas)and adds to the livability of the city. The comp plan policies on parks and open spaces calls for their
consideration. Such areas would normally be covered with canopy,but there may also be meadows and wetlands included. The
concept of landscaping has sometimes been applied to these areas(ie saying that they are landscaped areas),but they should NOT be
considered landscaped areas.
6.The UFMP should have an independent section on UNDERSTORY and GROUND COVER elements of an urban forest. Vine
maple and such species which grow beneath conifer stands are important for wildlife as well as protection from erosion and
contribution to soil nutrients. Oxalis,ferns,wild ginger and other groundcover plants help to hold water and soil and thus sustain the
larger,more dramatic conifer and oak species. These elements are part of the urban forest and provisions for their protection,both
during and after development exist(but are not enforced)in the present code;such protection and enhancement should be detailed and
1
1
t
Attachment 4
promoted in the UFMP. Some will say that CWS standards provide for these elements,but CWS is a'clean water'agency,and does
not write its regulations for habitat,but for erosion protection only.
7. The UFMP has a clear discussion of how METRO density codes operate to reduce Tigard's urban forest; it should have a
corresponding discussion of how new home building technology(ie roof materials and design, longer spans over tree roots,use of
non-toxic coatings,etc)can push our city in the other direction,providing for protection of more urban forest area.
8. Some will talk about regulations and zoning as'taking'. The UFMP provides a fine place to talk about the limits and boundary of
such legal matters. It seems to me that as long as some reasonable amount of development is permitted by city code,the city
limitations on further development are not'takings'. By providing such discussion of legal matters,the UFMP will provide a basis for
development of good city regulations. Please include or include reference to appropriate material on this subject.
John Frewing jfrewingateleport.com June 29,2009
i
i
f
i
2
i
i
Attachment 4
Todd Prager
From: ph@halsteadsarbor.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:29 AM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: UFMP Comments
Hello Todd,
I have reviewed the draft UFMP and attached Appendices and found everything well written and organized. The only
comments I have are the following:
Comments UFMP DRAFT
1) Page 1, Item 4—For clarification purposes, I would recommend changing the title"hazard tree program"to read
"Tree Hazard Identification and Mitigation (or abatement) Program"throughout the entire UFMP.
2) Page 2, Item 1.1b—Re-word goal to"Modify Code to focus lesson mitigation and more on preservation of long
lived evergreen and broad-leaf deciduous tree species, native and indigenous trees, and other trees identified of
high importance."
3) Page 2, Item 1.1 g—recommend changing wording from"create"to"re-create"or"update"tree manual. I think
Tigard already has a tree manual...although it may not be readily available.
4) Page 3, Item 1.2a—Very nice to see this goal, as it can help to move the emphasis from mitigation more toward
preservation of trees.
5) Page 3, Item 2.1e—I don't think we should use the term"incentivize"...I'm not sure it's even a word.
Recommend the use of"Create an incentive based program for the use, retention, ..... Also, recommend the
wording use from my comment above(#2)for description of tree species, etc.
6) Page 4, Item 4 Title—Same as#1 above.
7) Page 5, Item 4.2—Question...Why does the City want to get involved with private property tree hazards or
property disputes between neighbors? I understand there is 60%community support for this from the survey, but
I think it would be prudent to consult with the City Attorney regarding implications of liability and potential lawsuits
for the City before going down this path. Trees on private property are typically a legal issue and decisions are
made in the courts...even when local tree ordinances govern trees i.e. prohibit the removal and/or require pruning
permits etc. I think the City Attorney's input would be of great help here just to make sure their office is
comfortable with the change.
8) Page 6 Vision Statement—Well written, but needs to be highlighted or emphasized more so it is more prominent
and visible within the document.
9) Page 8, Paragraph 5, 15'and 2nd Sentence—"incentivizes" might be changed to"promotes" in the first sentence
and"reward"in the second sentence.
10) Page 11 —Recommend changing to"Tree Hazard Identification and Mitigation Program"
11) Page 12, Paragraph 1, Last Sentence—Property Dispute Issues as described above(#7).
12) Definite need of an Index at the beginning of the document and Glossary of Terms/Definitions at end of
document.
Comments APPENDICES
1) Page 64-1 think creating an historical(visual)timeline with photos is a great idea.
2) Page 76, Last Paragraph—Just to note—I believe the$125 per caliper inch amount is a reasonable, albeit low-
end mitigation cost. If I have a client and they want to plant a 2"caliper Big-leaf maple, I would typically charge
approximately$400.00 for the service. According to the Code, the City's mitigation would only be$250.00(again,
sounds very reasonable to me)
i
1
Attachment 4
Hope you are enjoying the beautiful weather this week. I'll see you tomorrow night at the meeting.
Thank you,
Phil Hickey
Project Consulting Arborist
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-1604B
2
Attachment 4
Todd Prager
From: Phil Hickey[pchconnect@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 1:44 PM
To: Todd Prager
Subject: Glossary List
Hi Todd,
I have reviewed the UFMP Draft and have come up with a few words/phrases that may need defining in a
glossary. Please review and let me know what you think.
Pg 2- "Invasive Trees"
Pg 2, 1.1 G- "Tree Manual" or perhaps Tree Care and Preservation Manual
Pg 2, 1.1J- "GIS"
Pg 3, 1.2A- "Tree Canopy/Canopy Cover/Tree Density"
Pg 4, 3.1 A- "Tree Grove"
Pg 4, 4.1 A- "Tree Hazard Assessment"
Pg 9, 3rd Paragraph- "Buildable Lands"
Pg 10, 2nd Paragraph under Chapter 3 - "Sensitive Lands"
Pg 11, 1st Paragraph- "Ornamental Trees"
Pg 11,2nd Paragraph - "Canopy Clusters"
Pg 12, 2nd Paragraph under Chapter 5 - "Tree Fund"
Thank you,
Phil Hickey
i
Attachment 4
Todd Prager
From: Ken Gertz[Ken@Gertzco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 5:10 PM
To: Todd Prager
Cc: John Floyd; Ron Bunch; Darren Wyss; Dick Bewersdorff; Susan Hartnett
Subject: Re: Packet for Tree Board Meeting
Todd,
Thank you for the response.
The people with trees need to be IN the loop, not just treated as a normal uninvolved
citizen, as it is they that will be impacted most.
I submit that a newsletter, gives little weight as to the gravity of the situation. Tree
owners need to be noticed specifically with regular updates, not just subversively, or as
seems to be the case, after all the decisions have been made and it is too late for them to
add input and opinions. They need to be part of the process and be sent specifics as to what
is being put forth. Since these types of proposals can evolve into what could be seen as a
"Taking", all steps should be taken to notify the affected parties specifically with regular
updates as to how these proposed changes will affect them personally. As most are Seniors
and long retired, you should not automatically assume they are in the main stream or internet
ir land is all they have. You should afford them the
savvy. In my experience, for most, the
same respect you would give your own Grandmother, and go directly to them.
John Floyd,
I just received your E-mail and am glad to see you folks are considerate of the situation.
As a note, my comments are not from the HBA but are my own, as someone who values,
appreciates and respects the rights of what our hard working Seniors have done and what their
expectations are for their property. I believe in fairness to all parties, and feel the
landowners with trees are being discriminated against. It is all of our duty, to see that
doesn't happen.
Thank you for your consideration
Ken Gertz
Todd Prager wrote:
> Thank you Ken,
>
> John Floyd will be leading the Tree Code update process as the details of the Tree Code get
worked out. I will discuss your comments and concerns with John. However, I do know that
part of the process outlined in workplan involves notifying those property owners with tree
groves identified on their property.
> Also, throughout the Urban Forestry Master Plan process, we have been updating property
owners and inviting comments through the "Cityscape" newsletter. This letter is sent to all
Tigard residents. As the Code process unfolds, Tigard residents will continue to be updated
through the newsletter and other forms of communication including email, websites, press
releases and live events.
>
> Todd Prager
> Associate Planner/Arborist
> City of Tigard
> 503.718.2700
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Gertz [mailto:Ken@Gertzco.com]
1
Attachment 4
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 2:18 PM
> To: Todd Prager; John Floyd; Ron Bunch
> Subject: Re: Packet for Tree Board Meeting
> Todd,
> I suggest for stake holders, you add all land owners with a
> significant tree canopy, as they are the ones that will inevitably be
> affected the most. By now, you have had enough studies to clearly
> identify these properties, and may have a list already. I feel that they have been
> mostly neglected, in favor of those with little or nothing at stake.
> As most of these land owners are senior citizens, it is important that
> the impact on their property be clearly laid out so they know how
> changes will affect them personally. To leave them out would be
> depriving them of due process.
> In my experience, the land owners know nothing about your efforts.
>
> Sincerely
> Ken Gertz
>
> Todd Prager wrote:
>> Dear Members of the Public,
>> You are receiving this email because of an expressed interest in
>> Tigard urban forestry.
>> Please find the attached packet for the Tree Board meeting scheduled
>> for Wednesday, August 5th at 6:30-8:00 p.m. in the 2^nd floor
>> conference room of the Tigard Public Library.
>> If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
>> Thank you for your interest in Tigard urban forestry.
>> Sincerely,
>> Todd Prager
>> City of Tigard
>> Associate Planner/Arborist
>> 503.718.2700
2
Attachment 4
Todd Prager
From: Todd Prager
Sent: Monday,August 17, 2009 8:13 AM
To: Brian Rager
Cc: Steve Martin
Subject: RE: Urban Forestry Master Plan
Yes, I will be the steward. I am currently tracking trees via an excel spreadsheet with X/Y coordinates and linking the
data to Accella(our permit tracking system). However,the current tracking updates only occur when I receive a request
for removal or planting outside the development process. My goal is to have"required trees" (trees to be protected,
heritage trees, landscape trees,etc) inputted during the development process by either the developer or City. This will
allow for easier tracking 5, 10,or 15 years down the road when I inevitably get the question, "Do I need a permit to cut
down my tree?" Currently,to answer that question I must review the land use file to see which trees were required to
be planted and/or preserved. It would be much more efficient for me to pull up the information on Tigard Maps and
update it on an as needed basis.
I hope this answers your question,and thank you for your review.
-Todd
From: Brian Rager
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 12:05 PM
To:Todd Prager
Cc: Steve Martin
Subject: Urban Forestry Master Plan
Todd,
I finally had a chance to read through your draft UFMP and only have one question. With regard to the recommendations
for tracking various categories of trees in the GIS (trees to be protected, heritage trees, landscape trees, etc), are you
planning to be the data steward for this?
Thanks,
Brian D. Rager
Assistant Public Works Director
Public Works Department
Direct: 503-718-2471
E-mail: brianr(cMi-gard-or gov
Public Works: Taking Care of Our Community
i
Attachment 4
Urban Forestry Master Plan Comments
1. Please indicate any questions, comments, or concerns that you have on the draft Urban Forestry Master Plan
below. Thank you and we look forward to hearing from you!
Response
fi Count
1
W-1-1"i WI-VRNI".doo
' answered question 1
skipped question 0
Response Text
1 The plan is very comprehensive. Your process seems to have allowed you the Jul 6, 2009 6:41 PM
ability to discuss and investigate topics on several levels in order to develop the
Master Plan, which should be of great benefit as you move forward.
A few goals stand out in so far as they either deal with issues that the City of
Beaverton struggles with or they are ideas that the City of Beaverton has not yet
investigated. These goals are (some goals may also be contained in other
sections of Tigard's UFMP):
1.1.c requiring an arborist from site planning (will this mean that the arborist is
involved in the site planning in order to respect existing trees rather than just
inventorying the trees?),
1.1.e preservation of smaller diameter trees,
1.1.g tree manual development,
1.1.i inventorying and tracking protected trees (will the inventory be Goal 5,
regularly updated, how will approved removal and mitigation be tracked?),
1.2.a canopy cover and tree density standards,
1.2.b SDC,
2.1.b revised parking lot design standards,
2.1.c clarification of jurisdictional requirements(how will this differ from others?
will parks and CWS be treated differently, as well?),
2.1.g threshold for landscape architect requirement,
6.1.b discouraging the sale of invasive plants, and
6.4.b-d canopy goals
Thank you for the opportunity to comment,
Leigh M. Crabtree,Associate Planner, City of Beaverton, 503-526-2458
1 of 1
Attachment 4
The following are summarized comments made by Robert Alverts,Tigard Resident,on August 3,2009.
Mr.Alverts met with Todd Prager and Marissa Daniels to provide feedback on the draft Urban Forestry
Master Plan (UFMP)that was made available to the public on May 26, 2009. A copy of Mr.Alvert's
written "red-line"comments are attached.
General Comments:
• Mr.Alverts is a certified forester and reviewed the UFMP after receiving a request for comments
in the Tigard Cityscape.
• In his opinion,good public policy minimizes the burden on private property owners and costs to
local governments.
• He sees the opportunity to eliminate jurisdictional overlap and conflicts among existing laws.
• He thinks the UFMP has a bias against non-natives. He highlighted the benefits and usefulness
of non-natives in the urban forest.
• He suggested the City partner with the University of Washington (his alma mater) in conducting
urban forest inventories, research,and management options.
• Although the UFMP refers to"invasive trees", he nor his colleagues know of any invasive trees in
the local area.
• He thinks there should be more focus on the human health hazards of trees including allergens
and molds and mildews resulting from dense canopies(this applies to natives and non-natives).
• He sees a strong influence of environmental groups in the UFMP,especially those lacking
rigorous scientific backgrounds.
• He sees too much focus on arborists,which he views as the"lab techs"that carry out the work
of other resources professionals such as foresters,soil scientists,etc.
Specific Comments:
• Recommendation 1.1.c—Why should only arborists be involved in the development process?
• Recommendation 1.1.e—The ability to withstand development impacts depends on species,
form,crown condition, location,etc.
• Recommendation 1.1.f—Does this mean only invasive trees,or does it include other plants?
• Recommendation 2.1.g—Why should only landscape architects be involved in developing
landscape plans?
• Sub-goal 3.1—A grove should refer to a small stand of trees in a forest,typically under five
acres.
• Recommendation 3.1.b—Maintenance standards for protected tree groves should allow
flexibility for natural disturbance. It should also acknowledge that in native fir forests there is an
average of 4-8 large trees per acre and 20-40 mature trees per acre.
• Recommendation 3.2.a—The City should not have the authority to dictate what happens with
trees on private property. Also,what should the public have ample opportunity to participate
in?
Attachment 4
• Recommendation 6.1.a—Outreach should include reference to other resource professionals
other than just arborists.
• Recommendation 6.1.b—Will the invasive species list include more than just trees? If so,
specify. Again,there are no invasive trees,a more appropriate term would be nuisance trees.
• Page 8 of 14, Paragraph 5-The ability to withstand development impacts depends on species,
form,crown condition, location,etc.
• Page 8 of 14, Paragraph 5—How is it challenging to track protected and replacement trees with
aerial photos every two years and GIS locations of individual trees?
• Page 8 of 14, Paragraph 6—Allowing any or all trees to be removed as long as they are replaced
is a reasonable policy.
• Page 9 of 14, Paragraph 3—Retention of tree canopy in areas outside of development offers the
greatest hope for preservation.
• Page 9 of 14, Paragraph 4—It is a positive goal to focus less on mitigation and more on
preserving high quality trees, revising preservation incentives so they are more attractive to
developers,and not unfairly penalizing property owners with treed lots.
• Page 10 of 14,Paragraph 1—Include other resource professionals such as foresters and plant
ecologists in addition to landscape architects.
• Page 10 of 14,Paragraph 2-How is it challenging to track protected and replacement trees with
aerial photos every two years and GIS locations of individual trees?
• Page 10 of 14, Paragraph 3—Do residents really know if more street trees would be good for the
City? Consider sap, resins,etc.that could damage vehicles:
• Page 10 of 14, Paragraph 3—Consider species,density,growth characteristics,autumn leaves,
pitch/sap,vulnerability to ice/snow damage, insects,disease,etc.when choosing parking lot
species.
• Page 10 of 14, Paragraph 5—Determine if we are talking about groves or stands. Also,why
would we want to protect a grove like the one at the corner of McDonald and Hall (old
Christmas tree farm)? Why not protect groves of old orchard trees or non-natives?
• Page 10 of 14, Paragraph 6—Need to define sensitive lands.
• Page 10 of 14, Paragraph 7—It will need to be determined exactly how and to what extent the
greenspace coordinator will manage the City's natural areas.
• Page it of 14, Paragraph 1—What does protecting tree groves mean, how much will it cost, and
how will property rights be affected?
• Page 11 of 14, Paragraph 1—What is the difference between natural areas and ornamental
trees?
• Page 11 of 14, Paragraph 1—People support development regulations when there is no
apparent economic impact to themselves.
• Page it of 14, Paragraph 6—Based on the HBAMP interview,the City should have no authority
over private property tree issues.
• Page 12 of 14, Paragraph 3—It is good to focus on management as the previous focus has been
on preservation.
• Page 12 of 14, Paragraph 4—Describe what proactive management is.
Attachment 4
• Page 12 of 14,Paragraph 5—The greenspace coordinator will have an excessive workload if they
have to undertake all of the tasks listed in the UFMP.
• Page 12 of 14,Paragraph 5—There are no local invasive trees. Term should be revised to
nuisance.
• Page 13 of 14, Paragraph 2—Streamside vegetation involves a number of non-tree plant species.
• Page 13 of 14, Paragraph 2—What is a natural forested area? One that has naturally
regenerated or one with only native species?
• Page 13 of 14, Paragraph 2—For the first time it was mentioned that the City owns 180 acres of
tree canopy in Tigard.
• Page 13 of 14, Paragraph 2—A section should be created that shows the current status of the
city-owned urban forest using the data in Appendix B.
• Page 13 of 14, Paragraph 4—In addition to the Kalapuya,a number of other tribes were active in
the Tigard area.
• Page 13 of 14, Paragraph 4—The species list is not complete. See attached list.
• Page 13 of 14, Paragraph 4—Climate change,species shift,fire and other disturbance events are
the norm.
• Page 13 of 14, Paragraph 5—The data in this section is inconsistent with the data on pages 9 and
11.
• Page 14 of 14,Paragraph 2—Does managing invasives refer to both tree and non-tree species?
• Page 14 of 14,Paragraph 3—What is a "large, healthy tree",and how can they be protected
while protecting private property rights as well?
• Page 14 of 14,Paragraph 4—Why is there an aversion to clear cutting? Clear cutting is a
scientifically valid regeneration harvest system commonly used in the Douglas-fir region. Nearly
every subdivision,shopping mall,golf course,etc. in the Pacific Northwest area requires a clear
cut and conversion of land use.
Written Comments:
In addition to his verbal comments noted above, Mr.Alverts provided additional written "red-line"
comments on the draft UFMP and appendices. See attached.
Robert L.Alverts A0 ' DRI Attachment 4
Science and Management Consulting Scw= ! Env> >n • Solutions
SAF Ctit*d F-4-#2229 Robert L Ahm is
Associate Research Scientist
14569 SW 130'Ave Adjunct Faculty
Tigard.OR 97224
phone:503-639-0405 Drvr�n of Earth&Ecosystem Sciences Tel:(503)639-0405
:503 577-0202 14569 SW 130",Avenue Cell:(503)577-0202
cellTigard.s telepd1.l offl OR 97224 e-mail.baNerts@m
teleport.co
email: balver3-577
Nevada System of Higher Education
1) 41v �gl pat utuY3�t
4 �w00 d
�k Y&A)
ORk
vJ r�+� ��h� hs�✓ +.re
�tcl. 6Qa..rr� c�vs+:•�t..
►'h Ste�S ��
C�Scs�c-
��w ?4.c r�agwa�
rZ
F �'•Y �Sln
h44
• a7�.tta.V �w��u�.w• C P
Cees �- �1E �as�woad
WO-1%A -
10641 t lbw
c ��css V A'LV forte'.- °541t a�a�
Attachment 4
Urban Forestry Master Plan
Executive SummM
This Urban Forestn•Master Plan (UF\IP) sets a course of action for the Cin-of Tigard's urban
foresrn program from the time of its acceptance by Council until the year 2016. The Plan has been
developed through a public process involving community outreach and sur-evs,urban forestr
stakeholder inter iexes,departmental coordination meetings,and review of current Cin policies and
programs. Based on the information received throughout this process, the OF\IP Citizen AcNison
Committee (CAA' recommends the following implementation goals:
1. Retie Tigard's tree ordinance (Chapter 1$.790,includes development regulations and mitigation).
2. Revise Tigard's landscaping ordinance (includes street trees,parking lot trees,and other required
landscape trees).
3. Develop a tree grove protection program.
4. Develop a hazard tree program.
3. Improve the management of the City s urban forestn.program.
6. Develop an urban forest stewardship program.
It is further recommended that the achievement of the above implementation goals occur through a
series of sub-goals and action measures which are outlined in the implementation matrix. The
implementation goals,sub-goals,and action measures are intended to frame the future urban
forestn-ordinance and program development, and set a timeline for their completion. The Tigard
Tree Board will be charged with overseeing implementation of the OF\IP as part of their annual
work plan.
Implementation Matrix
The following implementation matrix contains all six UFMP goals (highlighted in blue), their
associated sub-goals (in bold),and a series of action measures xtith the necessary level of detail
needed to implement the goals and sub-goals. also included in the matrix are the divisions that will
be leading implementation, the Comprehensive Plan policies that are addressed (see :appendix F for
details),estimates of staff and financial resources required,and the schedule for implementation.
Cin-gfTigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) --Page 1 of 14
Attachment 4
o
Implementation Goals
U v a
E
1. Rex ke Tigard's tree ordinance(Chapter 1.4.790,include,de%clopment regnilations and rniii',,ation).
1.1 Revise tree ordinance in order to allow more flexibility and a qualitative approach to tree preservation.
a. Move tree ordinance from Tigard Development Long Range 23.1,2.2.2,2.3.1, Loa- S 2010 2011
Code to Tigard Municipal Code in order to allow Planning 2.3.2,2.3.3,13.6,
for discretionary review. 2.3.7,23.9,2.3.10,
_ 23.11
b. Focus Code less on mitigation and more on Long Range 2-7.1.2.2.2,2.2.9, High SS 201 a 2011
presenting long lived evergreens,broad- Planning 2.3.1,2.3.2,Z3.3,
spreading deciduous varieties,native species,and 2.3.4,2.3.6,2.3.7,
other trees identified as of high importance. 2.3.9,2.3.11
C. 4 Dong flange 2.2.1,23.1,2.3.3, I.nw S 2010 2011
Planning 23.6,2.3.7,2.3.8,
landscape installatioe ''..II 2.3.9
d. Develop and implement regulations,standards, Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.1, High SS 2010 2011
and incentives for transferring density and Planning 2.3.3,2-3.6.2.3.8,
seeking variances and adjustments to preserve 2-3.9,2.3.11
trees identified as of high importance.
C. i Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.29, I oa S 2010 2011
} Planning 23.1,2.3.2,2.3.3,
�— 1
d+P�ttRtts_ �ji�"f i�t'i .r..�� C. 3.4,2.16,2 .7
u 0{,A-
f xcmpt from Long Rangc 2.2.I,2.2.?,2.2.', Low S 2010 2011
=a
Mian ugh the adopti,,n Planning 2-2.8,2.2-9,2.3.1,
an tncfu.ive dill r 2.3 7,2.3.8,2.3.11
�Ytt'; t1�lv�
g. Corte tree manual with drawings and Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.8, High SSS 2010 2011
specifications for development related tree Planning 2.2.9,2.3.1,2.3.2,
inventory and protection standards,and 23.3,Z3.6,2.3.7,
preferred species/tree rapes for presenmm. 2.3.8,2.3.9
h. Develop standards and procedures for how tree Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.3, filed. SS ?010 2011
ordinance will be enforced. Planning 2.2.6,?.3.1,2.3.8,
2.3.9,2.3.11
i. Develop procedures for when and how protected Current 2 2 1 Aced. SS 2011 2012
trees will be inventoried and permit activities Planning
tracked.
j. Develop and maintain,as part of the City,.-GIS Current 2.2.1 died. SS 2011 Ongoing
and permit systems,a publicly accessible Planning
inventory of protected trees.
City t�fTigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) --Page 2 of 14
Attachment 4
Z .0
Implementation Goals y f U L t u
E E
_� t=
1.2 Revise tree ordinance so that standards do not solely impact owners of treed lots.
a. Develop canopy cover or tree density standards long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2 2.4, Hila
for all lots that can be met by either preserving Planning 2.2.9.2.3.1-,2.3.2,
existing trees,or planting new trees. 2.3.6,23.7.2-3.9,
2.3.11
b. Create an urban forestry systems development Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, High SS 20::
charge for new development in order to Planning 2.3.8
administer an ongoing tree and urban forezt
enhancement program.
1.Re%ise Ti-ard's landscaping ordinance(includes street trees,parking lot trees,and other required landscape trees).
2.1 Revise street tree planting,maintenance,and renim A requirements
a. Create design and maintenance manual with Current 2.2-1,2.2.2,2.2.4, 111gr, SSS 2010 2111
drawings and specifications for species selection. Planning 2.2.5,226,2.2.7,
planting,and maintenance. 2-2.8,229,2210,
2.3.5,2.3.7,2.3.8,
2.3.11
b. Revise parking lot design requirements to Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Med. SS 2010 2011
incorporate stom-Ater management techniques Planning 2.2.71 2.2.8,2.2.10,
and methods that support increased tree canopy. 2.3.5,2-3.7,2.3.8,
2.3.11
C. Clarify jurisdictional requirements along ODOT Current 12.1,122.2-2.4, Low S 2010 2011
right-of ways(99W,Hall Boute mil,Highway Planning 2.2.5,2.2-6,2.2.7,
21',and Highway 5). 2.2.8,2.3.5;23.8
d. Revise Tigard Municipal Code to establish permit Long Range 221,2.2.Z,224, Nfed. $$ 2010 2011
system forplanting,removal,and replacement of Planning 225,22.6,2.28,
required trees. 2.2.9,2.2-10,2.3.5,
_� 23.7,2.3.10,23.11
C. Incentivize the ase,retention,and replacement of Current 2.2.1,22.2,2.2.4, Med. $S 2010 2011
long lived evergreens,broad-spreading deciduous Planning 2-2.5,2-2.6,Z2.7,
varieties,native species,and other trees identified 228,229.2.2-10,
as of high importance. 2.3.1,23.5,2-3.7,
2.3.8,2.3.11
E Mow required landscape trees to count towards; Long Range 221,2.7-2,214, LAM' S 2010 2011
mitigation,canopy cover,and/or tree density banning 22.6,2.2.7,2.2.8.
standards.
2.2.9,2-2.10,2-3.5
t. Require landscape architects to ucyeiop Long Range 21.1,2.2.2,22.7, Loa• S 2010 2011
landscaiiv pians f,r proiccr,,>f a ccrrain n Planning 2.210,2.3.5.2.3.7,
and,or sire. 2.3.11
h. D„nm rcyuire new technologies that are cost .rrent 2.2-1,22.4,2.2.7 Low $ 2010 Ongoing
prohibitive. Planning
City vfTigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) --Page 3 of 14
Attachment 4
t:
Implementation Goals c ci �► is
.. .�, x :+ E E E
� O CU. •— � i� U C U
2.2 lDevdop an inventory of tree plantings,removals,and replacements.
b. Develop procedures for when and how trees will Current 22.1 Nit(!. __ 2011 2012
be inventoried and permit activities tracked. Planning
a. ` Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GIS Current 221 Med. SS 2011 Ongoing
and permit systems,a publicly accessible Planning
inventory of tree plantings and permitted
removals.
3. I)c c lop a tree grove protection program.
3.1 Focus on preserving large groves of native trees.
a. Lstabhsh standards and proccaures fur Long Range 2.2.1.2.2.Z 2.2.3, High SSSS 2010 2011 .
tdentifc-ing and inventon ine lame z+rove�of Planning 2.2.6,2.2.",2_3.1,
.,nt a trees. LS
r�''�t ri 2.3.2.2-3.8,2.3.9,
-P 23.11
b. Devclodpre,unva6on and maintenance} Long Range 2.2-1,2-2.2.2.2.3, High SSS 2011 2012
and procedures for tree groves that arc iticntitZi Planning 2.2.4, 2.2-6,2.2-7,
fair protection. 2.2.8,2,2.9,23.1,
2.3.2,2.3.3,2-3-5,
23.6,2.3.7,23.8,
2.3.9,2,3.11
3.2 Develop flexible and incentive based grove preservation program that meets the needs of affected property owners.
a. jpch out to property own4umj&Udentified Long Range 2.3.8,2.3.11 Nied. SS 2010 2012
-roves early in rhe p ev have '��` Plan '
ample opportunity to parocipate. IW -c..pJ
niIK
h. Ensure any future tree grove regulations have Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, filed. SS 2011 2012
flexibility and incentives built in. Planning 2.3.6,2-3.8,2-3.11
4.Develop a hazard tree program.
4.1 Establish City storm and hazard tree response protocols.
a. Prior to land acquisition conduct a tree hazard Paries 2-2.1,2-2.2,2.3.4, Med. SS 2010 Ongoing
assessment 2.3.8-
b. Develop and implement formal emergency Streets 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.4, Low S 2010 Ongoing
response system for tree hazards on City streets. 2.3.8
C. Develop and implement formal emergency Parks 2.2.1,Z2.2.2.3.4, Low S 2010 Ongoing
response system for tree hazards in City 2.3.8
parks/greenspaces.
d. Hire greenspace coordinator to manage Tigard Parks 2.2.1,2.3.4,2.3.8 High SSSS 2011 2011
natural areas and develop a proactive hazard
abatement program.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan(Draft) --Page 4 of 14
Attachment 4
i Cr .�
Implementation Goals - �.� v% to n r
Ec Z oit
4.2 L,c,'oh,it Ci,% pr„_,tam to facilit,at h.az.,rd abatement on private property.
a. Rcvi,c Tz�aini AluntC-,%ai( „dc r;,o;r,tnr:urhnnn 1 tr,t.: Rang
n)rhe(Jn 7, cc nuc u, 1:%c, In tu:c.trc
rr„pcm tree nazaro,.
b. Develop anti maintain criteria for what C:urrcnr
constitutes a hazard,define terms per ISA Planning
standards',.
C. DcteloP ar.'in:.tintttn criteria r . lt.tzari ( urr nt 2_'.;,_2._'?,_2.
ahatc,ncrt nr"ccdures an.i 111:r Lattn�rill., nL-7 P':;nnt-.1 2.i.i 1
ISA,tand,1!01
d. Develop procedures fix mediaring disputes Lung Range 2.3_4,2.3.1 1 Hugh SS`;
including assigning responstbtiin. Planning
C. Make infr,rmanon ab„ur hazard prr,grain ( urrcnt 2..i.4,2.3.X \Ice.
available to,the public. YLtruut>
5.1 Begin developing a tree and urban forest inventor.
a. Develop procedures for when and how protected Current 2?.i Nicol. S i 2o12
trees,tree groves,street trees,heritage trees,and Planning
required landscape trees will be inventoried and
permit activities tracked.
b. Develop and maintain.as part of the Cin's GIS Currrnt _'.?.; Nlcii. SS ?tl 1 Ong,,tn-,
and permit systems,a publicly accessible Planntnu
inventor,r,f protected trees,tree groves,street
trees,heritage trees,and required landscape trees.
C. Develop and maintain,as part of the Ciit's GIS Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,'?.- Med. SS 2t i 11 Ongoing
system,a publicly accessible inventor-of sites Planning
where urban forestry fees are being utilized. Link
sites with the Cin's accounting system so detailed
analyses of urban forestn-expenditures can be
obtained.
5.2 Improve management of Cin-owned trees and forests.
a. Create and route a budget sheet to appropriate Parks 2.2.1,2.2?.2.2.-, L,,t. S 2oitu 201 l
divisions prior to park and greenspace 2.3.4 - -
acquisitions so anticipated costs and benefits can
be identified and evaluated.
b. Hire i;rccnspacc c,,,rdin atur n,manage(.:t% Pari,, _'.''.,, 1.3_.2.3.s I Lui1
owned natural arca.
C. Develop a written set of urban forestry standards Current 2.2.1.2.2.2,2.2.5, 1 ligh SS 2M 1 2012
and specifications for Cin'projects to follow. Planning 2.2.6,2.2.-,2.3.1,
2.3.3,2.3.-,2.3.9
d. identify and secure long term funding Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7 Low' S 2014 2016
sources for urban forestry projects as Planning
mitigation funds decline.
Cin- ,,/TiLrard Urban F<trestn- Master Plan ;Draft) -- Page 5 of 14
Attachment 4
Implementation Goals ' c 2 (j
6. De%clop an urban forest stex%ardship prog—rani.
6.1 De%elup and provide urban forestry outreach materials.
City to provide public with pertinent urban Current 2.2.7,2.3.8 SS 2U i-:
a. forestry outreach information(workshops,Ors, Planning
online too t"service,etc.)
-
ll:uwA;n a uNt of invasrrt G kY TYC r�rC7At 1, 2 Low S 2(112 2w
b. ale:arid rnrO r)aLari„n.an t nt Plamm�{► ` 2. 9,`2_i!;� t
6.2 Fund urban forestry projects for private property owners.
Utilize mitigation and other funding sources for Current 2.2 ,2.3.8 High SSS 2013 201
a. tree planting and urban forest management on Planning
public and private property and public right-of-
6.3 Prevent pre-development clearing of lots.
a. Develop standards that require tree removal Long Range 2-1.1,2.22,2.2.7, 11ed. 55 2010 2011
permits prior to the removal of a specified Planning 23,1, 2.3.8
number of trees per year.
6.4 Regularly update Urban Forestry Master Plan,set achievable goals,and continually monitor progress.
Update Urban Forests_-\]aster Plan even_-5 Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.11, High SSS 2015 2016
a. years. Planning 2.3.1,2.3.8
b. Strive to achieve no net loss in cinwide tree Current 2.2.7,2.2.11,2.3.8 Low S 2015 2015
candy from 2007-2015. planning
Strive to achieve 32° cin-tide tree canopy by Currant 22.'.2.2.11,23.8 Lou- S 202' 2027
C. 2027 Planning
Strive to achieve 40%citywide tree canopy b% Current 2.2.1,2.2.11,2.3.8 Low $ 2047 2047
d. 2047 ply
*Low=0-8 hours of staff time ” S= <Si,l><xl
Nled.=8-40 hours of staff time "SS=Sl,(x)0-Sl0,OfHt
'High=over 40 hours of staff time **SSS=S10,000-S.50,fM 0
.*SSSS= >S5)AX)
Through implementation of the goals,sub-goals,and action measures in this Plan,progress will be made towards the
adopted vision of the URNIP CAC:
`Tigard's rrrhan forest is naked and jrrntected bJ City tradents as a fhriz7ng xtermArnerted ecosystem managed to improa.r qxali� of lyre,
increase commamty identity,and maximl;ir aestbiedr,econowic,and ecological hene.,&s
City q/-Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) --Page 6 of 14
Attachment 4
Basis for Decision Making
The following information was used as the basis for decision making when formulating goals, sub-
goals,and action measures for the U F\IP.
Communin•Survey
An independent, scientific telephone survey of 400 randomly selected citizens about their attitudes
towards existing and potential urban forestry policies and programs was completed by Steve
Johnson and Associates in December of 2008. "Che survey was funded in pan by a grant from the
Oregon Department of Forestn•and USDA Forest Service. The survey was conducted in order to
alloy for a more detailed understanding of community attitudes-towardsurban forestry issues in
Tigard. The exact questions and complete results from the survey are included in:appendix A.
Canopy Anal%sis
Mapping of the Cin-'s overall tree canopy coyer was the method used to document and define urban
forest conditions. This has allowed for the tracking of urban forest extent and change on both
public and private property on a citywide scale to inform urban forest management decisions. It xyill
also allow Tigard to continually track canopy change in the future as Metro runs software that can
detect the presence of tree canopy cower on Tigard air photos every two years. Full results of the
canopy analysis are in Appendix B.
Stakeholder Interviews
City staff interviewed major community stakeholder groups and jurisdictions that regularly
contribute to and/or are affected by the management of Tigard's urban forest. The full stakeholder
interview notes are included in Appendix C.
Cil)-of Tigrd. Internal Coordination \Ieeunn
The City of Tigard has multiple departments,divisions, boards,and committees that administer and
implement the urban forestry program. Key Cin'staff members.with roles in coordinating and
implementing Tigard's urban forestry programs, policies,and ordinances met to discuss urban
forestry coordination needs and identify solutions. The purpose of the meetings %r-as to provide for
more effective administration of the urban forestay program and inform recommendations made in
the t'F\IP. Full results of the internal coordination meetings can be found in Appendix D.
Cin ofT`pard Urban Forestrn \faster Plan (Draft) --Page_ of 14
Attachment 4
Review of Current and Historical Urban Forests-Ordinances Police~,and rogams
A thorough review and anahvsis of urban forestry related laws,ordinances,policies,and programs
was undertaken to inform recommendations in the UFMP. Particular attention was paid to the
Urban Forest Section of the Comprehensive Plan(Appendix E)which contains the goals,policies,
and action measures that guide Tigard's urban forestry program.
r. Appendix F contains a historical timeline relative to urban forestry in Tigard. Appendix G contains
a review and analysis of the major Federal,State,and Regional policies that provide a framework for
Tigard's urban forestry program. Appendix H contains a review and analysis of current urban
'r forestry related City ordinances.
Chapter 1• Development Regulations and Mitigation Requirements
Implementation Goal 1- Revive Tigard's tree ordinance (Otter 18,790-includes development
,rreaations and mitigation).
Revising Tigard's tree ordinance is puiposely listed as Goal 1 due to strong dissatisfaction with the
existing ordinance by those both inside and outside the development community.
The existing tree ordinance is in Chapter 18.790 of the Tigard Development Code. The tree
ordinance requires certain types of development projects to prepare it tree plan that identifies trees
to be preserved and removed. Tree replacement,or mitigation,is required on an"'inch for inch"
_ basis. This means that if a tree with a trunk that is 12 inches in diameter is removed,it needs to be
replaced with 6,2-inch diameter replacement trees. If a developer chose not to replant trees,the
City requires a"fee-in-lieu payment"to the Tigard Tree Fund at the current rate of 5125 per
diameter inch.
iK Some of the criticism of the tree ordinance from stakeholders are that the mitigation structure
d incentivizes overplanting,it does not require preservation of quality trees,and it encourages the
c��i'[ 'fJ� ins likely to survive devekpaxnt impacps. The Home
Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland ;l 1BAMP position is that the fee-in-lieu of
mitigation is excessive and that the tree ordinance does not adequately incentivize the preservation
Y
O� of high quality trees. The HBAMP and other stakeholders agree that the tree ordinance unfairly
penalizes those property owners with existing trees more than those owners w-tthout trees. The tree
s ordinance is also administrativeh•difficult for the City because 911100fenging to track protect d
and replacement trees in the years and decades followiniz development. y 1`401t.- i aA,.. -ft t I( Wit T
vs, i vevl
v,c-
Interestingly,the tree ordinance that was in effect beginning in 1983 appears to have been more J
preservationist than today because it required a permit prior to the removal of any tree on all n S
undeveloped land,developed commercial and industrial land,and public land. 10997 the tree ► ; - l
ordinance was JVAW to its current form and allowflW alloyor all trees to be,semoved as long as thet
are Due in part to dissatisfaction with the existing tree ordinance,the Tigard Tree Board
was charged with developing a"City Tree Stewardship and Urban Forest Enhancement Program"in
City i fr igard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) --Page 8 of 14
Attachment 4
200-. Following over a year of work by the Tree Board,a comprehensive plan for the urban forest
was developed in 2008. The Urban forest section of the Comprehensive Plan contains two goals to
be implemented by 22 policies. The goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan guide the
recommendations made in this Plan.
While many are unhappy.with the current tree ordinance, the community survey revealed that Tigard
residents still want the City to require that some trees are preserved and new trees planted during
development '-88",,support). A majority (— ` 'i) of residents say they would support new
development regulations even if they limit the size and extent of potential buildings or profits.
:\pproximatel 3_91'/n of residents say they would oppose tree regulations that limit development.
Protecting that portion of the urban forest-on the over 500 acres of buildable lands must be
balanced with State,Metro,and Cin'planning goals and regulations that favor density in urban areas.
Specificaliv,development regulations must be clear and objective,and not discourage needed
housing through unreasonable cost or delay according to State law. However, approximately 93"1
of Tigard's land area and 88"a of its citywide tree canopy are outside the buildable lands inventory'so
a comprehensive urban forestry ordinance and program must address areas outside of development..
As a result of input received from the community and stakeholders, the LTMP contains several sub-
goals and implementation measures that provide direction for how the goal of revising the tree
ordinance should be accomplished. The major recommendations include moving the tree ordinance
from the development code into the municipal code to alloy for more qualitative review of tree
plans and to address areas outside development,less focus on mitigation and more on preserving.,
nigh quality trees%revising tree presen-ation incentives so that they are more attractive to developers,
and not unfairly penalizing property owners with treed lots. Also included in the recommendations
are steps the City should take to better track protected and replacement trees after development is
complete.
Chapter 2:Landscaping Requirements
Implementation Goal 2: Revise Tigard's landscaping ordinance (includes street tree, parking lot
trees-and other required landscape trees).
Revising Tigard's landscaping ordinance is the second goal of the UFMP. The intention of the
revisions will be to improve the qualin•and protection of the City's streetscapes,and commercial
and industrial landscapes.
Existing landscaping ordinances are scattered throughout the Development and Municipal Codes.
Many of the provisions in the landscaping ordinances lack specificity,conflict,and present
administrative challenges for the Cin. There is also no set of Cit-standards or design guidelines
that specifi-industry accepted installation and maintenance requirements for trees.
The stakeholders want the City to require the planting of high quality trees,and ensure that design
and maintenance of areas such as parking lots and street side plantings are sustainable and
aesthetically pleasing. The Oregon Chapter of the American Society of landscape Architects
City o(Tigard Urban Forestn-Master Plan (Draft) --Page 9 of 14
1 �
Attachment 4
r "
0,p=
(O.1SLA� suggested that the Cin.create a tree and landscape design manual with drawings and
specifications so that lie architects have a clear idea of what the City's overall tree and
landscape vision is. A tree and landscape design manual would also address the Tree Beards request
to translate Code revisions into something;the public can understand.
Internally,the Cin-has been having difficulty, tracking street trees and required landscape trees due
to the lack of a comprehensive tree inventor-. 2 V); 4 1
.although t1doft—11-ii-�6hh, tisfied with the current overall state of Tigard's urban forest,;4"',,of
residents said tha ym.mould be go<)d for the Cid►. The canopy analysis found that
Tigard's street trees only provide 9 canopy ut City street right-of-trays which supports the public's
e canopy analysis also found that the Citv's tandards
OW i e to the relatively low tree canopy in parking;lots. 1
The sub-goals and implementation measures provide direction for the goal of revising the
landscaping ordinance. Specific recommendations include developing a landscape design manual
with drawings and specifications,improving parking lot design,establishing arthe
re lacement,and removal of required +and improving the tracking and inventonin Lut}j r`tt
.aN��.}
of street trees and other required landscape trees. , tC 0
Chanter 3:Trees Grove Protection
Implementation Goal 3: Develop svel, ore nrotecrion Fro��ram. `I,5 4`i` F k`-` A _!`-
�} �r atm �rh= I�,,* to t t1u
The third goal of the L'FMP is to develop A ove protection pro_m'which creates mechanism
for protecting Tigard's remaining groves of "V) -tv f
0O v, vv,} v t t
Many tree groves in Tigard are currently afforded some level of protection due to their location in
p
slOPeWWAIMficant habitat areas,wetlands,and H(e)lp
Tigard's Development Code limits the type and intensity of development within sensitive lands,and
requires permits for tree removal in sensitive lands. However,the Development Code does not
explicitly protect tree groves in sensitive lands,and tree removal permits are automatically issued if
an erosion control plan is provided. :also,there are currently no protections for tree groves that are
not located within sensitive lands. Prior to enacting any regulations that protect tree groves,the Cit-
must comply with Federal,State,and Regional regulations. Particular attention shall be paid to State
laws such as the requirement for an economic,social,environmental,and energy (ESF..F) anal•sis
prior to protecting"Goal 5"(natural) resources.
Pacific Lee>rthwest Chapter of the International Society of
the Tualatin Riverkeepers and Clean Water Sen-ices support
erve#id maintain native trees and grrW41111iffigard. Multiple stakeholders-
also
takeholdersalso suggested that the City take a leadership role in grove protecrkm by Ming 2greeriv.pMeW
Idelftlem ntenance of City-owned naturall sxea ),The l IBANIP wants
affected property owners to be directly notified that woul ed�-a ectec v regulations and incentives
to be incorporated into any City ordinance that calls for t$e•preservation of trees groves.--,
City ofTigard Urban Forests-Master Plan (Draft) -- Page 10 of 14
Attachment 4
The omlmuriln- to protect native tree
"NIf 11 35-1, wt)uld like I() ice 'n, r-()c U cd ,?n -,rt)\'e` f nazivc trce>
as to Individual trees of I>rriificam i/c upport . It', iddilo)n. ,T"rcIiciciit, Iaidl
They would prefer 1'.) sec s f6cusedV#qfa area.,as opposed to orna�q
_SWai t g—ot*
k.-,
AWSW --3' - ILI PP�)rt If,m-c-,-er. ,tin r, xirn.nt.-W 48' �, I-au I )hexi�u It I II k�: 11, CL: rCLfUl IT I()n> a Ppi I co.-, it,",
in natural ;irca, and o rmnriemai Tree, ctivalik 4 rC'!dVI-tI "AIJ The Jecl,II)n If%\11COIcr Z(
pre,ct:-e ircc� should not be 1,:f- tt) the ticveloper, and ainajuriq k57 ,o) said they Wo4ld
suppurt Lrcc regulauur.� even If they limit The '!/o, 'md extent w-Potc1lual buliding,or profiu,., I 'V7
While re,jdenrI pr!) I4rovc Pr1)!eC'1j1 In. tho: rk.:vc�fled th�v Ti !rL*U gri)1,c� ire
1 11 - -V
dis.Ippo:.-irinL:. lil 1990 there %vcrc 0.1 Lr;:�!Ter T"lan 5 AC-�C- In II/C 'All"W1, Th': CM r t,
lImItI. In there xcre 4Lr
8 canop�- cluIter� n.:,,ter th=in acres in I!zv. '11T 24
dcCillic III large �IZCd CXI1)j-)V CIL:Ircr- III .lc\-cn
As a rcIult of trend,Shown in r"Ic CXI(Ipy.11I.ilYIl" cornn"UnjlVpi-cfurci-Icc. -,md Input,
V.IILI!C1
) idc the -)f I tree t ,!i'l
the t'F.\fP dC\-eloped I number of anti ,c-,I()n !n '�t L L�JI
grove protection proaarn that is compliant wih federal, ITate, Ro:--noriai, and Local requirement,.
Included are rco,mrncndation5 to contact all pn)perni (m-ncr, that W(,Uld 11)C 1I11pi1C-,e,.f by a tree
,rrovc protection program and providing--ro \c pre,cn-auon mccntive5.
Chapter 4: Hazard Trees
Implementation Goal 4: Develop a hazard trey program.
The fourth goal in the UFNIP is to develop a hazard tree prograin that ad;:yUXCIV Idd rCIIVS tree
hazards on both public and private properry.
Currently Tigard's Municipal Code prohibits hazard trees, but there is a lack- ofIpCcItIcIr\,on what
constitutes a hazard and what the mechanism is for abating hazards in a tinick-manner. There is
also no formal process for identifying and g
abat1 n,
tree hazards on City property.
Dunmg the stakeholder interviews the Tree Board su�;go:Ircd that the Or,\ increase ci jrnrnun1c11[It)I11�
bet-ween departments. InterdepartmcnTal commUnICA-il)n is integral to cffectivek- addressing, tree
hazards in a tirrich-manner. Other stakeho&len, sug�cstcd that the Cit-\• him I gi-ccrispacc
coordinator who could provide proactive mana.gcincrit of tree hazards in City parks and
greenspaces. J-6p,*WA V 'Aq. pertv owners. m man*e their land
j#mKksjp% bhouid allow r
as dicy see fj-%whwlvi�—A*Qw should hav, it c involvementlin private property tree
M-W—i Pte
'66ud issues.
p;',, its
As a result of the C,Itv's internal coordination meetings. spccIfic rncthodI for rcIporoding to public
tree hazards were developed and are detailed in Appendix D. The Parks Division echoed the
stakeholders by highlighting the need to hire ,.,.grcenspacc coordinator to proactively manage tree
hazards on Ory propcm.
Cit-\- (,,I Tigard Vrban Foresm- Nlastcr Plan Draft; -- Page 1 1 of 14
Attachment 4
The conmmunit- survey results indicate public support for a hazard tree program. Approximately
-V;a of residents think J PAPA=mainum and pirmeet ehci"Ift
OweW A majority of residents said they would support additional funding from increased cin- fees.
charges, or property taxes to fund a more ct,mprehensive tree program in Tigard parks and open
spaces '-56" support, -39",(,oppose. A portion of that funding could be used by the City for a
hazard tree program. Finallv,a majority-of residents said thew would support the creation of a
program «•here the Citi-would become involved in disputes benveen neighbors regarding hazardous
trees on private property- 'Gt t"n support, 38oppose,.
The sub-goals and implementation measures recommended in the L FNIP support the creation of a
hazard tree program for public and private property. The recommendations include formalizing;the
City's hazard response protocols,hiring a greenspacc coordinator to help manage tree hazards on
Cin-pr,,pern,and ddJMJAp1NW*prowess whereby rhe+C4101NOWOe w tho6tti to become ittvt'slvetd
wards on private proper!):. 71
Chaliter 5• Urban Forestry Program Management
Implementation Goal 5• Improve the management of the C:ity''s urban forestry,progjarn.
Implementation Goal S was developed to improve the coordination and management of the Can's
urban forestay program.
Tigard's urban forestry program is currently implemented by multiple City departments and
divisions. In addition,code provisions relating to urban forestry are scattered throughout the
Municipal and Development Cozies. hof Cin-owned tree and forest resources has bees
itas more land is acquired without additional intenance and proactive ,
tr{►n l�,.w " Improved communication between City departments and divisions,unifvIng urban
!. }►�' forestry related Code provisions,and providing adequatetftang;is Herded for more effective
f{ of the Citv's urban forestry program. Also,securing a sustainable funding source will
support of the urban forests program as the Tree Fund declines
be necessary to provide long tett
" h ' due to less future development.
r Stakeholders such as the PNNUS41 and Clean Water Ser vers suggested that the City hire a
e amt hr Tualatin
Riverkeepers said the City needs to esia-bt stfi-a-sus4:9nable soiuier ()f funding; for its urban forestry
program uxmjk*� managemenrof invusim,species. The Tree Board suggested that
there needs to be amore axirdination between Citi-departments and divisions when administering;
the urban forestn•program. although a minority view,the HBatIP's position is that there should
be no urban forestry program because the costs outweigh the benefits of such a program.
The City's internal coordination meetings highlighted the need for more communication between
departments and divisions. \lore communication would improve thefmanagement of tree hazards,
ensure City development projects are adhering to applicable Code requirements, improve the
tracking of trees after development,and provide more transparency as to how and where the Tree
Cit q/Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) --Page 12 of 14
Attachment 4
Fund is being utilized. The internal coordination meetings also highlighted the need for a written set
of tree protection and replacement standards for Cin-pro iccts soy that the Cin can take a leadership
role in urban forestn, yok _.1)ev 0� ► r� 1'r t
The communin• survey results demonstrate public support for increased funding through fees and
taxes for the Cin-'s urban forestry program (-56`,) s Tport, —39114)oppose;. The public shoved a i
side vegetation-)tnd l
These results indicate that residents would support the hiring of a greenspace coordinator to {` <�h
the nearir 180 acres J
dtrecdyttlnarta�e
- R f ,� -*,44•., -�.� »c i l` [if C1:_ �t:t 4'tt:— wd(4-.'t:: - C��<'t:
The sub-goals and implementation measures recommended in the UFNIP to support the goal of ^"
improved City management include developing methods for inventon•ing and tracking trees and
urban forestn•related expenditures,developing a written set of urban forestry standards for City rtr� .ti
j2L' i projects,securing a sustainable funding source for urban forestry,and hiring a t,*reenspace 1(t�hnw�it
al �
kt� �`� coordinator to manage the Cin•'s natural areas.
Chester 6: Stewardship
+ 7)
Implementation 0 1(. Develo12 an urban forest stewardship pro m cl IM1�'1,
Urban Forest stewardship has been a vital component of life in the area now known as Tigard for
r its thousands of rears. tet a pre ent,Kala`my2((!�iathre': merieait )began manag g the
t #` kte Valletmeaing fire (pyrocultur ). At about the time of European settlement
t i
in 1831,canopy coverage within the current Cin- limits of Tigard was estimated to be 52.41''/t) (3,966.9 _,,z,•"`'
Z' ►t�l acres).The predominant tree species were C)regon ash,red alder,bmf nuple,willow,black 1�'
cottonwood,Oregon white oak,western rad cedar,and Pacific dogwood in the riparian and wetland 1
areas. T-lie upland areas were dominated by Douglas-fir,bigleaf maple,grand fes,Pacific&gwood,
apSstern hanlock,Oregon white oak,red alder,western red cedar,and ponderf►sa TiMe. As Tigard
15 ` , 11 b come settled,native forests were cleared for agricultural uses and timber to help support
development. after Tigard was incorporated in 1961, the City passing ordinances to manage
1
�t the urban forest beginning in 196 with street tree planting requirements,and continuing in 1983
and 199'with the passage of ordinances that regulated tree removal. The Cin-hired its first urban
forester in 1998 and created the Tree Board in 2(11)1. The Cin•of Tigard has been named a Tree City
USA even•year since 2001 and was awarded the Tree Cin-LSA Growth Award in 2(919 for its
expanded urban forestry efforts.
In 2017,Tigard had 24%city-aide tree canopy which is well belo,,v American Forests'target
recommendation of 400'4 for Pacific Northwest cities. 1V&*citywide tree canopy is carrenth
stab decrease from 1996-2007),it is becotnhIg'ificreasingly fragmented (larger grovas are
ing replaced by individual trees). Because of Tigard's tree canopy is on private prcjpeM. and
only?%a of Tigard's land area is on buddable�lands,it is critical to Jap an urban forest
stew program that inclu CalUlresidents and property owners in the Cin.
City gfTigard Urban Forestry Master Pian (Draft) -- Page 13 of 14
Attachment 4
Most stakeholder groups support the goal of developing and participating in an urban Forest
stewardship program. The Tree Board wants future urban forestr• ordinances to address arras
outside development and provisions translated into something the public can understand. They also
want more communing education on urban frrrestn-issues,and for the City to continually measure
progress on Canopy changes and community attitudes so that policy effectiveness can be easih
evaluated in the future.
Portland General Facetric and the Tigard-Tualatin Schon)l [district have offered to partner with rhe
Cin" on tree planting;and maintenance protects. The Tualatin Riverkeepers and Clean Water
Services would like more fiffigillplInft nd h.n-e offered to assist the
public on long term resource management.
Although there is a high level of sat.isfacd n xvith the current Mate of Tigard's urban fo)rest, Iun'er
results sho,,v the public would support an urban forest stewardship program Nvith '6`�,of residents
%wanting more resources directed to-,rards maintaining and protecting existing;trees. Klan-would be
wilfing to become directly involved with 52 of residents sawing they would prefer volunteering to
plant and maintain trees rather fraying a Fee to the Cite to do it. Residents also want to protect the
trees in their existing;neighborhoods with -5",,swing they would wxm::ZW=,us for dem
,4bUPWMW 0-,
The sub-goals and implementation measures in the UFMP that support the goal of developing an
urban forest stewardship program include increasing urban forestry outreach material,, utilizing
funding;fortree planting and maintenance on publiprivate propemR)an4xbw*kvp -
r curtizw. Also,long term o 1cr tees include periodically updating;the
Urban ForestryAlastet=Plan in order_'tZYqack progress and set new goals,achieving not net loss of
tree canopy between 21111^ and 2015,and achieving 32 and 40 citywide tree canopy by 2112- and
204^ respectively.
t l �
jA 4 aoj d t
1Vv71 ` t•V i t
rt� {SIL;
A 6e
`v v'i 1 g� Ot
VItY
i' tit
n
Cito)fTigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) Page 14 of 14
Attachment 4
Appendix A
CITY OF TIGARD
2008 URBAN FORESTRY SURVEY
STEVE JOHNSON&ASSOCIATES * P.O.BOX 3708 * EUGENE,OREGON 97403
TOPLINE FREQUENCIES
"Topline results include the text of each question,the response categories, and the number and percent of
responses in each category.All questions include categories for Refused(7 or 97),Don't Know(8 or 98)and No
Answer(9 or 99).In the interest of space,responses such as V don't know," V can't think of anything,"and
"no comment"have been removed from the document. The "open answers"are recorded verbatim They have
been corrected for spelling but not grammar.
HELLOI Hello, I'm calling on behalf of the City of Tigard.They have asked us to conduct a
survey of residents 18 and older about trees in the city and urban forestry. The survey takes
about ten minutes and is voluntary and anonymous. I'd like to start now.
[INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF RESPONDENT SELF IDENTIFIES AS UNDER 18 ASK FOR
SOMEONE OVER 18. IF NO ONE IS AVAILABLE TRY AND SCHEDULE CALL
BACK. IF THIS IS THE LAST DIAL ATTEMPT GO TO NOQUAL]
PRESS START TO BEGIN—OR—PRESS DISPO TO SCHEDULE CALLBACK
*INTRO FOR PARTIALS:Hi, I'm calling back to finish an interview for the City of Tigard
that we began earlier. Is that(you/person available)?
SATIS1 I'd like to begin by asking if you are very satisfied, satisfied,dissatisfied or very
dissatisfied with the quantity and quality of trees in the following locations. First,what about
the trees on your street?
PROBE: Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the quantity
and quality of trees on your street?
1 VERY SATISFIED 103 25.75%
2 SATISFIED 246 61.5%
3 DISSATISFIED 32 8%
4 VERY DISSATISFIED 10 2.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 9 2.25%
400 100%
SATIS2 What about the trees in your neighborhood?
PROBE: Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied,or very dissatisfied with the quantity
and quality of trees in your neighborhood?
City of'rigard Urban Forestry Survey-2008
Topline Frequencies Page 1
Attachment 4
Appendix A
1 VERY SATISFIED 104 26%
2 SATISFIED 242 60.5%
3 DISSATISFIED 43 10.75%
4 VERY DISSATISFIED 5 1.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 6 1.5%
400 100%
SATIS3 What about trees in the city as a whole?
PROBE: Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the quantity
and quality of trees in the city as a whole?
1 VERY SATISFIED 61 15.25%
2 SATISFIED 251 62.75%
3 DISSATISFIED 59 14.75%
4 VERY DISSATISFIED 10 2.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 19 4.75%
400 100%
HOOD Does your neighborhood need more trees and landscaping to improve
its appearance and environmental quality?
1 YES 101 25.25%
2 NO 294 73.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 5 1.25%
400 100%
IMPORTI Now I would like to read you some statements people have made about trees.
For each one,would you tell me if you strongly agree, agree,disagree,or strongly disagree.
First,trees are important to a community's character and desirability as a place to live.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree,agree,disagree,or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 249 62.25%
2 AGREE 138 34.5%
3 DISAGREE 10 2.5%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 0.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 2 0.5%
i
400 100%
j IMPORT2 It is important to me to have a view of trees from my home.
i
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree,or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 218 54.5%
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 2
i
i
Attachment 4
Appendix A
2 AGREE 148 37%
3 DISAGREE 28 7%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 4 1%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 2 0.5%
400 100%
EWFORT3 Trees contribute to the value of residential property.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree,or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 200 50%
2 AGREE 170 42.5%
3 DISAGREE 19 4.75%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 3 0.75%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 8 2%
400 100%
IMPORT4 Trees contribute to the value of commercial property.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree,or strongly disagree?
i
1 STRONGLY AGREE 125 31.25%
2 AGREE 205 51.25%
3 DISAGREE 45 11.25%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 3 0.75%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 22 5.5%
400 100%
f ]MPORT5 More street trees would be good for the City.
t
e
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 97 24.25%
2 AGREE 202 50.5%
3 DISAGREE 62 15.5%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 9 2.25%
f 7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 30 7.5%
400 100%
IMPORT6 It would benefit the City if more resources could be directed to better maintain
and protect existing trees.
1
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree,or strongly disagree?
t t
i
1 STRONGLY AGREE 102 25.5% ?
F
i
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
j Topline Frequencies Page 3 -
i
l
i
Attachment 4
Appendix A
2 AGREE 203 50.75%
3 DISAGREE 50 12.5%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 10 2.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 35 8.75%
400 100%
IMPORT7 The City should require that some trees be preserved and new ones planted on
sites that are being developed.
PROBE: Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1 STRONGLY AGREE 160 40%
2 AGREE 193 48.25%
3 DISAGREE 30 7.5%
4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 9 2.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 8 2%
400 100%
FORESTI All cities have an urban forest. The urban forest in Tigard consists of the trees in
parks, along streets, in yards, on empty lots and in forested areas.Do you think the overall
quality of Tigard's urban forest has increased, decreased or stayed the same in the last 10
years?
1 INCREASED 73 18.25%
2 DECREASED 166 41.5%
3 STAYED THE SAME 117 29.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 44 11%
400 100%
r
FOREST2 In the future, do you expect the overall quality of Tigard's urban forest to
increase, decrease,or stay the same?
w
IINCREASED 113 28.25%
2 DECREASED 126 31.5%
3 STAYED THE SAME 138 34.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 23 5.75%
j 400 100%
i f
i
j FOREST3 On a scale of 1-10,where one is poor and 10 is excellent,how would you rate
the extent and appearance of trees in Tigard?
r
! IONE 3 0.75%
2 TWO 0 0%
3 THREE 14 3.5%
4 FOUR 11 2.75%
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 4
s
f
i
Attaehrnent 4
Appendix A
5-FIVE . 61 15.256/.
6 SIX 48 12%
7 SEVEN 96 24%
8 EIGHT(GO TO TAXI) 119 29.75%
9 NINE(GO TO TAXI) 19 4.75% =
10 TEN(GO TO TAX 1) 24 6%.
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 5 1.25%_
400 " 100%
-FOREST4 What could be done to improve the appearance and quality of trees in Tigard?
OPEN ENDED-RECORD EXACT RESPONSE
Not cut them all.They are cutting out more than they are putting in. They should require
developers to keep some of the existing trees.
Better maintenance. ;
More variety.
i _
-They need to plant more trees when they remove them.Do not just plant commercialized
trees.
Maintain the trees. Trimming them and things like that.
Ask the people to clean up more. During the.fall, clean up sidewalk areas like they should.
More maintenance,
I say plant more,just preserve the ones that are there.
Certain areas. Save certain trees.
Taken care of the trees.
I don't have any good ideas.Don't cut down more big trees.
Trimmed when it comes to wires, and in areas with no trees new ones could be planted. When
they are doing commercial development they should plant trees when they are done
building.
In the vast expanses of parking lots there should be shade trees for the cars..It would help with
gas so people don't have to use the AC. Shade.trees help a lot. ,
' Public awareness.
Developers not remove existing trees as much.
One thing I don't like is the power company coming along and trimming them to look stupid..
Better trees that don't tear up streets and utilities.
Don't do anything. They'll'grow by themselves. No sense in paying tax payers'money on
trees that can take care of themselves.
High quality maintenance.
Let the trees get older. f
You know you do a good job.Keep up the good work.
i Add trees along Durham Road and downtown Main Street.
More fir trees or pine green trees. ;
Plant more,I guess.
I I think more of them.,And better maintenance of the area around the trees.
Plant more trees;take care of them. j
They don't have a nice setup in Tigard, lack of parks.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey-2008 .
Topline Frequencies Page 5
I
Attachment 4
Appendix A
Maintenance
More maintenance from landowners and the city.
Better protection of the exciting trees in areas.
Keeping them clean, away from street signs and pruning them.
Quit cutting them down I think.
They could be taken care of.
Trimming.
Quit cutting them down.
They can be trimmed up so they can plant more trees.
Plant more trees.
Prevent cut down of existing ones, plant more trees.
They could put the areas back that used to be there,that are gone.
Plant more.
I think if they planted the proper trees so that the roots would not appear and break up the
sidewalks. I think people either put them down and don't pull out the roots.
Ones left are well maintained,pick up leaves off sidewalks and streets for bikers.
To trim them.
Plant more street trees on Greenburg Road.
Not letting people cut them down.
Grow more.
There are places where there are a lot of trees and places where there are none,trees should be
everywhere, especially where there are none. It would also be good to discus the
things people don't want to see,especially industrial areas. Trees should be used to
shield them from their neighbors.
Streets be lined with trees.
Leave them alone.
Basic maintenance.
I think if there is some sort of a plan.When you build new housing areas and existing areas
you should have a comprehensive plan about the comprehensive trees. Whether the
city is going plant the trees or it is going to be left to individuals.
In some areas I think you need to have management people that know what is going on.
Placement of trees and people with knowledge of what is going on. It would be more
beneficial to have more parks.Percentage of parks in a residential area.
Protection of some of the areas, like stream land from development.
Maintenance around power lines.
More trees.Nothing else.
Trees aren't taken care of well,trees in vacant lots should become less neglected.
Fertilize.
Find a way to keep away all the leaves.
Pruning and maintained health,be maintained better.
More volunteers to maintain them.
Plant more trees! Plant more quality trees.
I think that we need to keep the landscaping up. We need to maintain our trees.If we have
more trees we will have a better community.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 6
Attachment 4
Appendix A
Put them in strategic locations like downtown. They should put a ton of trees downtown.
They want to improve downtown they should put in good trees. Don't put them there
for no reason.
Just so much building going on more regulations about what trees need to remain.
Probably the amount. -
There could be more of them on major highways. Highway 99 has none on that road.
Plant more trees.
More placed in better locations,not be so messy.
Add more trees, keep the exciting trees.
Better pruning with trees along the streets a lot that have grown big and unruly.
Better maintenance. I think that some of the street trees get in-the way.
Probably just more attention to them. The property owners need to pay more attention to their
trees probably.If we are going to have trees,they need to be maintained.
Not be willing to cut so many when they are developing.
Don't know,maintain them.
Get the city counsel in the city forest,they should be running the city not the trees.
Maintain damage is done.
Leave them standing,pruning assisting their health.
Maintain what they have and not let the new buildings do away with the trees. Plant new ones
after they have built homes or buildings.
Plant more and not chop down forest to put up condos.
I wish people would take care of trees better.
They could have more trees where there are no trees.
More street trees.
Don't think anything should be done.
Trim them.
Highway 99 at the bridge.Just be conscientious.
Plant more trees,when you remove trees, plant trees where the space is available.It should be
a law to plant trees.
Provide good maintenance.
Downtown area needs more trees.
Old trees be cut down, plant new ones.
Preserve during development.
Better overall maintenance.
Better maintained.
Pick up more leaves.
I don't have a problem with it, so nothing. j
Need more trees in old town.
Cut them all down,too many large trees,they are blocking the view of everything.They need
to at least be trimmed.
Developer should put trees of appropriate size for the lot.
A little bit better maintained by people that take care of the trees.
More of them along the main streets. `
They could be preserved.Planting the right trees.And more of them.
Trimming and landscaping around trees.
Like the downtown,they made it look all cutesie.
- i
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 7
I
Attachment 4
Appendix A
Plant more, let more streets be planted next to trees.Less shopping malls, have an area of
trees planted, 99 west. They put ugly storage unit,they cut down beautiful trees for
that.
Improve the city council decisions.
Pruning.
A little bit of pruning.
There could be improvements on highway 99 and on commercial properties.I see a lot of
death that needs to be maintained a little bit better.More trees on busier streets.
Plant more of them,take care of them,and cut their branches and everything.
First of all plant more trees if there is the space.
Largely,plant new ones and stop cutting down the old ones.
Probably more aggressive street tree planting program Out reach to property owners that
have trees and preserve them.
Most of the trees are on private property.As to the ones that are on public domain,they
should be maintained professionally with an eye towards long term growth.
I like where homes don't go right to the creek and there is green spaces along creeks.
Maybe more trimming on trees.
Plant more.
Expert looking at the issue.
Old ones let go.Cleaned up.
By preserving existing trees.
Better maintenance.
Leave them alone.
Remove many of them.Public works departments are not funded to protect neighborhoods as
a result of leaf fall.There is not enough street sweeping services.
Downtown could plant trees.
Lining the streets and putting them in parks,but I think they're doing that right now. Where I
live there are many trees in the community.
More trees, as far as the existing trees, I'm not sure what to say about their quality and
appearance.
Proper maintenance of the trees and removal of the dead or improper growth.
Plant more,rip up cement and plant trees.
In certain neighborhoods there could just be more of them.And more yard debris pick-up, so
that people are not afraid to have trees.Anything that would make having a tree easier
would be good.
I would like to see their messes cleaned up quicker.
If they had left the old trees to live, it would have been better.They put up some new dinky
{ trees.And they just don't look as good.It's too late.
Maybe better maintained and kept trees.
Maintain existing trees.
Plant more. City to replace trees that are deceased or need to be replaced.
Cut down dying trees,take care of trees next to main roads.
Stop cutting them down. When a large tree is cut down,requires two of three tree in their
! place.
Adding variety.
i More of them in public areas. In downtown Tigard.
i
i
i
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 8
I
i
Attachment 4
Appendix A
I think they need to plant more trees along streets and in newly developed areas.
Add some along 99.
Better trimming and maintenance.
Maybe more appropriate trees in the area they're going to be planted. I guess I'm thinking
about some trees are planted too close to the street,and that causes problems with
leaves in the sewer and sidewalks heaving from the roots.
Maintenance
Maintenance and replanting with trees that die.
Just encourage more people to plant proper trees and take care of the ones they have.And not
i cut them down unnecessarily.
Pruning.
In the greenway,we have lots of English ivy that is destroying our trees.Dead trees.
Not cutting down massive amounts when they build new areas. Plants more trees along the
parks.
I don't know what could be done to make them better.I noticed when new development is
going in were their is a forestry areas and they take out the tress and I don't like that.I
don't like the ripping up of the stuff along Vano Creek.
Stop chopping down trees.
More maintenance and planting more trees.
Plant more decorative trees. Some of the ones that flower in the spring.More evergreens.The
big scrub maples, big yellow leaves.Replace stuff with more colors for spring and fall. j
More red maples.
Planting more tress in the downtown Tigard area and taking care of trees that are at the end of
their life. Taking down and replacing trees that are dying. j
They're in pretty good shape.
Maintain the one we have,and plant more. e
Keep them trimmed away from the important stuff.
Replace trees as they are taken out.
Medians planted with trees.Uniform tree type on various streets so that it isn't so raged
looking.
Better up keep.
Get rid of the old ones that are dying.Just clean up.
Plant more.Help maintain the huge fir trees.
I think that the city needs to be a little more proactive in trimming them so things can be seen.
So that people who are unfamiliar with the area can see the street signs.It's a huge
sign.If people are elderly then they can't trim them themselves.Need to be more
proactive. E
I really don't know if I like a tree in front of my house,I wouldn't plant it but I think trees are
important.
Stop cutting down all the trees on all developments.
Keep them trimmed up a little bit nicer and leaves in the fall are a big problem,they make a
mess. j
Nothing I think they are fine.
Take down the trees that drop leaves.
I'm not sure we need more trees. !
4
i
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 9
I
Attachment 4
Appendix A
I don't really know, stop cutting down all the trees, build where they do not have to remove
trees.
Just prune and thin out the trees.Increase the health of trees.
More open green spaces and more trees in commercial areas.
Plant more trees.
Better maintaining by replanting. More planting.
Plant more.
I'm thinking of the one on the corner of my lot, it has pruning problems due to the power
lines.It really distorts the shape of the tree.
Stop building houses.
Cutting them back and some pruning them.
More planting.
Do not cut down anymore than they absolutely have to.
I think maybe stronger education on how to take care of trees.
More development of downtown, Tigard with lots of trees and landscaping.
Better management by the city and government.
When developing, keep more trees that are already existing. Qr replanting trees that have been
taken down to build a new house.
Regular maintenance.
I think there should be more,plant more.
I feel that every time they cut one down they put new ones in.They've stopped doing that.
They don't replace anything, it looks like a concrete forest.
I think more of the visual stuff and getting the community more involved,too many
businesses.
I think they are okay.
I don't have an opinion on it.
Planting to include green space and park settings,Bull Mountain is an example of how not to
do it.
More trees.Better upkeep.
Not cut them down.
I would think that they could be better shaped, and trimmed when needed. I fit the location
where they fit size wise.
Leave the consumer alone. They have their own trees, so let them do what they want.
Some of them need to be shaped better.The ones on the road.
I don't know,just make sure they're maintained and plant new trees as ones die or become
available.
They are properly cared for and planted more of them.
Better maintenance.
Better care and clean up.
Variety and maintenance.
I would presume plant more.
We're going to suggest the city does a better job of maintaining them.To improve our park,
we're on Woodard park, it would improve the park if they would thin the trees that are
diseased and prune them, or remove them.
Quit cutting them down for new developments.
Planting more trees.
I
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 10
Attachment 4
Appendix A
Just constant vigilance.
More and just more.
Plant trees where there are no trees. Where I live there are lots of trees.
Leave them alone.
Better maintenance.
Plant more.
TAXI Currently, property owners are responsible for maintaining street trees in front of their
property. Would you strongly support, support,oppose,or strongly oppose a program that
transfers the responsibility for maintaining street trees to the City?
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 65 16.25%
2 SUPPORT 128 32%
3 OPPOSE 136 34%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 38 9.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 33 8.25%
400 100%
TAX2 Would you strongly support, support,oppose,or strongly oppose additional funding
from increased city fees, charges, or property taxes to fund a City street tree program?
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 25 6.25%
2 SUPPORT 151 37.75%
3 OPPOSE 132 33%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 63 15.75%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 29 7.25% j
400 100%
TAX3 Would you strongly support, support,oppose,or strongly oppose additional funding
from increased city fees, charges, or property taxes to fund a more comprehensive tree
planting and maintenance program in Tigard parks and open spaces?
l
PROBE: This would include trees throughout Tigard,not just on streets.
v
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 32 8%
2 SUPPORT 190 47.5%
3 OPPOSE 104 26%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 53 13.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 21 5.25%
400 100%
TAX4 Would you prefer volunteering to plant and maintain trees or paying a fee to the City
to do this? 1
PROBE: Even if you are not a property owner, which would you prefer?
i
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
i
Topline Frequencies Page 1]
f
1
Attachment 4
Appendix A
1 PLANT 208 52%
2 PAY 106 26.5%
3 IF VOL—NEITHER 61 15.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 25 6.25%
400 100%
CHOICEI Which of the following would be your first choice of where the city should plant
more trees?
(PROBE FROM LIST)
1 ALONG STREETS 99 24.75%
2 IN PEOPLE'S YARDS 10 2.5%
3 IN COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL AREAS 51 12.75%
4 IN PARKS 79 19.75%
5 NEAR STREAMS/NATURAL FORESTED AREAS 129 32.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 32 8%
400 100%
CHOICE2 Which of the following statements most closely represents your opinion about
trees.
1 PRESERVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE 128 32%
2 WHEN TREES ARE REMOVED,REPLACE THEM 129 32.25%
3 PRESERVE LARGE OR UNIQUE TREES 60 15%
4 ALLOW INDIVIDUALS REMOVE TREES IF WISH 71 17.75%
5 IF VOL—NONE OF THESE STATEMENTS 1 0.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 11 2.75%
400 100%
HAZARD Currently, if there is a dispute between neighboring property owners regarding a
potentially hazardous tree,the City does not get involved, and instead directs the neighbors to
work out a solution through civil means. Would you strongly support, support,oppose,or
strongly oppose the creation of a program where the City would become involved in disputes
between neighbors regarding hazardous trees?
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 54 13.5%
2 SUPPORT 185 46.25%
3 OPPOSE 101 25.25%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 49 12.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 11 2.75%
400 100%
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 12 -
Attachment 4
Appendix A
REGI Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose
tree removal regulations during property development, even when they limit the size and
extent of potential buildings or profits?
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 59 14.75%
2 SUPPORT 168 42%
3 OPPOSE 99 24.75%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 32 8%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 42 10.5%
400 100%
REG2 If you had the opportunity to develop your property,would you be in favor of city tree
regulations that required preservation of existing large trees and landscaping or tree planting
afterwards?
r
1 YES 264 66%
j 2 NO 97 24.25%
3 IF VOL— IT DEPENDS 14 3.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 25 6.25%
i
400 100%
REG3 Should the City allow the decision to preserve trees to be left to the developer?
1 YES 80 20%
2 NO 293 73.25%
3 IF VOL— IT DEPENDS 17 4.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 10 2.5%
400 100%
REG4 If the City were to enact new tree protection measures,would you like to see them j
focused on natural areas, ornamental landscape trees,both types equally, or on something
else.
r I
1 NATURAL AREAS 149 37.25%
2 ORNAMENTAL TREES 11 2.75%
F
3 BOTH 192 48%
4 SOMETHING ELSE 25 6.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 23 5.75%
400 100%
REG5 Would you strongly support, support, oppose, or strongly oppose city regulations that
would provide some level of protection for large,healthy trees on developed private property?
i
PROBE: This would apply to all current private property.
i
1 STRONGLY SUPPORT 78 19.5%
I
i
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008 j
Topline Frequencies Page 13
's
i
r
Attachment 4
Appendix A
2 SUPPORT 224 56%
3 OPPOSE 60 15%
4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 20 5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 18 4.5%
400 100%
REG6 If the city were to enact new tree protection measures, where would you prefer to see
them focused: on larger groves of native trees or individual trees of significant size.
1 LARGE GROVES 221 55.25%
2 INDIVIDUAL TREES 113 28.25%
3 IF VOL—BOTH 31 7.75%
4 IF VOL—NEITHER 18 4.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 17 4.25%
400 100%
AGE In what year were you born?
Coded Categories:
AGE 18-24 3 0.75%
AGE 25-34 23 5.75%
AGE 35-44 59 14.75%
AGE 45-54 106 26.5%
AGE 55-64 91 22.75%
AGE 65 AND OLDER 118 29.5%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 0 0%
400 100%
GENDER Are you male or female?
1 MALE 160 40%
2 FEMALE 240 60%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 0 0%
400 100%
RENT Do you own your home, or do you rent?
1 OWN 344 86%
2 RENT 49 12.25%
7 REF/8 DK/9 NA 7 1.75%
400 100%
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies.Page 14
I
Attachment 4
Appendix A
STREET What neighborhood do you live in?
PROBE: What is your closest elementary school?
PROBE: What is your closest cross street?
OPEN ENDED—RECORD EXACT RESPONSE
END That's the end of the survey! On behalf of the City of Tigard,we would like to thank
you for your time and participation. Have a great day. Good bye.
NOQAL I'm sorry, we can only interview residents of who are 18 years of age or older). I'm
sorry to have bothered you. Have a nice(day/evening).
i
i
I
I
E
I
1
i
I
i
i
i
I �
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Survey—2008
Topline Frequencies Page 15
k
E
F
Appendix B
Canopy Cover(both 1996 and 200 located within the June 2008 Tigard City Limits
City Limits,June 2008 7556 acres
1996 2007
Percent of Percent of
June 2008 June 2008
Acres City Limits Acres City Limits
Canopy Cover 1952.75 25.84% 1852.69 24.52%
1996 2007
Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of
1996 Canopy 1996 Canopy 2007 Canopy 2007 Canopy
Size of Canopy Cluster Acres Cover Clusters Cover Acres Cover Clusters Cover
Less than 0.5 acres 366.55 18.77% 1 4356 90.94% 584.30 31.54% 7231 93.86%
0.5 to.99 acres 135.76 6.95% 197 4.11% 167.25 9.03% 242 3.14%
1.0 to 1.99 acres 159.25 8.16% 113 2.36% 177.88 9.60% 131 1.70%
2.0 to 4.99 acres 190.86 9.77% 61 1.27% 157.00 8.47% 52 0.67%
5.0 or more acresi 1100.33 56.35% 63 1.32% 766.26 41.36% 48 0.620/1
Total 1952.75 100% 4790 100% 1852.69 100% 7704 100%
A
fD
1
Appendix B
Urban Renewal Zone 191 acres
1996 2007
AcresPercent Acres Percent
lCanopy Cover of Urban Rcnewal Zone 19.67 10.30% 18A1
A
� I
Appendix B
Within junc 2008 City Limits
Jan 1,2008 Buildable Lands Invento (BLI) 528.75 acres
BLI 1996 1423.32 acres
Cano y Cover
Year BLI Acres Acres Percent
1996 1423.32 646.52 45.42%
2007 528.75 226.26 42.79%
1996 BLI Canopy Cover Change
1996 Canopy Cover within 2007 Canopy Cover within
1996 BLI 1996 BLI
Acres Acres Percent Acres Percent
1996 BLI 1423.32 646.52 45.42% 495.24 34.79%
r�
r�
A
CD ,
Appendix B
City Limits, une 2008 7556 acres
Ma•13,2008 Taxlots 2007 Can o y Cover
Percent
Ownership
Taxlot Ownership Number Acres Acres Cover
City of Tigard 235 388.41 179.18 46.13%
Public Right-of-Way n/a 1,288.30 117.45 9.120
Other Public Entity 79 431.65 105.10 24.35%
Private 15,880 5,447.64 1450.96 26.63%
Total 1 16,194 7,556.00 1,852.69 24.52%
A
�D
rr
Appendix B
Significant Habitat Areas 2007 Canopy Coverage 1852.69 acres
Acres in 2007 Canopy Coverage Percent of 2007 Citywide
Habitat Class Tigard Acres Percent Canopy Cover
Highest Value 590.51 267.84 45.36% 14.46%
Moderate Value 374.88 193.28 51.56% 10.43%
Lower Value 447.84 234.96 52.47% 12.68%
Total 1413.23 696.08 1 49.25% 1 37.57%
A
� ,I
Appendix B
Sensitive Lands 2007 Canopy Coverage 1852.69 lacres
1996 Canopy Covera c 1952.75 acres
Acres in 2007 Cano v Coveragc 1996 Cano y Covet-age Percent Change 1996 to
Tt e Tigard Acres Percent Ci vide Percent Acres Percent Cit idc Percent 2007
Local Wctland Inventory 290.91 116.01 39.88% 6.26% 145.98 50.18% 7.48% -10.30%
CWS Vegetated Corridor 704.78 302.85 42.97% 16.35% 348.16 49.40% 17.83% -6.43%
FL61A 100-yr Flood Iain 592.6 188.05 31.73% 10.15% 213.17 35.97% 10.92% -4.24%
Slopes>25% 195.51 129.64 66.31% 7.00% 130.28 66.64% 6.67% -0.33%
Total 1783.8 736.55 41.29% 39.76% 837.59 46.96% 42.89% -5.66%
I
P+
A j
�D
______________ ____________________________
Appendix B
Subdivisions Approved in 1996/97
Canopy overage
1996 2007
Number Total Acres Acres I Percent Acres Percent Change 1996-2007
�
�
44,
__-______-�___-___-_________-___-____--_-�____-^ ------ ... _'__-_- _-
� - `
�
Appendix
City Limits,June 2008 7556
1996 Can py Cover 2007 Can py Cover Percent Change 1996 to
�
Zoning 2008 Acres Acre§ Percent Acres Percent 2007
Commercial 800 88.13 11.02% 80.52 10.07% -0.95%
Industrial 863 139.81 16.20% 137.58 15.94% -0.26%
Residential 5192 1574.42 30.32% 1534.72 29.56% -0.76%
Total 7556 1952.66 25.84% 1852.61 24.52% -1.32%
�
Attachment 4
Appendix B
June 2008 Canopy Cover Analysis Protocol
CiWwjde Canopy Cover
1. Calculate area ofJune 2008 CityLimits in acres(7556)
2. Clip tool on 1996 Canopy Cover with June 2008 City Limits
(Canop),Cover_1996_Tig_june2008)
a. Calculate area in acres(1952.75)
3. Clip tool on 2007 Canopy Cover with June 2008 City Limits
(CanopyCover_2007_Tig_June2008)
a. Calculate area in acres(1852.69)
4. Query CanopyCover_7996_Tiy}June2008 for acres:
a. Less than 0.5(366.55)
b. 0.5 to 0.99(135.76)
c. 1.0 to 1.99(159.25)
d. 2.0 to 4.99(190.86)
e. 5.0 or more(1100.33)
5. Query CanopyCover_2007_Tig june2008
a. Less than 0.5(584.30)
b. 0.5 to 0.99(167.25)
c. 1.0 to 1.99(177.88)
d. 2.0 to 4.99(157.00)
e. 5.0 or more(766.26)
Buildable mods Inventory
1. Chp tool on BLI_2008janl with June 2008 Tigard City Limits(131,I_2008janl_TIG)
a. Calculate area in acres(528.75)
2. C6p tool on BLI1996 with)une 2008 Tigard City Limits(BLI1996_TIG)
a. Calculate area in acres(1423.32)
3. Intersect tool with BLI_2006jan1_TIG and CanopyCover_7996_Tig_,June2008
(BLI_1996_intersect)
a. Calculate area in acres(646.52)
4. Intersect tool with BLi_2008jan1_TIG and CanopyCover_2007_Tigaune2008
a. Calculate area in acres(226.26)
f
1
i
i
Attachment 4
Appendix B
Tigard Urban Renewal District
1. Calculate area of Tigard Urban Renewal District in acres(191)
2. Intersect tool with Tigard Urban Renewal District and
CanoppCover_1996_Tig_]une2008 CMRD_1996_intersect)
a. Calculate area in acres(19.67)
3. Intersect tool with Tigard Urban Renewal District and
CanopyCover_2007_Tig_June2008(TURD-2007—intersect)
a. Calculate area in acres(18.41)
TiPgard Zoning Districts
1. Dissolve tool on Zoning_Tigjune2008 based on"Type"Field
(Zoning_Tig_June2008_di ssolve)
a. Calculate area of Tigard Zoning Districts
i. Commercial(799.9 acres)
ii. Industrial(862.55 acres)
iii. Mixed Use(700.24 acres)
iv. Residential(5191.71 acres)
2. Intersect tool with Z.oning_Tigaune2008_dissolve and
CanopyCover_1996_Tig_June2008(Zoningl996_intersect)
a. Calculate area of Zoning1996-jntersect
i. Commercial(88.13 acres)
ii. Industrial(139.81 acres)
iii. Mixed Use(150.3 acres)
I
iv. Residential(1574.42 acres)
3. Intersect tool with Zoning_Tig-junc2008_dissolve and
Canop)'Cover_2007_Tigjune2008(Zoning2007_intersect)
i a. Calculate area of Zoning2007_intersect
I
i. Commercial(80.52 acres)
ii. Industrial(137.58 acres)
iii. Mixed Use(99.79 acres)
iv. Residential(1534.72 acres)
I
i
i
i
1
i
I\
i
i
Attachment 4
Appendix B
Prope Ownership =
1. Query Washington County taxlot data Nay 13,2008)for publicly owned property
within dry limits(PublicPrcperty May2008_Tig)and calculate area
a. City Ownership(235 properties,388.41 acres)
b. Other Public Ownership(79 properties,431.65 acres)
2. Calculate area of remaining raxlots to derive private ownership
a. Private Ownership(15,880 properties,5,447.64 acres)
3. Intersect tool with PublicPropet-ty_May2008_Tig and
CanopyCover_2007_Tig_june2008(PubficProperry2007_intersect)
a. Calculate area of PublicProperty2007_intersect canopy cover in acres
i. City Ownership(179.18)
ii. Other Public Ownership(105.1)
4. Subtract PublicProperty2007_intersect acres from
CanopyCover_2007_Tig_June2008 acres to calculate canopy cover in private
ownership(1568.41)
Significant Habitat Aeas
1. Clip tool on sig_hab_areas with June 2008 Tigard City Limits(Habitat-TIG)
a. Calculate area of Habitat_TIG in acres
i
i. Highest value habitat(590.51)
j u. Moderate value habitat(374.88)
`^ iii. Lower value habitat(447.84)
Intersect tool with Habitat TIG and CanopyCovet_2007_Tig_june2008
(Habitat_intersect2007)
a. Calculate area of Habitat_intersect2007 in acres
i. Highest value habitat(267.84)
ii. Moderate value habitat(193.28)
\W �� iii. Lower value habitat(234.96)
' 1w
0Ce
�
I
I
i
l
Attachment 4
Appendix B
Sensitive Lands
1. Clip tool on Tigard Local Wetland Inventory with June 2008 Tigard City Limits
a. Calculate area of i_WI_Tig in acres(290.91)
2. Clip tool on CWS Vegetated Corridor Buffer with June 2008 Tigard City Limits
(CWS—Tip)
a. Calculate area of CWS_Tig in acres(704.78)
3. CGp tool on FEMA 100-yr Floodplain with June 2008 Tigard City Limits
(FENIA_Tig)
a. Calculate area of FEMA_Tig in acres(592.6)
4. Clip cool on Metro 25%or Greater Slopes with June 2008 Tigard City Limits
(Slope_Tig)
a. Calculate area of Slope_Tig in acres(195.51)
5. Intersect tool with LWI_Tig and CanopyCover_2007_Tig june2008
J WI_Tig_intersect2007)
a. Calculate area of LWI_Tig—intersect2007 in acres(116.01)
6. Intersect tool with C XIS_Tig and CanopyCover_2007 Tig—June2008
(C WS_Tig_interse ct2007)
a. Calculate area of CWS—Tig_intersect2007 in acres(302.85)
7. Intersect tool with FEMA_Tig and CanopyCover_2007 Tig_June2008
(FEMA_Tig—in tersect2007)
a. Calculate area of FEW_Tig_intersect2007 in acres(188.05)
B. Intersect tool with Slope_Tig and Canop}Cover_2007 Tig-june2008
(Slope_Tig_intetsect2007)
a. Calculate area of Slope_Tigjntersect2007 in acres(129.64)
Random Subdivision
1. Queried Subdivisions approved in 1996/97 I(Subdiv1996_97(18 total)]
a. Calculate area of Subdiv1996_97 in acres(72.76)
2. Intersect tool with Subdiv1996_97 and CanopyCoeer_2007_Tig—June2008
(Subdiv—i n tersect2007)
a. Calculate area of Subdiv_intersect2007 in acres(12.49)
3. Intersect tool with Subdiv1996_97 and Canop)Cover_1996_Tig_Junc2008
(Subdiv_i n tersectl 996)
a. Calculate arca of Subdiv_intersectl996 in acres(7832)
i
Attachment 4
Appendix C
Portland General Electric(PGF)Stakeholder Interview Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tiyaard'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 fists,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 die 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 natwe of vegetation management
around PGE facilities.
• Invite PGE to monthly City coordination meetings.
• Route tree plans to PGE for review.
i
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
Attachment 4
Appendix C
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 cork 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 overplattting 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.
1 7 • Bi-weekly ar st reports can be hard for the City to track,especially during the
tr nstu om site development to building phase.
• Project arborists are hired to protect their clients. This can result in arborist reports
wt fa se or ng n ormanon. .�
� o
4. What could be done in the future to improve the programs that do not work well? n C
• Determine tree stocking levels based on plantable areas as is done in the City of
Vancouver,WA. This could be accom able soil volumes for
jlots of various sizes widi trees.
C� • AllgA re aired trees such as parking lot and street trees to count for mitigation. This _1°
will help alleviate overp antmg o ugnuon tree�stamre
__r wp 0(," fA t 06'
• Provide incentives for planting o;natives and larmitt .tion�Lrecs. eQVeincentive could be to offer moregauon cre ung nativeS h r QXv
I stature trees. This will help alleviate overplanting and encourage the planting of trees D✓
av
that offer the most environmental benefits. d I
• Develop spacingstandards based on the mature vesroove long term
! growth and health. le-
VS ,.
Q � VV
V"(—
fv VC
i
Attachment 4
Appendix C
• Urban forestry funding can be more sustainable if it tied to stable sources such as
storrmvater fees,permit fees,transportation fees,etc. This will also allow for the
urban forestry funds to be used for long term tree maintenance.
�^A^ •
Bi-weekly arborist reports should be required in future code updates. The City
should require a copy of the contract or r-weekly reports and require the project
et,NuM1 1 arborist to send a notice to the City if the contract is terminated. If a different
ri S 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.
1
rbusiness
The City should require more personal accountability for project arborists to
discourage false or misleading information. Measures could include revoking
licenses and/or fines so that project arborists have more personal
J, S accountability when providing false or tnisleading information.
�Vl • An alternative method to limit false or misleading reports would be for the City to
vA ffJ 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.
G. 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 miugauon 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.
t • Incentivize protection and replanting of natives and large stature trees.
� �eS • Identify sustainable funding sources for urban forestry programs. Fund long term
maintenance of trees,not just tree planting.
�v • 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,
t not the project engineer.
• Require metal fencing in future code updates.
j • 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 runes the
5
diameter of the tree. However sr a ectes c cteristics 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. `
i
i
i
i
i
I
Attachment 4
Appendix C
i -
i
- i
Attachment 4
Appendix C
Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce Stakeholder Interview Notes
On March 9,2009,I spoke with Christopher 7oucha,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.
i
i
f
i
i
s
f
r
i
I
I
i
i
j
i
i
i
i
Attachment 4
Appendix C
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.
I
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• The City actively works to include the greatet<eommunity 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 projitam'do not work-well,and why?
• The City's departments are not wellcoordinated on urban forestry issues due to lack
of communication. `
• Tree management prp4s3ions are scattete� th% ixghout the Code and not unified.
• The Tree Code is too fgct�sed'o4 developmene.,
4. What could be done in the future tgimprove,titi`e prpgrams`,diat donor work well?
• More Eomrirunicatrnhbetweerr,Citpdepartments;
• Unify[rFe;related prpvisinns in Code.'
• Focus futute Ce e
ode Gnarea outsidvelopmenr,and fix the mitigation issue.
5. *can we wOFlc togetli'ejittthe futui e`p01 Prove Tigard's urban forest
.+` The Tree Bo' ,can helpcreate a plan for the future management of Tigard's urban
+ ',forest
• Tfie Tree Board'cavi;help execute the action measures in the plan. Mitigation funds
can be used to implement the plan.
+ � i
• The Tree Board can continue to reach out to stakeholders when implementing the
plan.
I
G. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
• Increase communication between City departments.
` • Unify tree related Code provisions.
j • Focus future Code revisions on areas outside development.
j • Make sure Code revisions can be translated into something the public can
iunderstand.
1
I I
i
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
i
k
I
1 1
1
'I `
j
Attachment 4
Appendix C
• Expand community education on urban forestry issues. Use Eastmoreland outreach
materials as a model.
• Continually measure progress on canopy preservation/expansion and community
r
attitudes.
• Plan for future annexations of tree resources in areas outside of the Cin,limits.
i
14,
�i'-1
V1,13", -v-
4 e.1fi`9..
Eit
Y
'h
aN.
i
I
I
i
1 I
t
r ,.
i
Attachment 4
i
Appendix C
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?
i
• High level of familiarity with Tigard's tree and landscape ordinances.
• Regularly implements codes during development projects to meet landscape and
mitigation requirements.
1
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well?
• Tigard actually has a tree and landscape ordinance whereas some cities do not.
i • Tigard staff is easily accessible to discuss issues with and workout 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 overpI nting. S 1 t ?
• Site lartrrin is focused too heavily on building needs and not on existing site �a
'. _. P g Y g E _
conditions. This causes an excessive amount of clear cutung.
• Landscape architects o not Rave en ew t yscape design because
landscape code requirements are overly specific.
• Street tree list is outdated,and marry of the species are no longer appropriate or
relevant. w are-
Street
rLStreet trees and streerscapes 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 acid a wide
variety of interpretations. For example,there are no spacing,species,or nursery C� was'
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 donor work well?
z
• Focus tree code revisions o eservation nd lesson mitigation. U preservation
requirements are increased,th n could occur on a tree for tree basis rather
i
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
li ow to a lust grading to preserve trees. Perhaps there should be a dual sign off on
preservation plans between the landscape architect and project atborist.
a • Allow for more flexibility in landscape requirements in future updates. Require
1ss� landscape architects to be part of the design team,and sign off on planting before,
j Y t during,and after installations.
{I S
I `�k
s'
i
i
0
i
1
r
i
i
Attachment 4
Appendix C
• Update street tree list.
• To improve uniformity of streerscapes,die 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 expense. 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.
G. 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.
sc
�0
i
i
I
i
i
i !
t
Attachment 4
Appendix C
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. Itis
important to coordinate with Facilities Division so that long term maintenance issues
can be addressed prior to planting.
4. I.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?
i
•
Bring Facilities Division into the planning process from the beginning of tree
planting projects on School District properties.
i • Focus on low maintenance plantings with evergreens and other trees with low leaf
i
Etter.
I
f
0V) � J Vs ti kOL 4
`L 1
`D�GV L�
C'OV�,4vvS n �t9 Cttnct c p C'�dYcl�
i
{
1 6
i
Attachment 4
Appendix C
Tualatin%verkeepers Stakeholder Interview bores
]. 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. IXrhar 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 sustainabili efforts
such as by signing the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement.
s
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 tee canopy using
grant money and other funding sources. A,
• 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, eJV
development fees,etc.so that the funding sources are more sustainable and can be C !
used for more than just tree planting. \��
i. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
• Tualatin Riverkeepers can assist with volunteer recruitment for urban forestry
I projects.
• Tualatin Riverkeepers can help educate kids about the importance of environmental
stewardship through camp and recreation programming.
I
I
i
i
i
I
Attachment 4
Appendix C
• 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 forestn'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, f
development fees,etc.so that the funding sources are more sustainable and can be C /�
used for more than just tree planting. /
• More public commitment to sustainability efforts such as signing the Mayor's AS t� l l/e
Climate Protection Agreement_ -01 A Vp�CC9(( a
• More efforts in invasive species removal. Incentivize and/or require private
P t w
landowners to remove invasives. e Q S 7
i
i
G
f
i
f
1
;
1
I
i
i
i
li
i
Attachment 4
Appendix C
Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland Stakeholder Tnterviexv Notes
1. What is your level of interaction with Tigard's urban forestry program?
• The 1000+members of the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland 1
(HBANTP)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 11 QS V"
development requires tree removal on sites that have trees and are zoned for
eGS e
development. go ✓`R a�
• Applications for land development are currently required to include tree
preservation/removal plans prior to development in order to meet Tigard Ft' Z p
Development Code requirements. 2�
l • Under the current code section 18.790,applicants may pay a fee in lieu of mitigation
Oa 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. 1 �f
• The HBAMP has a representative on the Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen
Advisory*Committee. f
2. What features of Tigard's urban forestry program work well? D"
•
C
Tree planting when the right tree]. rlanted in the right place.
�„pQC� • The City's overall goal o reserving trees ,all
v • Requiring developers to u z e expertise of independent,certified arborist_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 u
• The midgadon structure in section 18.790.030.B.2(a-d)is unreasonable because it is —`1J—YLk
not practicable to renin even 2 "o of rh��es sires zoned�f.rmaiirn to hi h
ens[ rest enu evelopment(5 uniteore Tkely never
b een a neveopme�gardwith 75% retention ty
.one
R4.5 1^C
or higher. cavy men radio ,roads and utilities are very disruptive to trees. yT
Significant amounts of grading must rake place outsi e t e o way w en
driveways are cut in,sidewalks are poured,and building footprints are cleared for 7 QS j
f structures. This results in tree retention being limited to the perimeter of developed 1
sites. C7'
� • The City's current program incentivizes the preservation of[tees that will cause �� 1
potential future hazards. For example,trees over 12"in diameter have root systems 50 ` 1 C)D
and canopies that extend at least 10'from the trunk. Targer trees have larger areas
around them that need to remain undisturbed. This is not practicable is high density
Attachment 4
Appenn ix C�
situations. Even if a younger but potentially large tree species such as Doug.-fir is '/ Jp �t l r i5pre
able to be retained,it often makes sense to remove it to avoid potential hazards in D
the future. C �
• e ee structure associated with fee in lieu of planting for mitigation far exceeds the C 0 d
actual cost to plant trees. For example,a recent mitigation project to plant trees in ` L
Cook Park for the FletcherWoods development cost the developer$20,000 to yh p S d p Q
U complete. However,the City required the developer to submit a bond for$106,000 4—sor$110 per caliper inch as assurance and to cover the City's cost of planting should W 0l
the developer fail to mitigate. Av ytes tr-
• The incentives in section 18.790.040 should be updated. For example,the density LJIt `l
bonus incentive allows for a 1%density bonus for 2%canopy covet retained. This ✓✓
bonus does not yield any practical benefit unless the site is very large. For a site that y 0", S
is 10 lots,it would take 20%retention for a 10%density-bonus to add just one unit.
f Moreover,by adding another unit and decreasing the amount of land available for �e v
infrastructure and buildings,the result is Iota that are significantly smaller than
j zoning allows. This creates a direct conflict with lot size requirements in section V 1_
18.510. `I
• 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 Cit should not re late trees private roe Private property owners /
should be all to cut trees as ey ave done since the establishment of Tigard. yFS
is an s o approach has successfully been done for decades with virtually no
loss(and perhaps even some gain)to 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. dies
• 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 yQs
outweigh the benefits.
5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
i
I
I
Ii
I
I
I
i'
Attachment 4
Appendix C
• 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 ate 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 virrually 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 0:7--e-
City staff has not made a concentrated effort to contact those ro erty owners who
ave Ne most potential impact un a n,rrent and future tree co e.
owners s ou a contacted and advised of the finance 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
I they see fit.
Ia • 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.
I
i
i
t
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
Attachment 4
Appendix C
Clean Water Services Stakeholder Interview Notes
r-
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.
n • Invasive and non-native trees in Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors should not
C / I 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 developer.
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 Corridor during the maintenance period if their Urban Forestry Program
j includes CWS Vegetated Corridor requirements.
• Restoration projects in degraded Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridor 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.
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
i
Attachment 4
Appendix C
• 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
j changes that affect stream corridors prior to adoption. -
r • Continue parmering to co-implement Stormwater Management Permits.
1 • Coordinate on implementing an integrated pest management plan.
�� 6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
\0Io�,�
• Exempt stream restoration projects in degraded Sensitive Areas and Vegetated
Corridors from tree survey and protection requirements.
N"" I n • Exempr 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 temp maintenance of riparian plantings through Code revisions,SWNI
Lfunds,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 �4 fl1 1� N(t(d In
riparian vegetation management `
• Fill the urban forester position so that riparian revegetation projects
S W continue/expand in the future.
J r • Coordinate City planting standards in stream corridors with Clean Water Services
t standards.
• Implement an Integrated Pest Management(PM)Plan in cooperation with Clean
Water Services.
1
j
I
'1
E
E
6
f
f
S
1
I
I
{1t
4
{
f
1
i
i
4
C
Attachment 4
Appendix C
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).
jl 'n, • Trees planted on top of underground utilities cause future conflicts due to root
J Y t't 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?
i • 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
jlt)J other design feature that will help to minimize conflicts.
• Require development projects to locate utilities on planting plans prior to ODOT
and City review. This help to ensure that trees are not planted on top of existing
Vl' eLl[S • Clarify jurisdictional requirements and coordinate during future Code updates.
J(� 5. How can we work together in the future to improve Tigard's urban forest?
W
• Clarify jurisdictional requirements and coordinate during future Code updates.
6. What should be included/excluded from Tigard's urban forestry programs?
1
V�` • Prohibit the planting of trees that will conflict with powerlines. Route plans to
Ip I Portland General Electric for review.
(L
U l D. • Require root barriers and other design feature that will help to minimize conflicts
U✓' test with hard features.
a�
fob
r
Attachment 4
Appendix C
• 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 ODOT clear distance requirements supersede Tigard requirements.
e o ODOT branch clearance requirements supersede Tigard requirements.
o ODOT has final signoff authority on any trees planted or removed in
ODOT right of way(ODOT permit required).
i
I
i
i
I
r
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
i
i
I
i
i
Attachment'4
Appendix C
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Stakeholder Interview Notes
j The Parks'and Recreation Advisory Board declined to comment at their February 23,2009 meeting.
i
j
!
{
I
f 1 ,
r
I '
I
I
i
'i
Attachment 4
Appendix D
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 Est 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,1T/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);
G. No inventory of street trees(Planning,Engineering,Public Works,IT/GTS);
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 packs/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).
I
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
I
I
I '
Attachment 4
Appendix D
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 sere a�{ee Io�a�ton$may vary,see street
trees in GIS for actual locations. G1Q v t eJC
• 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 W VlgJl Sr f a.��
system for tracking.
• Information on street trees to include location(x/y coordinates),size(dbh),species, h r�,9hl
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. l��s
i
2. Development engineering inspects vegetated corridors after development,but no long
term/sustained maintenance requirements(Engineering,Planning/Arborist and Code
Enforcement,ITJGIS);
• 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. b
Lk j(,W Vtr � �
J Gt.4
• If the vegetated corridor becomes City property,then the Wastewater/Storm l
Division of Public Works assigns crews to ensure long term maintenance. w 9 1/
• 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,dare 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 OkAj '7 ,,� �Os
development(Planning/Arborist and Code Enforcement,IT/GIS);
G pS
Attachment 4
Appendix D
�• 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.
G. No inventory of street trees(Planning,Engineering,Public Works,IT/GIS);
• Require developers to GPS or pay a fee to the City m GPS actual locations of street
�hJ trees prior to final approval. The spatial data can then be loaded into the Cir}s GIS
system for tracking.
1 • Hire AmeriCorps member and/or recruit volunteers to assist in inventory of existing
street trees outside development process.
S GPS actual locations of street trees planting during annual street tree planting
program.
�S�° S • Information on street trees to include location(x/y coordinates),size(dbh),species,
`l )
date planted,condition,tree ID code,and any additional information necessary to
{� O\VY^ conduct resource analyses in the future.
i W • Consider creating program where developers pay a fee to the City to plant and GPS
street trees.
S
7. When City acquires greenspaces,no detailed understanding of maintenance costs(especially
regarding hazard trees)(Planning/Arborist,Public Works);
L • 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.
C S �� I • A benefits section should be included on the form to identify mitigation,
t 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).
i
f
ij
i
i
i
i
I 1
Attachment 4
�t6,A Age Appendix D
�Q' �� • If hazard trees area " d acquisition associated with development
��.
projects,reyuir evelopei s arborist o conduct a hazard assessment for review and
b inspection by City"Arborist.
8. No policy for protectinged restricted tree,and ignificant habitat trees tiring building I
additions(Planning,Buil n
• 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 die 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
tel*ru es an 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
L ` tree protection and planting specifications,or recommend that die City hire a project
arborist.
S1V" • ork 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.
71.No formal hazard evaluation process For parks/greenspaces(Planning/Arborist,Public
Works/Parks,Risk);
Attachment 4
Appendix D
• 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 grcenspace coordinator to fill the position
\ vacated in Public Works.
` • A greenspace coordinarer could develop a program based off of protocols developed
AcJo f/Vt w by the USDA Forest Service and/or International Society of Arboriculture.
VVt t 6,, S • Alternatively,the City could contract with a private arborist to develop a hazard
YY� 1 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 tum 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
pl coordinate traffic control,contact other impacted agencies(such as PGD if power
O(\ 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 (' +� 1
/] contract arborist is not available). The debris from the removal will be placed on the�� 1
�t(�y,//1' owner's property,and debris disposal will occur at the dwn-e s expense. v S
Pjl S S • If the tree azard is a borderline case,the City Arborist will make a determination
G� whether the tree should be retained,monitored,removed,or further investigated by P Y J W f
YY the contract arborist. 1
• If the City Arborist decides the tree is a hazard Gild 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
} J 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
icontract 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 irnmediate. The Streets Division will then follow the same process outlined
above.
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
i
i
1
i
i
I.
i
T
Attachment 4
Appendix D
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 Cit*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 Rill 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.
I 14.Tree removal in sensitive lands requires tree removal permits,not sure if there is awareness
of this Code provision(Planting,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
,Q applicable for any tree removal over six inches in diameter within sensitive lands
Y (including City projects).
VV��VV 1 • Publicize program through periodic Community Development/Public Works/Capital
Construction and Transportation coordination meetings.
rj t0 Ensure the sensitive lands GIS layer is available through Tigard Maps for all
n[y divisions/depar rnents.
• 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,TT/GTS,Finance);and
• GPS actual locations of mitigation trees/areas. The spatial data can then be loaded
i into the City's GIS system for tracking.
I
teS
I C�t�U
01� 1 Com L G
,
i
Attachment 4
Appendix D
• Information on mitigation trees to include location(x/y coordinates),sire(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.
• Irnk 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 die 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 ofway 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.
d • The City does not currently have the authority to=g1lim private developers to
D�^0 \ preserve trees if they choose not to.
w
17.No formal street tree maintenance process for limb/root clearance and removal
f (Planning/Arborist,Public Works/Streets).
i
• If the street tree is the responsibibry 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 utvesdgate.
• If there is an immediate hazard(e.g.blocked stop sign,hanging limb,etc.),the
Streets Division will prune the vee immediately.
/ • If there is not an immediate hazard,the Streets Division will contact the responsible
parry directly and explain the Code requirements,or gather the information and
forward to Code Enforcement if the owner is nonresponsive.
1 2 • If the potential branch clearance hazard is after hours,citizens will need to call the
1 J Public Works after-hours number(503-639-1554). Public Works will then
l t-� / ` investigate the hazard after hours and either contact the contract arborist(or any
E` v 1 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
i will absorb the cost of removal,but the properri owner will be responsible for
I stuumr removal and lanc
reing. Prior to removing a street tree, e ,tty r oast
I shall be contac[e . \ -
I
I
r
I
I
t
E
t
i
i
Attachment 4
Appendix E
A i
i
LAND USE PLANNING
Section 2: Tigard's Urban Forest
A defining community feature of Tigard is its trees and the urban forest they
create. Unlike natural forests or managed timberland,Tigard's urban forest is a
mosaic of native forest remnants and planted landscape elements interspersed
with buildings,roads and other elements of the urban environment. The
protection,management,and enhancement of this resource is important not
only for Tigard's aesthetic identify and sense of place,but for the social,ecolog-
ical,and economic services it provides to the community.
Trees and other types of vegetation are.integral.to the quality of Tigard's
aesthetic,economic,and natural environments.Plants provide variation in color,
texture,line and form that softens the hard geometry of the built environment.
They also enhance the public and private realm through the provision of shade
from the sun and wind,providing habitat for birds and wildlife,enhancing
community attractiveness and investment,improving water quality and soil
stability,and promoting human health and well-being. '��41a5k✓ a"`
Tigard's trees and native plant communities have experienced significant disrup-
tion and displacement, first by agriculture and logging in the 19th century,and
by increasingly dense urban development in the 20th Century. Competition from
introduced invasive species such as English ivy,r anary a ,and Himalayan
blackberries has rctioning
' It for remaining native p an't comm � �es_to _l
j 1 I thrive. However, d of native tree and associated plant commu-
nities still remain City Limits. Trees are important members and
contributors to ne systems including upland habitat areas and plant
communities,anriparian corridors including the Tualatin River,
i VV f,t 6 Fanno Creek ans,and their adjacent flood plains and wetlands.
J6��f uD� In addition to emnants of the native forest,Tigard possesses a large number of
4 e
14�
2_10 S 1 r of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
Aa^ eayh
41 G
r
Attachment 4
Appendix E
LAND USE PLANNING 04%
mature and outstanding specimens of native and non-native trees planted when
the area was rural country-side in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Aerial a d�
photos demonstrate that increasingly more trees were planted on both public ��h
and private property during a period of large lot residential subdivision develop- i►^ DJ
ment from the late 1940's through the 1970's,many of which survive to this day.
Community attitude surveys reveal that Tigard Citizens place high value on the
protection of trees and are concerned about the impact of development upon
existing tree resources.Community surveys conducted in 2004 and 2006 show
that residents value their neighborhood as a suburban retreat,a place that allows
for views of trees and other natural areas. The 2006 Community Attitudes
Survey found"the protection of trees and natural resource areas"as rating
the highest of all"livability"characteristics posed to the respondents, scoring
8.4 out of 10 points. Preservation of trees and other natural resources scored
higher on resident's livability index than neighborhood traffic (8.2),maintaining
existing lot sizes (7.8),pedestrian and bike paths (7.7),and compatibility between
existing and new development(7.6). A follow-up question contained in the
2007 survey revealed that 84%of Tigard Residents supported regulations to
protect existing trees,with only 6%strongly disagreeing and 9% somewhat
disagreeing. In addition,90%of Tigard residents thought the City should take
the lead in preserving open space. These values are also shared by residents of
adjoining jurisdictions who maintain,or have begun significant updates to,their
tree protection ordinances.
The City of Tigard has been a Tree City,USA since 2001 because of aggres-
sive programs to plant trees on public property. In partnership with Clean
Water Services,the City of Tigard is in the early stages of a series of stream
restoration and enhancement projects intended to improve water quality,reduce
erosion,and provide shade, structure and food sources to fish and other wildlife.
Projects currently underway within the City's floodplains and riparian areas will
result in the planting of approximately 100,000 native trees over a 10 year period
(Fiscal Years 2001-2011). Through volunteer projects,cooperative efforts with
non-profits,contract services,and the labor of Public Works crews,thousands
i of young trees are annually planted on public property.
i
Not including restoration projects,the City's Public Works Department annually
plants approximately 250 new or replacement trees on public lands,distributes
approximately 50 street trees each year riva roperty owners through the
Street Tree Program,and plant addition 25 trgA in celebration of arbor day.
i
Comprehensive Plan City of Tigard 2-11
I!
f
Attachment 4
Appendix E
LAND USE PLANNING ?
i rw ir-wi'l
Native species are given preference and are regularly planted along-frails,riparian G, vioV'
areas,and in new park and green space areas. The objective is to increase the 1
total number of trees,particularly in areas where summer shade is desired such
as picnic areas and next to sidewalks. Money is bu ted each year to maintain
new trees being established and to remove haz trees located on public
property. As more public property is added and trees grow older,the number
of hazard trees pruned or removed each yeir will continue to grow. The level
of new tree planting is limited by the maintenance capacity of City work crews.
Conditions and circumstances have significantly changed since the adoption of
Tigard's Comprehensive Plan in 1983. Rapid urban development has resulted
in a general erce ti that the City has experienced a significant loss of tree
canotm and other ve etation essential for wildlife habitat erosion control,
-so-pe stability,water quality, air-quali ,and communityaesthetics. Driving
IX this perception are METRO land use regulations,failed annexation efforts and
changing market conditions resulting in higher density development than was
anticipated in 1983,further challenging the City to protect trees and canopy
cover while accommodating new development. Additionally,the City does not
currently have a comprehensive tree management and urban forest enhancement
A- p� �✓ program to address these issues in a unified and consistent manner. As a result
there is general feeling among residents_de_v_glopers,_and other stakeholders that
n the existin re lator structure is not adequate and hinders both the strategic
protection of trees and the orderly urbanization o the City
The City has historically relied upon its Development Code to manage and
protect trees on private property,particularly heritage trees and those located
within steep slopes,wetlands,and other sensitive lands. Existing regulations
require new development to protect and/or replace existing trees wherever
possible, to pay into a mitigation fund when trees are removed,and to plant new
street trees and landscape trees as part of all new construction. In addition,
trees within vegetated corridors surrounding wetlands,riparian corridors,and
other natural bodies of water are also protected by Clean Water Services as part
of their stormwater management program.These regulatory structures do not
recognize or protect existing trees outside of those areas,and offer little protec-
tion unless a development action is pending,or prior conditions of develop-
ment approval designated the affected tree(s) for future protection. As a result,
the existing regulatory structure does not encompass a significant number of
trees across the city,which may be removed by the property owner without City
consultation or permit. Additionally,because the City does not have a compre-
i
I
2-12 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
i
Attachment 4
Appendix E
LAND USE PLANNING
hensive tree removal consultation or permit system,protected trees (such as
street trees) have been removed despite existing regulations or restrictions in
force.
KEY FINDINGS:
■ A defining community feature is Tigard's urban forest,a mosaic of native
forest remnants and planted landscape elements interspersed throughout the
City.
• This urban forest provides social,economic,and ecological services that ' _ v , b� I `` _�Q 6'" l QS
create public and private value to residents,busine s,and tQLs G;c S tcS rOv'd
■ Mature and well-managed trees provide the aximum public bene Gi� �\G S� 6
• The City continues to allocate staff and resources g,tree main-
tenance,and outreach activities. Additionally,new development is required \ ," 6 a e#
to install street trees,landscape trees,and trees for mitigation purposes. 1J
■ The existing urban forest continues to experience significant disruption and V
displacement through the conversion of land to more intense urban land
uses and competition from invasive species. - We I ,� Vat
■ Existing tree regulations are dispersed throughout the code;applied by � d
multiple divisions in a non-unified and inconsistent manner;and sometimes
conflicting between different code sections. �[ tN►'bCw
■ The City does not presently have a comprehensive and unified process to 1n
monitor tree removal and enforce existing tree protections outside of devel- ""° �
opment permit review Furthermore,landowners are not always aware of
regulatory protections applicable to their property or street trees adjacent to
! their property.
• Community attitude surveys reveal that Tigard residents place high value on
the protection of trees within the community, that they are concerned about ]jOve
the impact of development upon existing tree resources,and are strongly in n
Q 1'
favor of a regulatory structure that would protect additional trees.
�Nv
0 J
GOAL:
2.2 To enlarge,improve and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the
economic,ecological,and social benefits of trees. (! P
i
POLICIES:
1. The City shall maintain and periodically update policies,regulations
and standards to inventory,manage,preserve,mitigate the loss of, and
Comprehensive Plan City of Tigard 2-13
i
Attachment 4
i
Appendix E
LAND USE PLANNING
enhance the community's tree and vegetation resources to promote their
environmental,aesthetic and economic benefits.
2. The City's various codes,regulations,standards and programs relating
to landscaping,site development,mitigation,and tree management
shall be consistent with,and supportive of,one another;administration
and enforcement shall be regulated and coordinated by the variously
impacted departments.
3. The City shall continue to regulate the removal of trees,within environ-
; �Sfn S mentally sensitive lands and on lands subject to natural hazards. Ac l
4. The City shall ensure that street design and land use standards provide b
(V- ample room for the planting of trees and other vegetation,including the
6?0 �S6py- es � use of flexible and incentive based development standards.
00Y 5. The City shall require the replacement and/or installation of new street
trees,unless demonstrated infeasible,on all new roads or road enhance-
ment projects.Trees should be planted within planter strips,or at the
back of sidewalks if planter strips are not feasible or would prohibit the
preservation of existing trees.
6. The City shall establish and enforce regulations to protect the public's
investment in trees and vegetation located in parks,within right-of-ways,
and on other public lands and easements.
7. The City shall conduct an ongoing tree and urban forest enhancement
program to improve the aesthetic experience,environmental quality,and
economic value of Tigard's streets and neighborhoods.
S 1�}S� '
8. The City shall continue to maintain and periodically update approved
tree lists for specific applications and site conditions,such as street trees,
`-� parking lot trees,and trees for wetland and riparian areas.
VIAD
i �Q 4 R 9. The City shall discourage the use or retention of invasive trees and other
plants through the development review process.
10. The City shall require the appropriate use of trees and other vegetation 7
as buffering and scre Hing between incompatible uses. �j�l��
11. The City shall develop and implement a citywide Urban Forestry
2-14 City of Tigard I Comprehensive Plan
i
Attachment 4
Appendix E
0;
LAND USE PLANNING
Management Master Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES:
i. Develop and implement a comprehensive, coordinated update and
enhancement of all tree related regulations, standards,programs,and
plans. i'�
------__ ,n A
fi. Develop and implement an ins ection and enforcement program L `
that will ensure ongoing maintenance of trees an�veg�
tion required by development approval,with particular attention
to challenges introduced by the change of ownership of affected
pro erties.
iii. Develop and implement an inspon and enforcement program
that will ensure non-development rely anagement and
remote�mplies with the City's tree protection or inances such as
heritage trees,street trees,and trees on sensitive lands. 1�
iv. Inventory and evaluate street tree,parking lot and landscape area e��� C
plantings that have failed to thrive,and determine if site conditions
I or management practices can be modified,and/or if trees can be
planted elsewhere in order to satisfy conditions of development
approval or provide the benefits expected of the original planting.
v Develop and maintain,as part of the Cit'ss_GIS'and permit systems, tiS�
Fa publicly accessible inventory of tree plantings,permitted removals,
and the state of the City's urban forest.
vi. Develop and distribute educational materials and programs regarding b
City policies,regulations,and good arboricultural practices for the
general public,developers and city staff regarding tree planting,
maintenance,and protection. Materials should be published in both
paper and electronic media and in multiple languages. Particular
focus should be given to new property owners who may be unfa-
miliar with the City's regulations and development related restrictions
affecting their property.
vii. Encourage and promote the removal of nuisance/invasive plants,
Comprehensive Plan Cityof Tigard 2-15
i
i
i
Attachment 4
Appendix E
�.I
t
LAND USE PLANNING
0;
�-,
SD rw-�- and the installation of trees and vegetation that are low maintenance,
S, "J drought tolerant,site appropriate,and require minimal chemical
applications. Strategies could include the production and distribu-
tion of approved tree lists to area nurseries,landscaping companies,
libraries and similar businesses and public resources.
viii.Utilize approved tree and plant lists that emphasize long lived
I W 6� evergreens,broad-spreading deciduous varieties,and native species,
but allow flexibility to choose a wide variety of species that are
proven suitable for local climate conditions and for specific uses and
locations.
s ix. Encourage efforts by community groups and neighborhoods to
plant trees and undertake other projects,such as restoration of
wetlands and stream corridors.
x. Maintain a list of invasive plants,discourage the sale and propaga- s
tion of these plant materials within the City promote their removal,
prevent their reestablishment or expansign.
I�c�l�s
wte d� ,
GOAL: Diss , V-Ullofk , �n�oi- oal� DWeVO-MS
2.3 To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well-
designed urban development that minimizes the loss of existing trees to
create a living legacy for future generations.
VIO e_
P0LICI.ES:
1. The City shall develop and implement standards and procedures
�, sP r designed to minimize the reduction of e ' ting tree cover,with priority 0
�9 v f" given to native trees and non-natio varietalsy'that are long lived and/or
IS p l s w.-f provide a broad canopy spread. _
CIA
l 2. In prescribing the mitigation of the impacts of development,the City ver
shall give priority to the protection of existing trees, taking into conp-d ro��,
eration the related financial impact of mitigation. �—N,O S r�
3. The City shall develop policies and procedures designed to protect
trees,including root systems,selected for preservation during land
�'b�t�.-e- Igor S�S#�/_ 411��. �1 �.•{ �eJ��ei�//
�//pec' `'
2-16 U City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
Attachment 4
Appendix E
LAND USE PLANNING
development.
4. The City shall address public safety concerns by ensuring ways to
prevent and resolve verified tree related hazards in a timely manner.
5. The City shall develop and enforce site design and landscape require- {J�
ments to reduce the aesthetic and environmental impacts of impervious
surfaces through the use of trees and other vegetation.
6. The City shall,in order to preserve existing trees and ensure new trees
will thrive,allow and encourage flexibility in site design through all
aspects of development review.
7. The City shall require all development,including City projects,to prepare
and implement a tree preservation and landscaping plan,with the chosen
trees and other plant materials appropriate for site conditions.
8. The City shall continue to cooperate with property owners,businesses, `
other jurisdictions,agencies,utilities,and non-governmental entities toe-
manage and r4erve street trees,wetlands,stream corridors,riparian col
areas,tree rove ,specimen and heritage trees,and other-vegetation.
9. The City shall require,as appropriate,tree preservation strategies that
prioritize the retention of trees in cohesive and vi le stands and groves � "
instead of isolated specimens. '56J% Vat sole GYJP,✓i�—
®. S�CLICf
i of ;tvtvd. CR JX10, vtAvv, eV
10. Applications for tree removal and tree management plans shall be 1
reviewed by a certified arborist employed or under contract to the City.
R 1� t►^ Yu�S' D v
\1�S 11. The City shall recognize the rights of individuals to manage their resi-
dential landscapes.
�c.6_ tECOMM.ENDED ACTION MEASURES: df
i. Develop and implement regulations,standards,and incentives to Sd U'"
encourage developers to transfer density,seek variances and adjust-
ments necessary to preserve trees and natural open space in a
manner that optimizes tree preservation and protection.
WOV�W el7
Comprehensive Plan City of Tigard 2-17
i
Attachment 4
Appendix E
LAND USE PLANNING
ii. Develop tree-mitigation regulations and standards to guide the City
' e I)
p I in assessing fees or compelling compensatory action resulting from
violation of its tree protection standards and/or conditions of devel-
opment approval. Consideration shall be given to off-site mitigation
on both public and private lands,and the maintenance of a publicly
accessible registry of mitigation sites both historical and potential.
re es
iii. Conduct surveys,workshops,and/or other public outreach strategies
to identify and implement an appropriate strategy and form for tree
Q S protection regulations outside of the development review process.
iv. Encourage other jurisdictions operating within and adjacent to
Tigard to prepare and implement a tree preservation and landscaping
plan as part of all development and infrastructure projects.
v Develop standards and procedures to identify and abate tree related
hazards on both public and private property.
2_1$ City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
Attachment 4
Appendix F
Tigard Urban Forestry Historical Timeline
Grale a r inial limeline i ilh Haler,piehrmt,and bnej'lex!/ha!de�en"bes major land, X-j�'Admde the foellanaug on s C
The limeli,e: u yt(�tpG( 1 "" \p(Q[ �1/ 4s
! ff'''//�� • 3500 years before present Kalapuya(Native Americans)began managing the forests of the
Willamette Valley using fire(pyroculture)(Gray,2008). Use Kalapuya photo
• In 1851,canopy coverage within the current city limits of Tigard aas estimated to he 52.41/6
(3,966.9 acres).Refer to U of O map
` O��( • In the early 1850s,Tigard was settled by several families of European decent including the
p S Tigard family headed by Wilson nl.Tigard. Native forests were cleared for agricultural uses
and timber help support development in the area(City of Tigard,2009).Use photo from
_ %' \ historic Tigard photo album
�( �'' (�y"[-s • In 1910,the Oregon Electric Railway arrived,triggering more rapid development at the rail
stop near Main Street. Fruit and nut packaging and canning plants and lumber mills set up
\ V shop at that point to capitalize on the agriculture and logging activity(City of Tigard,2009).
\�o O S S Use photo from historic Tigard photo album
e • In the 1940s,the population was about 300 people even after the arrival of the Capitol
A X1/1 Highway(99W)(Burrows,2009). Show 1950s photo of Tigard between the 40s and 60s
" C info.
X • Tigard was incorporated as a City in 1961. There were 1,749 residents and 572 occupied
residences at the time of incorporation(City of Tigard,2008). -
� `\ ! • The biggest boom period took place in the 1960s,averaging 26%population growth(City
/ of Tigard,2008).
• In 1967,Tigard adopted its fust zoning ordinance. The only mention of trees in the zoning
ordinance was in Section 180-7,which required trees in industrial developments to provide
a buffer for streets and residential zones.
• In 1972,die Municipal Code contained provisions to protect the public from dangerous
trees and branches blocking streets and sidewalks. Planned developments were required"to
the maximum extent possible...to assure that natural features of the land are preserved"
and to provide"a preliminary tree planting plan(with)—all existing trees over six inches in
diameter and groves of trees".
• In 1982,Tigard adopted its first Comprehensive Plan with several policies that call for the
preservation of stream corridors,fish and wildlife habitat,tree and timbered areas,and
wetlands.
• in 1983,the Community Development Code was revised to comply with the
Comprehensive Plan.The Tree Removal section of the new Code required a City permit
prior to tree removal for all undeveloped land,developed commercial and industrial land,
and public land.
I
f
i
I
i
i
i
I
I
i
Attachment 4
Appendix F
• In 1983,the Landscaping and Screening Chapter was also established and required street
tree planting,protection,and replacement during development. It also required trees to be
used as a buffer between differing land uses and for shading of parking lots.
• In 1985,the Sensitive Lands Chapter of the Community Development Code prohibited
development in or in dose proximity to significant wetlands.
• In 1987,the Tigard Municipal Code was expanded to prohibit dead or hazardous trees that
pose a threat to the public and private property owners(Section 7.40.060).
• In 1997,the Tree Removal Chapter was significantly revised. Tree plans were required for
development,mitigation standards were established,and tree removal permits were required
i for trees in sensitive lands.
• In 1998,the City hired its first Urban Forester.
• In 2001,the Tigard Triangle Design Standards in the Community Development Code
established additional landscaping and screening requirements for the Tigard Triangle(the
area bound by Highways 5,99,and 217).
• In 2001,the Tree Board was established to develop and adnminister a comprehensive tree
management program for trees on public property.
• Tigard has been named a Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation every year
since 2001.Show Tree City USA logo
• In 2002,the Tigard Municipal Code was revised to increase protections for trees on City
property.
• In 2002,the Washington Square Regional Center Design Standards and the Durham Quarry
Design Standards established additional landscaping and screening requirements in the
Washington Square and Bridgeport areas respectively.
• In 2002,the Sensitive Lands Chapter was significandy revised in order to implement"Clean
Water Services(CWS)Design and Construction Standards",the"Metro Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan",and"Statewide Planning Goal 5(Natural Resources)".
• In 2006,the Heritage Tree program was established so that trees of landmark importance
could be officially recognized and protected.
• In 2007 the Tree Board's mission was expanded to develop a"City Tree Stewardship and
Urban Forest Enhancement Program"in part to ensure tree code revisions occurred in a
comprehensive manner.
• In 2007,the City adopted a"Significant Habitat Areas Map"wltich expanded the lands
where tree removal permits were required.
• In 2008,an Urban Forest section was added to the Comprehensive Plan following over a
{ year of work by the Tree Board. The Urban Forest section of the Comprehensive Plan
contains two goals to be implemented by 22 policies. Goal 2.2 Policy 11 of the
Comprehensive Plan states,"The City shall develop and implement a citywide Urban
Forestry Management Master Plan." This Plan is intended to meet this policy requirement.
• In 2009,Tigard received a Tree City USA growth award for its expanded urban forestry
efforts.Show growth award logo
i
I
I
i
i
i
i
I
i
� I
I
I i
Attachment 4
Appendix G
Federal/State/Regional Urban Forestry Policy Framework
The City of Tigard is required to comply with various Federal,State,and Regional requirements
when managing its urban forest. Urban forest management practices also have positive externalities
that further progress towards other jurisdictional goals and mandates. The following represent
major Federal,State,and Regional agencies and programs that influence or are benefitted by urban
forest management in Tigard:
Oregon Department of Forestry
The Oregon Department of Forestry(ODF)is responsible for administering the Forest Practices
�`•U Act(FPA). The FPA was designed to promote the proper management of Oregon's forests and
1� ensure—}tat forests remain healthy and productive.The Oregon Legislature has given cities the
authority to regulate forests in place of having ODF administer the FPA as long as the local options
meet the FPA's minimum standard(Oregon Departments of Forestry and Land Conservation and
�— Development,1999).
To meet the standards,local forest practice regulations muse
�`�� • Protect soil,air,water,fish and wildlife resources;\ • Be acknowledged as in compliance with land use planning goals;
S \/ • Be developed through a public process;
Be developed for the specific purpose of regulating forest practices;and
i" • Be developed in coordination with the State Forestry Department and with notice to the
Department of Tand Conservation and Development(Oregon Department of Forestry,2008).
Oregon Department of Transportation
The Oregon Department of Transportation(ODO1)manages approximately 283 acres of right-of-
way to the City of Tigard including Hall Boulevard,and Highways 217,5,and 99\x/. ODOT Bulletin
V " RD06-03(B)provides specifications for street tree placement and maintenance in ODOT right-of-
ways. These specifications are intended to balance the need for safety along State roadways with
trees,and supersede Tigard street tree requirements within City limits.
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
I The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development(DLCD)administers Oregon's
Statewide Land Use Planning Program and ensures that the comprehensive plane of Oregon cities
comply with Oregon Statewide Land Use Planning Goals.
The City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan is required to be consistent with 12 of the 19 Oregon
Statewide Land Use Planning Goals.
I
I The following statewide planning goals directly relate to the urban forestry in Tigard:
I
I
i
I
I
i
Attachment 4
Appendix G
Goal 5."To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open
spaces."This goal requires local governments to develop programs to protect resources including
fish and wildlife habitats,stream corridors,and natural areas. Urban forestry programs and policies
can further progress towards achievement of Goal 5. Economic,social,environmental,and energy
(ESEE)analyses are required to protect Goal 5 resources.
Goal 6."To maintain and improve the quality of the air,water and land resources of the
state."It is well documented that urban trees and forests contribute to air and water quality
improvement
Goal 7."To protect life and property from natural di ters and hazards.'Trees roots,
canopies,and leaf litter in natural hazard areas help t�reve erosion and oodi (Portland Urban W YYYan I' V C.
Forest Management Plan). V
i
Goal 10."To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state."This goal requires the City
to balance the needs of tree and forest preservation with the need for housing and efficient use of
urban land.
Local jurisdictions within the Metro regional planning boundary must also be consistent and
coordinated with relevant Metro requirements such as the Urban Growth Management Functional
Plan which is described in more detail below.
DLCD has approved or"acknowledged"the Cir%'s Comprehensive Plan(including the Urban
Forest section)as being in compliance with statewide planning goals,and consistent with Metro
requirements(Oregon Department of Iand Conservation and Development,2009).
Oregon Division of State Lands
The Oregon Division of Stare Lands(DSL)establishes criteria and procedures for the identification
of wetlands. In 1997,Tigard's Local Wedand Inventory was approved by DSL.Approval by DSL
means that the inventory meets State standards,and therefore becomes pan of the State Wetlands
Inventory and must be used in lieu of the National Wetlands Inventory(City of Tigard,
Comprehensive Plan,2009).
Development in these areas is regulated by a variety of federal,state,regional,and local laws. Tigard
Development Code Chapter 18.775(Sensitive Lands)contains specific provisions to protect
wetlands from development and requires concurrent approvals from the U.S.Arty Corps of
Engineers,Oregon Division of S nd-0 lXtater Services.Asa result,trees and native
vegetation in Local Wetlands a highly protected sta
Oregon Department of Environment
Y1 Jt 7
Or0
i
f
Attachment 4
Appendix G
The Oregon Deparunent of Fnvironmental Quality(DGQ is responsible for protecting Oregon's
air quality by issuing permits,developing programs,and monitoring air pollution to ensure
communities meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS),and to protect Oregon's
pristine views.Air pollutants identified in the 2005 DEQ Air Quality Report as the greatest concern
in Oregon are:Ground-level ozone,commonly known as smog;Fine particulate matter;Hazardous
air pollutants;and Carbon monoxide(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan,2009).
Regional efforts have been established to monitor and plan for pollutants.The City of Tigard is part
of the Portland Area Airshed(PAA),which is defined by the Metro service boundary.The DEQ is
responsible for ensuring the PAA meets the national standards,and for developing the necessary
plans to continue compliance.Currently,the PAA meets all NAAQS standards. However,DEQ is
required to develop maintenance plans for carbon monoxide and ozone_ to ensure continued C�y
compliance(Ci of Tigard,Contprehensit�a Plan,2009).
tN.,� �i.1�ur 1 5 P�a`�t� 10� QQA
Trees have a natural ability to convert and sequester compounds that contribute to air pollution.
Trees also offset power plant emissions by shading and sheltering buildings from sun and wind fl f �e
(McPherson et n/.,2002). At the local level,the City can protect existing natural areas and mature T WQ (I e t/ S\
trees,and promote and participate m tree planting efforts to improve air quality and decrease Ct r�'''"t���ttt N ^'
V_ {�� �(� butldin energy usage. Within urban areas,air quality is often much worse along major roadways.
Trees strategically,planted along or near roadways have an increased ability to filter air pollutants an Ct-
Qe.� / improve air quality,before exhaust is released in the atmosphere M(City of Tigard,Comrehensive
09).Plan,20 { �
If DF,Q is also charged with establishing standards,regulating,and monitoring Oregon's waters for
compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act(CWA)and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (J
System(NPDFS)(COMP PLAN). Within Tigard,run-off from impervious surfaces,pet waste,and JS
erosion/sedimentation are the most problematic sources of water pollution. Planting and
t 1 fW maintaining tree canopy,water quality facility construction and maintenance(vegetated swales and
retention basins),and stream corridor and wedand enhancements are all urban forestry activities that
r,�0 help to improve water quality and meet State and Federal requirements(City of Tigard,
Comprehensive Plan,2009).
Oregon Public Utility Commission
The Oregon Public Utility Commission(PUC)regulates utility industries to ensure that customers
receive safe and reliable services at reasonable rates. In order to ensure safety,the PUC requires
Portland General Electric to maintain zones surrounding overhead utility fines clear of trees for
safety and in order to help prevent outages. The result is increased maintenance costa and trees that
become eyesores as a result of heavy pruning. Portland General Electric spends approximately
$500,000 annually pruning trees away from the utility lines(Chad Burns,PGG,personal
communication 10/6/08). These costs are passed on to utility ratepayers. The urban forestry
i
I
G d
x JIN
QQS
y
V%f` E s
Attachment 4
Appendix G
program can help to decrease maintenance costs and improve the aesthetic quality of local trees by
j aiding in the selection of appropriate trees near overhead fines(Oregon Public Utility Commission,
2009).
Metro
Metro helps the region's cities implement Statewide Planning Goals through the Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan(functional plan). Metro cities are required to adopt comprehensive
plans and implementing regulations that correspond with the titles and policies in the functional
plan. The functional plan contains 13 tides,some of which directly or indirectly impact urban forest
ard. DLCD has acknowledged Tigard's Comprehensive Plan as being in
management in Tig
compliance with statewide planning goals,and consistent with Metro's functional plan(Metro,
2009). The following excerpts from the functional plan have significant impact on urban forestry in
Tigard:
Tide 1 of the functional plan is intended to meet Statewide Planning Goal 10,and focuses on
increasing housing capacity in order to use land within Urban Growth Boundaries(an invisible line
that separates rural areas from suburban)efficiently. To meet Tide 1,each jurisdiction was required
to determine its housing capacity and adopt minimum density requirements.Tigard adopted an 80%
of minimum density requirement for development in 1998,which means that a development must
build 80%of the maximum units allowed by the zoning designation(City of Tigard,Comprehensive
Plan,2009). The Home Builder's Association of Metropolitan Portland(HBAMP)and others have
cited this requirement as a significant impediment to preserving trees in urban areas,particularly for
those properties that are zoned for high density.
Title 3 protects the region's health and public safety by reducing Flood and landslide hazards,
controlling soil erosion and reducing pollution of the region's waterways. Title 3 implements
Statewide Planning Goals 5,6 and 7 by protecting streams,rivers,wedands and floodplains by '
avoiding,limiting or mitigating development impacts on these areas. The areas subject to these
requirements have been mapped and adopted by the Metro Council,specifically,the FEMA 100-
year Floodplain and the area of inundation for the February 1996 flood. Tide 3 also protects rivers
Cand streams with buffers that are typically 50 feet wide,requires erosion and sediment control,
planting of native vegetation on stream banks when new development occurs,and prohibits the
storage of new uses of uncontained hazardous material in water quality areas. Title 3 results in
significant protection and enhancement of that portion of the urban forest in streams and
floodways. Finally,Title 3 establishes performance standards to protect regionally significant fish
and wildlife habitat areas to implement Statewide Goal 5(Metro,2009).
Tide 12 of the functional plan protects residential neighborhoods by prohibiting cities from
increasing density in certain areas and requiring easy access to parks and greenspaces for City
residents(Metro,2009).
i
i
Attachment 4
Appendix G
Title 13 is intended to"(1)conserve,protect,and restore a continuous ecologically viable streamside
corridor system,from the streams'headwaters to their confluence with other streams and rivers,and
with their floodplains in a manner that is integrated with upland wildlife habitat and with the
surrounding urban landscape;and(2)to control and prevent water pollution for the protection of
the public health and safety,and to maintain and improve water quality throughout the region"
(Metro,2009).
One of the results of Tide 13 was the creation in the City of Tigard of 588 acres of habitat
designated as"highest"value(.e.Metro inventoried Class I and II riparian resources within the
Clean Water Services Vegetated Corridor).An estimated 370 acres of Class I and II riparian habitat
situated outside the Clean Water Services'vegetated corridor are designated as"moderate"value.In
addition,422 acres of non-Class I and Il riparian resources within the City are designated as
"lowest"value,including both upland forests and lower-value riparian habitat areas. The highest
and moderate value habitat are currently protected through other regulatory processes and agencies
C such as CWS. The lowest value habitat consists of primarily upland forests and is c,_urrently
^ vulnerable.Additional I SEG analyses wool a required to protect lower value habitat and
additional Statewide Planning Goal 5 resources in the future(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan,
2009). At the time of the writing of this document,the City of Tigard hasp budeeting J j
funds in FY2009-10 to protect additional upland tree resources. v v�I
Clean Water Services I v
The City collaborates with Clean Water Services(CWS),the surface water management and sanitary
sewer system utility for urban Washington County,to protect local water resources.Through CWS
Design and Construction Standards,local governments in the Tualatin Basin(including Tigard)
developed a unified program to address water quality and flood management requirements for Title
3 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan,
2009).
I
I In 2002,the City of Tigard adopted regulations restricting development within,and adjacent ro,
sensitive water resource areas,including streams,through standards in the CWS Design and
Construction Standards.The CWS standards provide for vegetated corridor buffers,ranging from
15 to 200 feet wide,and mandate restoration of corridors in marginal or degraded condition.Native ' ' I� t o
Ir W
trees over 6inches in diameter in vegetated corridors are protected,and their removal requires
replacement on a tree for tree basis. In addition,land-use applicants proposing development near
streams and wetlands are required to prepare a site assessment and obtain approval from CWS prior
1
to submitting a land use application to the City(City oETigard,Comprehensive Plan,2009).
� The City of Tigard also collaborates in implementing CWS'Healthy Streams Plan Qune 2005).The
goal of this plan is to improve watershed and stream health for community benefit by
recommending a number of policy and program refinements,as well as outlining a capital projects
i
i
i
i
i
I
1
I
i
I
I
I
I
Attachment 4
Appendix G
program.The capital projects focus on stream preservation and enhancement,flow restoration,
community tree planting,stomiwater outfall and culvert replacement. Tigard's Public Works t
Department is instrumental is achieving the goals of the Healthy Stre =, �,h its Surface w()Water Quality program(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan,2009). the HealthyStreams Plans are met through proper urban forest management activitisive species
control and streamside tree canopy restoration.
Large municipalities typically have NPDrS permits for their wastewater treatment facilities and for
stormwater runoff,called a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System(MS4)permit.In urban
Washington County,which includes the City of Tigard,the permits have been combined and are
held by CWS.The combined permit was issued for the entire Tualatin River watershed to guide a
basin-wide effort to improve water quality.It requires CWS to submit a Stormwater Management
Plan and a Wastewater Management Plan to DEQ.These two plans outline the best management
practices that CWS,its member cities,and Washington County commit to employ to reduce
pollutant discharges,regulate temperature,and comply with any Total Maximum Daily Load
(I'MDL)levels that have been established(Cit-of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan,2009). Trees and ^ , / S
urban forests are excellent stotmwater managers and contribute to the achievement ofwater quality U �/
ek
goals,yet are not typically addressed in Stormwater Management Plans.
i
i
i
Attachment 4
Appendix H
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Polity Framework
The City of Tigard has various policies and laws that frame and implement the urban forestry program.
Comprehensive Plan
The City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan acts as the City's"land use constitution."It is the document that
provides the broad policy basis forTigard's land use planning program and ultimately guides all actions
relating to the use of land in the City.The Plan also signals that the City's land use planning efforts will
implement state and regional requirements,including Oregon's land use planning goals and related
laws,state administrative rules,and applicable Metro plans and requirements. The Comprehensive Plan
contains goals,policies and recommended action measures that identify the intent of the City to
accomplish certain results.The Urban Forest Section of the Comprehensive Plan contains two(2)goals,
22 policies,and 11 action measures specific to urban forestry In Tigard(include in appendix). The goals
and policies are obligations the City wishes to assume.The City must follow relevant goals and policy
statements when developing other plans or ordinances which affect land use. Therefore,the Urban
Forestry Master Plan and future revisions to the tree ordinance must be consistent with Comprehensive
Plan goals and policies. Recommended action measures support the obligations to achieve a desired
end,but do not signify an obligation themselves.The discretion to what degree Plan policies are
I implemented belongs primarily to the City Council(City of Tigard,Comprehensive Plan,2009).
I
i
Zoning Map
The Zoning Map implements the Comprehensive Plan and guides development throughout the City.
Zoning determines the type and intensity of development,as well as applicable Code provisions such as
density requirements. As a result,zoning can impact the extent and feasibility of tree preservation for a
given site.
i
1
Code Provisions
The Tigard Municipal Code and Development Code contain specific provisions that regulate trees and
urban forestry in Tigard. The following is a list of the major tree and urban forestry related Code
provisions,as well as commentary on those provisions that present administrative challenges.
i
Chapter 7.40(Nuisances)requires property owners to maintain minimum branch clearances of eight(8)
feet over sidewalks and ten(10)feet over streets(section 7.40.060.A). It also prohibits owners from
retaining dead or hazardous trees that threaten public or private property(section 7.40.060.8).
However,there is no procedure established for abating hazards on private property such as trees that
are in imminent danger of falling.
i
i
i I
i
F
I
i
i
)
� r
I
Attachment 4
Appendix H
Section 7.40.050(Noxious Vegetation)requires property owners to maintain vegetation and weeds so
that they do not become unsightly or a hazard. However,it is unclear if invasive species control is
required bythis Code provision.
Section 7.40.090(Greenway Maintenance)establishes standards for greenway maintenance and f a
prohibits the removal of non-hazardous trees over five(S)feet In height in greenways. However,th
term"greenway"is not well defined. ( L,)
AA �
Chapter 9.06(Trees on City Property)regulates the planting,maintenance,and removal of trees on City
property including parks and public right-of-ways. It also authorizes Council to adopt by resolution a
Tree Manual that provides detailed tree related standards and the City to create an approved Street
Tree List.The Chapter defines a"tree"as a standing woody plant with a trunk diameter of two(2)inches
at 4.5 feet above ground level. Chapter 18.790(Tree Removal)defines a"tree'at six( )fi=ches in
i
diameter at four(4)feet above ground level. r l,()1 S
Section 9.06.030(Tree Planting)requires written permission from the City prior to planting street trees
or trees on public property. Section 9.06.050(Tree Protection)requires development projects on City Ac f, 1,g
property to protect trees according to the specifications in the Tree Manual. Section 9.06.060(Removal r 1
of Hazardous Trees from City Property)obligates the City to inspect reports of hazardous trees on City G
property and prioritize their removal based on the level of hazard.
Section 9.06.070(Removal of Trees from City Property)requires written permission for tree removal
W 0 0 J, I
from City property and right-of-way,and requires mitigation per the requirements in the Tree Manual /w
The Tree Manual,which-was adopted in 2002,provides detailed specifications for Chapter 9.06.
However,administering the provisions in the Tree Manual are challenging because there are some
conflicts with Code provisions elsewhere in the City Code. For example,street tree planting �.S S d (�tp�>✓cb LA
specifications in section 030 of the Tree Manual are different than the street tree planting specifications
�` in Chapter 18.745(Landscaping and Screening). Also,the branch clearance requirements for sidewalks G
`c I and streets in the Tree Manual are different than those in Chapters 7.40 and 18.745. Finally,referencing , J
the Tree Manual is a challenge because the index at the beginning of the Manual does not correspond
with the sections in the body.
A tree plan and mitigation is required by sections 070 and 090 of the Tree Manual,but there it is unclear
what triggers the tree plan requirement and what the scope of the tree plan should be. 1'
Chapter 9.08 of the Municipal Code contains requirements for the City s Heritage Tree Program. The
Chapter recognizes and protects trees a stand of trees on public or private property that are
designated to be of landmark importance ue to age,size,species,horticultural quality or historical 1
importance. Participation in the program is voluntary and administered by the Tree Board,City Council,
i
and staff.
Attachment 4
Appendix H
*� Title 18(Community Development Code)defines a tree as a standing woody plant with a trunk that is
two(2)inches in diameter at four(4)feet above the ground.This definition is inconsistent with the
/ definitions of tree in Chapter 9.06 and 18.790 of the Code.
Chapter 18.330(Conditional Use)authorizes the hearings officer to require conditional use
developments to improve landscaping and increase tree and habitat preservation as a condition of
development approval. �--- p
Chapter 18.350(Planned Developments)states as one of its purposes"to preserve to the greatest
extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities(trees,water resources,ravines,etc.)
through the use of a planning procedure(site design and analysis,presentation of alternatives,
conceptual review,then detailed review)that can relate the type and design of a development to a
particular site". Specific provisions in the Chapter require plans that identify areas of significant natural
resources and methods for their maximized protection,preservation,and/or management. Planned
Developments are approved by a Type III process by the Planning Commission. Therefore,Planning
Commissioners have discretionary authority to require that sites are developed in a manner that trees
and other natural features are incorporated into the project design. However,the Home Builders'
Association of Metropolitan Portland(HBAMP)and others have commented that the Planned
Development provisions are in need of revision because they are not conducive to infill development.
t 1 Q The approval criteria in Site Developement Review section 18.360.090,includes many provisions
+M requiring the preservation of trees and natural areas. For example,approval criteria A.2.a requires
buildings to be"..:located to preserve existing trees where possible based upon existing site
conditions".The approval criteria also requires trees to be preserved to the extent possible(A.2.b)and
the use of innovative methods to preserve fish and wildlife habitat located on the"Significant Habitat
�dU `af l Areas Map". Site Development Review applications are reviewed and approved by staff through a Type
v11J` 11 process which limits the amount of staff discretion.Therefore,the non-specific approval criteria
u 1' above does not provide the tools needed to implement tree and habitat preservation.
j r►��� ( r.�fS Chapter 18.370(Variances and Adjustments)allows for Type I adjustments to use existing trees as street
ttV 111rTT o��� JSQ trees or to vary from the street tree requirements in Chapter 18.745(Landscaping and Screening)if
IL there are space constraints.
i \O V SY" V Section 18.385.040(Sensitive Land Permits)requires development within the 100-year floodplain,steep
}�v Q L slopes,drainageways,and wetlands to obtain permits to preserve the safety and functionality of these
�Q \ \ � areas.Tree Removal permits are required for the removal of trees in sensitive lands by section
1 a 18.790.050 of the Cade. However,there is no tree protection plan requirement(section 18.790.030)for
i
development within sensitive lands.
Chapters 18.510,18.520,and 18.530 describe the development standards for residential,commercial
S (including mixed use),and industrial zones respectively. Among the provisions are minimum
landscaping requirements,minimum and maximum density requirements,minimum building setback
i
i
i
i
� i
Attachment 4
Appendix H
requirements,and minimum lot sizes and dimensions.These standards may have the greatest impact
on the extent of tree and forest retention during development.
Chapters 18.620(Tigard Triangle Design Standards),18.630(Washington Square Regional Center Design J t�✓t
Standards)and 18.640(Durham Quarry Design Standards)increase the caliper size of all required
Q Cvl�
landscape and street trees in those planning areas. Some of the planting provisions in these special n Q L 1 CS I ,-,
planning areas conflict which make interpretation difficult, For example,the landscaping and screening '� }
provisions in section 18.620.070,require tree spacing at a maximum of 28 feet on center. However,the 1
provisions on page 18 of the Triangle Design Standards specify one parking,lot tree for every seven n I
parking spaces(this creates spacing of more than 28 feet on center). In addition the definition of tree t
types on page 18 are overly specific and therefore difficult to apply.
Chapter 18.745(Landscaping and Screening)specifies street tree,parking lot tree,buffer tree,and other
Iandcrani^o.o^�r•^^�^ T`-''`- specifies that it is applicable to all development,but it does not
` tandards. The landscaping provisions are administratively `►' e
ire a tree plan(section 18.790.030), The General Provisions
ndscaping to be appropriately planted,pruned,maintained,
ever,there is a lack of specificity in these requirements that
f L nd landscaping are properly installed,protected,and
Z C6-YI 04 5 Z I/ rees)specifies the location and spacing of variously sized street
('1,•D w �(,�� 4v f.Pir from those in section 030 of the Tree Manual. Also,there is �-A �/� eAAe)'43
!et trees and the branch clearance requirements for sidewalks
'event than those in Chapter 7.40 and in the Tree Manual.
4S Z 4 5-5 I �' ing)requires trees and landscaping to be used as a buffer
id to provide shading for parking lots.The parking lot tree
S7 ulted in successful shading of parking lots. This is likely due to _ lO jc- 0 1 t ytv
/ zw(minimum parking island dimensions are three feet by
C))vRAII stallation requirements(e.g.irrigation is not specified for
is sensitive lands for safety,functionality,and fish and wildlife
iervices(CWS)Design and Construction Standards',the C
tonal Plan","Statewide Planning Goal 5(Natural Resources)" g SS�II 1
ogram requirements. The chapter requires a CWS N 1 S�(�.Q
.,ui�iic�uun permn wnen tree removal occurs in sensitive lands(section 18.775.020.A.9).
Lawns and gardens are permitted in sensitive lands except in"CWS Water Quality Sensitive Areas or
Vegetated Corridors"and"the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River" J_!
1 r Y
(18.775.020.B.1). Exemptions from the provisions of the sensitive lands chapter are emergency repair,
stream restoration projects,non-native vegetation removal,and routine maintenance as long as they (A
comply with City Standards and Specifications for Riparian Area Management(section 18.775.020.0).
Section 18.775.020.D requires development to obtain permits from regulating jurisdictions such as the
Army Corps of Engineers or CWS prior to development in jurisdictional wetlands.Section 18.775.070
Attachment 4
Appendix H
specifies the approval criteria for sensitive lands permits.Section 18.775.100 allows for adjustments to
dimensional standards such as setbacks,building heights,or lot areas to preserve habitat and vegetation
cover such as trees. Section 18.775.110 allows for density transfers in order to better protect vegetated
corridors. While tree removal permits are required for sensitive lands areas by section 18.790.050,and
habitat protection is a stated purpose for the sensitive lands chapter,there are no implementing
provisions in either Code Chapter that explicitly require the protection of trees and forests in sensitive
lands.
Chapter 18.790(Tree Removal)is what most people think of as the"Tree Code".This portion of the
code regulates tree removal and replacement during certain types of development projects,requires
\ f tree removal permits for trees in sensitive lands,and prescribes the penalties for illegal tree removal. It
also prohibits commercial forestry within the City limits. Section 18.790.020 provides definitions for
some of the words used in the Chapter. Many have commented that some of the definitions need n
revision or clarification. For example,a"tree"is defined as a woody plant with a diameter of six inches ,�V e t
when measured four feet above the ground.This definition is Inconsistent with the definition of tree in�
`n rt
the Municipal Code and does not account for trees that are less than six inches such as required U`� S S�Cjk(/)
mitigation trees.Also,the definition of"hazardous tree"is non-specific and could potentially include
p`71 trees that are not intended to be defined as hazardous such as those in a forested area with little 1
W
potential of striking people or other high value targets. Finally,the definition of commercial forestry is
specific to the removal of 10 or more trees for sale per acre,per year.The definition is unclear whether
the acreage should measured for the entire property,or for the stand of trees where the removal is
occurring.
Section 18.790.030(Tree Plan Requirement)requires a tree protection,removal,and replacement plan
t for Subdivision,Partition,Site Development Review,Planned Development,and Conditional Use
projects. Missing from the list are Sensitive Lands projects,building additions,demolitions,and other
development projects with significant potential to result in tree damage or removal.
Q1V Tree plans require mitigation for tree removal on an"inch for inch"basis.Therefore,developers are 1_
required to replant the number of diameter inches of existing trees removed from a development site 6(((
with an equivalent amount of diameter inches of replacement trees. For example,if a 24 inch tree is L 0 m
removed from a development site,the City may require replacement with up to 12,two inch diameter 7
trees.
Also,as the percentage of trees removed from a site is increased,the percentage of replacement trees
required for mitigation is increased. This has resulted in the overplanting of development sites to meet V ' VA CSS S
mitigation requirements as well as the preservation of inappropriate trees in order to avoid mitigation tj�A
1
requirements. 1. U-�
rU�/
i
If developers are unable or unwilling to plant replacement trees,there is a fee in lieu of planting option
(18.790.060.E)to cover the City's cost of replanting.This fee is currently assessed as$125 per diameter
inch removed,and viewed as excessive by many of those in the development community. Also,the
i
Attachment 4
Appendix H
methodology used to create the fee in lieu Is not well defined and has resulted in many questions as to
the legitimacy of the$125 per inch figure.
The tree protection requirements of the tree plan are not defined,and are left to the discretion of the
project arborist.This has resulted in wide inconsistencies between protection methods for
development projects,and limits the City's ability to require increased levels of tree protection.
Trees removed within a period of one year before a development application are required to be H(Aw\a— Y
inventoried and mitigated as part of the tree plan. This provision has created a loophole that some
developers have exploited by removing trees from a site,waiting one year,a nd then submitting a
development application in order to avoid tree mitigation requirements. VI o
OV C
Section 18.790.040(incentives for Tree Retention)provides developers incentives and flexibility options VA �� b
Y _
1 e.
' in order to preserve trees. However,the incentives are seldom utilized,and often criticized for their t C,. 1�
} impracticality. Many in the development community have called for an overhaul of the incentives so "111��• ��
that they are more appealing and practical for developers.
I or
S'J
I Section 18.790.040.13 requires preserved trees to be protected after development through a deed
a yy1 restriction.This requirement is difficult for City staff to administer as development plans are archived
and difficult to quickly and easily assess in responses to inquires that occur years and decades after
development.
Section 18.790.050(Permit Applicability)requires tree removal permits for trees in sensitive lands areas.
` However,the approval criteria relate strictly to erosion control and not the other benefits provided by
trees. Therefore,if an appropriate erosion control plan is provided by the applicant,any or all trees may
be removed from sensitive lands areas. While hazardous trees are exempt from permit requirements,
there is not a clear definition of what constitutes a hazardous tree and who is qualified to deem a tree
hazardous.
Q� -` Section 18.790.060(Illegal Tree Removal)outlines the penalties for illegal tree removal and specifics the
` 1
r O 0 ,�, � L tree replacement requirements for violations and mitigation.-The tree re ement renuiremerL*s.in b 1 Q
18.790.060,Q are vague nd ddffftc it*^:dmn1ster,-The most challenging aspect is the lack of spacing ( CC``11
Rrequirements,which further contributes to overplanting and lack of adequate spacing for mitigation
trees..There is also little specificity an species requirements,which tend to lead to the planting of small
f stature and narrow crowned trees so that more trees can be planted to meet the"inch for inch" T
replanting requirements. Finally,the fines for illegal tree removal include the appraised value ofthe — J0
tree illegally removed.This can be challenging when there is not clear documentation of the previous ( f r
condition of the tree. One solution may be to se nimum penalty for cases where there is no I�`, lk
/ �l
evidence of the species or condition of the illegally removed tree.
�th,
Section 18.810(Street and Utility Improvement Standards)specifie \m\innt '�um planting strip width u
for street trees(5 feet per table 18.810.1)and allows for adjustments to street standards to protect
VV 1)
IP P
1 QA VY,-. (Y w Ce-(s
C,IyIM.x�' 4 S
I
Attachment 4
Appendix H
trees,habitat areas,and other existing natural feature(section 18.810.030.7). Section 18.810.070.0
allows adjustments to planting strip widths to protect existing trees and natural features. Currently the
City adheres to standard specifications for street widths from curb to curb regardless of existing trees
and natural features.The City does actively allow adjustments to sidewalk and planter strip standards in
order to preserve trees. Finally,the five foot standard planter strip width limits the selection of large
stature street trees due to the high likelihood of tree root damage to curbs and sidewalks.There are
currently no street tree planting specifications such as the use of root barriers aimed at reducing future
tree root conflicts.
Findings from City of Tigard Policy Framework:
• The Comprehensive Plan complies with State and Regional requirements and contains two(2)goals
and 22 policies specific to urban forestry that must be adhered to when developing other urban
forestry plans or ordinances which affect land use.
• The Zoning Map implements the Comprehensive Plan,and frames the type and intensity of
development for various areas of the City. Code provisions in Chapter 18.500 provide specification
for development based on development in the various zones. These Development Code provisions
V may have the greatest impact on the extent of tree and forest retention during development.
Tree and forest related Code provisions are scattered throughout the Municipal Code and the
YDevelopment Code. Some of the Code provisions in the Municipal Code and Development Code
conflict.
V • Tree provisions in Chapter 7.40(Nuisances)of the Municipal Code address hazardous trees and
vegetation. There is lack of specificity in the provisions,thus limiting their ability to be enforced.
S There is also no program established to abate immediate hazards.
Chapter 9.06(Trees on City Property)of the Municipal regulates public trees.The Chapter contains
V definitions and requirements that conflict with those in the Development Code.The Chapter and
associated Tree Manual also lack specificity regarding when the Code provisions are applicable and
how they can be met.
Chapter 9.08 regulates the City's Heritage Tree Program and is a functional Chapter.
L� • Many Chapters in the Development Code contain aspirational statements regarding tree and
habitat preservation,but few implementing provisions that specifically require preservation.
A ��( • Chapters 18.620(Tigard Triangle Design Standards),18.630(Washington Square Regional Center
rLIN �S�) Design Standards)and 18.640(Durham Quarry Design Standards)contain provisions that increase
N` the type and size of landscaping in these districts. Some of the provisions within the Chapter
conflict.
I Chapter 18.745(Landscaping and Screening)specifies street tree,parking lot tree,buffer tree,and
other landscaping requirements during development. The Chapter lacks a level of specificity to
ensure that trees are properly installed,protected,and maintained after development. Planting and
maintenance provisions differ from those in the Municipal Code,and parking lot tree requirements
have not been successful at providing long term canopy.
I • Chapter 18.775(Sensitive Lands)protects steep slopes,drainageways,floodplains,and wetlands
from development. Trees and forests located on sensitive lands are therefore protected as well.
I
I
f
j
i
i
I
f r
i
Attachment 4
Appendix H
• Chapter 18.790(Tree Removal)regulates tree removal and replacement during certain types of
development projects. Some development such as development In sensitive lands and building
additions are not subject to the Chapter's provisions even though there is significant likelihood that
trees will be impacted.
• Some of the definitions within Chapter 18.790 are inconsistent with those in the Municipal Code and
lack clarity making them difficult to administer.
• Mitigation for tree removal on an"inch for inch"basis is required by Chapter 18.790,and seen as
excessive by many in the development community. It also contributes to overplanting of trees.
• The fee in lieu of mitigation tree planting Is$125 per caliper inch,which is also seen by developers
as excessive.The methodology used to create the fee in lieu is not well defined and has resulted in
many questions as to its legitimacy.
There Is a loophole in Chapter 18.790 that some developers have exploited by removing trees from
a site,waiting one year,and then submitting a development application in order to avoid tree
mitigation requirements.
• Incentives for tree preservation in Chapter 18.790 are not appealing or practical for developers.
Tree Removal permits are required for trees in sensitive lands by Chapter 18.790,but the approval
criteria do not require preservation as long as erosion is adequately controlled.
• Penalties for illegal tree removal in Chapter 18.790 can be challenging to apply when the condition
and species of the tree removed are not known.
• The tree replacement guidelines in Chapter 18.790 lack specificity and are difficult to administer,
especially with regards to species and spacing requirements.
Throughout the Code,tracking of protected trees is a continual challenge in the years and decades after
development is complete.
i
i
i
i
JORDAN SRAMISPC Attachment 4
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Two C,enterpointe Dr Ste 600 Phone: (503)598-7070
Lake Oswego OR 97035 Toll Free: (888)598-7070
www.jordanschrader.com Fax: (503)598-7373
LEGAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Tigard City Council
FROM: Damien R. Hall
DATE: August 13,2009
RE: Tree-cutting Ordinance
File No. 50014-36803
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION
This responds to your request for an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of including a
recommendation in the Urban Forest Master Plan that future tree protection regulations be
contained within the general municipal code as opposed to the development code.
The City already has a tree cutting ordinance contained within its development code and those
sections which pertain to regulating tree cutting during the development process should stay
within the development code. TDC 18.790.060 provides that removal of a tree not in compliance
with any condition of a City permit or a development approval can expose one to revocation of
the permit or development approval,a stop work order, a municipal court citation or any other
action allowed by law. A court would likely find provisions relating to tree cutting as a part of a
development process to be a"land use regulation." The term "land use regulation"refers to code
provisions which effectuate a city's comprehensive plan and zoning code. See ORS 197.025. If a
provision is held to be a land use regulation, the provision, and any decisions made pursuant to
the provision, will be challengeable as land use decisions. Appeals of final local decisions
relating to land use decisions go to the Oregon State Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA").
I would recommend that the City separate the provisions which relate to tree cutting as a function
of development of a parcel from tree cutting on already developed land or land for which there is
no current development application. Many cities address tree-cutting in their municipal code for
non-development purposes, such as clearing away nuisances, trees on public property, and dealing
with "heritage trees." If the City were to separate the portions of the tree cutting ordinance which
pertain to regulating tree cutting during the development process from those which merely protect
trees in general on parcels not currently being developed, the City could enforce regulations
pertaining to parcels not currently being developed, by citing violators into the Municipal Court,
50014-36803 17287.5 3.(hPrV.)n1-AV13/2009
Attachment 4
JORDAN SCH RADER JZAMISR
August 13, 2009
Page 2
with appeal therefrom being to the Circuit Court of Washington County. Also, there are
differences in adoption or modification procedures for the two types of ordinances. Any adoption
or substantive modification of a land use regulation would require, pursuant to ORS 197.610 and
197.615, forty-five (45)days advance notice to DLCD prior to the legislative hearing procedures
set forth in the Tigard Development Code and must be consistent with the City's comprehensive
plan. An ordinance declaring tree cutting without a permit to be a nuisance would be passed
through the relatively simple procedure for a general ordinance. In addition,land use regulations
would require standards and notice and hearing components so as to make it comply with the
Metro Code and other land use requirements.
While the issue is not free from doubt, a tree cutting ordinance where the penalty for violating the
ordinance is a fine to be imposed by the Municipal Court or other common law nuisance remedies
such as injunction, with or without abatement, would likely be held to be a nuisance ordinance, as
opposed to a land use regulation. Adoption of a nuisance ordinance does not require notice to
DLCD, it is adopted just like any other general city ordinance.-Violation of a nuisance ordinance
would be addressed either by citation to municipal court or by other general nuisance remedies,
like an action brought in Circuit Court to abate the nuisance accompanied by a request for a
judgment prohibiting the tree cutter from cutting more trees in the future and possibly dictating
steps the wrongdoer needs to do to abate the removal of the tree. None of these actions would be
appealable to LUBA. The regulations would still have to set forth permit application procedures
and objective criteria for use in determining whether to approve or deny the permit, if you were to
exempt the cutting of some trees from the nuisance ordinance.
In reviewing the municipal code sections governing tree removal in Lalce Oswego, Durham and
West Linn,we found that cities apply various criteria, including health of the tree,harards caused
by the tree, location of the tree and root structure, neighborhood aesthetics, and the size of tree.
The permit is often conditioned on some form of mitigation as well. Various city staff can be
involved in deciding whether to grant the permit if and to what extent mitigation should be.
required, including the City Manager,or a city arborist. Most cities also have provisions for
granting permits in emergency situations. Most of these decisions are appealable to City Council.
CONCLUSION
The content of an ordinance, not whether it is located in the development or general municipal
code, is determinative of whether the ordinance is a land use regulation. Therefore, any
recommendation that future tree protection ordinances be included in the municipal code should
include the warning that the ordinance could be held to be a land use regulation and subject to
DLCD notice and LUBA appeal, depending on its context. I have attached to this memorandum a
chart, labeled Exhibit A,comparing and contrasting the two types of regulations, to wit:
development based and nuisance based, and the goals, the methods of enforcement, the decision
makers and the methods of appeal of those decisions. I have also attached a comparison of
500/4-.r 6WO 172875
J.d„cv)e F/W.W nn n
Attachment 4
JORDAN SCHRADER RAMiSIL
.,ro,.1,...— -
August 13, 2009
Page 3
municipal code tree regulations from the cities of Lake Oswego, Durham and West Linn,
comparing and contrasting tree regulation in those cities. That document is labeled Exhibit B. A
review of already-enacted ordinances might be instructive as to what works and what doesn't
work as well. After reviewing this memo, if you have additional questions, we would be glad to
discuss these issues with you further.
sonra•.trxo.t rizs�s_.;.r,v>R�ivr rizru�r
Comparison of Development Based and Nuisance Based
Tree Removal Ordinances
Type of Goal Method of Who Makes Appeals of
Regulation Enforcement Decision Decision
r Implementation of
j Comp Plan or Zoning
Ordinance Revoke City Council
Development
Approval
and then
Balance development PlanningStaff/
Development with preservation of
Based trees Director
Modify
Development CUBA
I
Provide mitigation if Approval to provide
trees cut in violation mitigation
of tree plan
Code Compliance
Citation to or Police and Washington County
Municipal Court Municipal Court Circuit Court
Punish tree Judge
cutter for felling
tree w/o a permit Injunction,TRO,
Nuisance Based Circuit Court Judge Court of Appeals
Order to Mitigate
Provide mitigation
for loss of tree
Abatement byCity Council and
City Officials City Manager then Circuit Court on
Writ of Review
A
Exhibit A
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPARISON
TREE REMOVAL
Permits Lake Oswego Durham West Linn
Permits 55.02.03 Section 2(3). A permit is required to remove any tree in
Required Tree permit required for tree removal or tree No tree may be removed without a the City unless such permit is waived by the
topping. person receiving two permits: 1) a City manager. Tree is defined. Code
permit to cut the tree; and 2) permit Section 8.610.
setting the terms and conditions for
cutting.
Types of 55.02.042 Types of Permits: Only one kind.
Permits Type I permit: allows removal of up to two 8.610.8.620
trees, 10 inch or less at DBH within a calendar
year so long as trees are not located within
specific areas within the city.
■ Type I1 permit: allows removal of trees that do
not qualify for a Type I permit. Subject to
specific approval criteria and notice
requirements.
■ Dead Tree Removal Permit:
■ Emergency Permit: Allowed if a tree presents
an immediate danger of collapse and
represents a clear and present hazard to
persons or property.
■ Topping Permit: Permit issued to utility,
public agency or other person who routinely
tops trees in furtherance of public safety, upon
establishment of methodology for topping in
f compliance with this subsections.
• Verification Permit: Permit issued for tree
removal pursuant to a development permit. A
CD
EXHIBIT B —Page 1of 5 50014-36794.021)72547.doc1DRF/8/13/2009
................................... ...... ......_ __
Approval 55.02.080 Section 4 8.620 (3), 8.630
Criteria Tree is proposed for removal for landscaping Permit approval criteria to be Tree Removal Permit Criteria(guidelines—
purposes or to construct development considered: decision must include finding that cite each
approved or allowed pursuant to the code or criteria)(permit required to be decided
development regulations; ■ Applicant must show that permit is within 20 days or deemed approved):
■ Removal of tree will not have a significant consistent with the stated purpose of
negative impact on erosion, soil stability . . .; the ordinance; 1. Aspects likely to warrant approval:
■ Removal of tree will not have a significant ■ Condition of the trees with respect
negative impact on character, aesthetics or to danger of falling,proximity to ■ Tree is determined to be dead, dying and
property values of neighborhood (subject to existing or proposed structures, not recoverable;
some exceptions); interference with utility services or ■ Tree is determined to have a significantly
■ Removal of tree is not for the sole purpose of traffic safety, and hazards to life or damaged root structure that will adversely
providing or enhancing views; property; impact the health and stability of the tree;
■ Necessity to remove trees to ■ Tree is determined to exhibit a hazardous
construct proposed improvements or growth habit;
to otherwise utilize the applicant's ■ Tree is interfering with utility service in
property in an economically such a manner that full restoration or
beneficial manner; maintenance of service requires removal
■ The topography of the land and the of the tree;
effect of tree removal on erosion, ■ Tree encroaches in the public right-of-
soil retention, stability of earth; flow way so as to cause damage to
of surface water, protection of improvements within the public right-of-
nearby trees, windbreaks and a way;
desirable balance between shade and ■ Tree is causing structural damage;
open space; ■ Basal flare of the tree is within 10 feet of
■ The number of trees existing in the an existing building footprint;
neighborhood, the character and ■ Existing building footprint lies within the
property uses in the neighborhood, drip line of the tree;
and the effect of tree removal on ■ Trees that have been maintained in the
neighborhood characteristics, beauty applicant's property for the purpose of
and property values; arowing fruit which are no longer beari
■ The adequacy of the applicant's fruit or bearing significantly reduced fri9t;
proposals to plant new trees as a ■ Removal of trees is being done for A
substitute for the trees to be cut; thinning purposes to enhance the heap f
EXHIBIT B —Page 2of 5 50014-36794.021 IM47.docM3RF/8/I3/2009 -Ph
Approval ■ The tree is diseased; other trees;
Criteria Cont. ■ The tree is dead. ■ Removal is for the owner's landscape
improvement but does not jeopardize the
aesthetics of the neighborhood;
■ The removal would allow solar access for
an otherwise extremely shaded property.
2. The following are considered as aspects
likely to warrant denial:
■ The tree is visually prominent;
• The tree is generally healthy and of sound
structure;
■ The tree is of significant size;
■ The tree is part of a larger grove or
grouping of trees, and its removal will
adversely affect the health and safety of
the remaining trees within the grove or
grouping;
■ The tree is on land that is sloped, and
removal of the tree may exacerbate
erosion or soil slumping in the vicinity of
the tree;
■ The tree acts as a privacy barrier for
adjacent properties;
• Tree removal is solely to improve a view.
Development 55.02.035 Section 7 Trees within the otherwise approved
Exception Specific section for tree removal in conjunction Specific section setting forth permit footprint of a project requiring a building
with major or minor development permit. criteria for tree permitting and permit will not need additional permit for
preservation for land use permit. removal,although modification to building
plan may be required. Failure to comply
with CDC governed trees are enforced
under the municipal code tree removal
enforcement conditions. 8.570(2).
EXHIBIT B —Page 3of 5 50011-36794.011 172547.doc\DRFB/13/3009
Emergency 55.02.042(5) Section 2 Emergency Permits available? 8.730
Exception Specific section for tree removal in conjunction Specific section for Emergency governs the process to obtain an emergency
with major or minor development permit. conditions,even allowing cutting permit.
without a permit, if no city official is
available to issue a permit.
Mitigation Mitigation conditions required as a condition of Section 5 -Governs Developed
Requirements approval of the permit. Property.
Mitigation Requirements:
• If tree removal has a significant
impact or substantially reduces the
tree canopy, mitigation shall be
required,
■ If tree is dead,dying,diseased or
dangerous, mitigation shall be
encouraged;
■ If tree removal is for landscaping
only, and does not relate to the
condition of the tree or tree's
adverse impact on a surrounding
grove, mitigation shall be judged
based on uniqueness of tree and
number of trees on the property.
Section 7 - Governs Tree Preservation
and Replacement as a condition for
issuance of a Land Use Permit.
Who Makes City Manager Who issues Tree cutting or removal Who makes the decision? The City
Decision permit? Arborist. 8.620 (but see ambiguity—8.620
■ If tree is diseased, dead or dangerous also provides for City Manager to review
—City Administrator may issue. application). Emergency Permits are
• If emergency—City Administrator, decided in 8.620 by the City Manager or?o
Mayor, President of Council, the designee. 8.730(A).
Planning Commission Chair or
Vice-Chair.
�D
EXHIBIT B —Page 4of 5 50014-36794.021 172547.doc\DRF/8/13/2009
Who Makes ■ All other permits are approved or
Decision Cont. denied by the Planning Commission.
■ If Planning Commission cannot
reach a decision within 45 days, and
property owner demonstrates that
further delay would cause undue
hardship and delay, the City
Administrator renders a decision.
Appeal 55.02.085 Section 4 (3), (4), Section 5. 8.640
If removal is for landscaping, appeals go to the Decision of City Administrator is ■ Appealed to the city manager within 10
Community Forestry Commission; appealed to the Planning Commission days of the date of decision.
If removal is for development, appeals go to the Decision of Planning Commission ■ Decision of the city manager is appealed
Development Review Commission; may be appealed to the City Council. to the City Council and must be decided
Appeals from these Commissions go to the City within 30 days or permit is deemed
Council. The decision of the Council shall be approved. City Council decision is final.
final. ■ Emergency Permits may not be appealed
8.730 (c).
Enforcement Enforcement: 50.02.125 and 55.02.130. Section 8. 8.740.
Enforcement action goes to municipal court and ■ City may deny permit or stop work Violation is treated a s a civil infraction,
is subject to civil violation, nuisance abatement, under a permit, I subject to mitigation opportunities through
enforcement fee, restoration requirements, ■ City may file a civil action to get an voluntary compliance. Municipal court has
injunction, loss of city privilege, and any other injunction and recover costs to authority to issue fines and penalties.
right authorized by law. replace trees destroyed and the value Abatement provisions covered by 8.750.
of the timber removed
■ City may revoke the right of a
provider to do business in the City
for two years
■ City may recover attorney and
professional fees in bring the
enforcement action.
r-r
A�
A
�D
EXHIBIT B —Page Sof 5 50014.36793.02/172547.doc%DRF/8/13/2009
CONSIDERATION
OF PUBLIC
COMMENT ON
DRAFT PLAN
Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan
Implementation Matrix - Draft
e5 ce
1o° e�y
,`y. Sao ey y°o 50 eP ear Qat
Implementation Goals a L°� Q° 5�a C�°y
1. Develop Hazard Tree .•
1.1 Establish City storm and hazard tree response protocols.
a. Staff
Public Works 2.3.8 L $ Time/General 2010 ISA,ODF
Prior to land acquisition conduct a tree hazard assessments Fund
b. Staff
Hire greenspace coordinater to manage Tigard natural areas and Public Works 2.2.5 H $$ Time/General 2015 TRK
develop a proactive hazard abatement program Fund
C. Staff
Develop and implement formal emergency response system for Planning 2.3.8,2.2.3 L $ Time/General 2010 ISA,ODF
tree hazards on City streets I Fund
d. 2.2.3,2.3.8,2.3.9, Staff
Develop and implement formal emergency response system for Public Works L $ Time/General 2010 ISA,ODF
tree hazards in City parks/greenspaces 2.3.10,2.3.11 Fund
1.2 Establish City program to facilitate hazard abatement on private property.
a. Staff
Revise Tigard Municipal Code to grant authority to the City to Planning 2.3.8 H $ Time/General 2010 ISA,ODF
become involved in private property tree hazards. Fund
2. Revise Street Tree and Landscaping • Screening Ordinances.
2.1 Revise street tree planting,maintenance,and removal requirements
a. Staff
Create design and maintenance manual with drawings and Planning 2.3.8 H $ Time/General 2010 ISA,ASLA,TRK
specifications for planting and maintenance. Fund
b. Staff
Revise Tigard Municipal Code to establish permit system for Planning 2.2.5 M $ Time/General 2010 ISA,ASLA Qy
street tree planting,removal,and replacement. Fund
Ss
1
�O
o
Implementation Goals 'U v� U
P A
CW
m o
c e~ fA o ei
.a U a V U &
. . treeI in chides d.
1.1 Revise tree ordinance in order to allow more flexibility and a qualitative approach to tree preservation.
a. Move tree ordinance from Tigard Development Long Range 2.2.1,2.2:2,2.3.1, Low $ 2010 2011
Code to Tigard Municipal Code in order to allow Planning 2.3.2,2.3.3,2.3:6,
for discretionary review. 2.3.7,2.3.9,2.3.10,
2.3.11
b. Focus Code less on mitigation and more on Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.9, High $$ 2010 2011
preserving long lived evergreens,broad- Planning 2.3.1,2.3.2,2.3.3,
spreading deciduous varieties,native species,and 2.3.4,2.3.6,2.3.7,
other trees identified as of high importance. 2.3.9,2.3.11
C. Require private arborists to be involved in the Long Range 2.2.1,2.3.1,2.3.3, Low $ 2010 2011
development process from site planning through Planning 2.3.6,2.3.7,2.3.8,
landscape installation. 2.3.9
d. Develop and implement regulations,standards, Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.1, High $$ 2010 2011
and incentives for transferring density and Planning 2.3.3,2.3.6,2.3.8,
seeking variances and adjustments to preserve 2.3.9,2.3.11
trees identified as of high importance.
e. Provide incentives for preserving smaller Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.9, Low $ 2010 2011
diameter trees due to their ability to withstand Planning 2.3.1,2.3.2,2.3.3,
development impacts. 2.3.4,2.3.6,2.3.7,
2.3.9,2.3.11
f. Ensure that invasive trees are exempt from Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, Low $ 2010 2011
preservation requirements through the adoption Planning 2.2.8,2.2.9,2.3.1,
of an inclusive invasive species list. 2.3.7,2.3.8,2.3.11
g. Create tree manual with drawings and Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.8, High $$$ 2010 2011
specifications for development related tree Planning 2.2.9,2.3.1,2.3.2,
inventory and protection standards,and 2.3.3,2.3.6,2.3.7,
preferred species/tree types for preservation. 2.3.8,2.3.9
h. Develop standards and procedures for how tree Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.3, Med. $$ 2010 2011
ordinance will be enforced. Planning 2.2.6,2.3.1,2.3.8,
2.3.9,2.3.11
i. Develop procedures for when and how protected . Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 2012
trees will be inventoried and permit activities Planning
tracked.
j. Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GIS Current 2.2.1 :vied. $$ 2011 Ongoing
and permit systems,a publicly accessible Planning
inventory of protected trees.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) --Page 2 of 14
a
a o 0
Implementation Goals : in ��, V b
A o � o E
v U �• U a �' o a�
1.2 Revise tree ordinance so that standards do not solely impact owners of treed lots.
a. Develop canopy cover or tree density standards Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, High $$ 2010 2011
for all lots that can be met by either preserving Planning 2.2.9,2.3.1,2.3.2,
existing trees,or planting new trees. 2.3.6,2.3.7,2.3.9,
2.3.11
b. Create an urban forestry systems development Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, High $$ 2011 2012
charge for new development in order to Planning 2.3.8
administer an ongoing tree and urban forest
enhancement ro
parking
2.1 Revise street tree planting,maintenance,and removal requirements
a. Create design and maintenance manual with Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, High $$$ 2010 2011
drawings and specifications for species selection, Planning 2.2.5,2.2.6,2.2.7,
planting,and maintenance. 2.2.8,2.2.9,2.2.10,
2.3.5,2.3.7,2.3.8,
2.3.11
b. Revise parking lot design requirements to Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Med. $$ 2010 2011
incorporate storwater management techniques Planning 2.2.7,2.2.8,2.2.10,
and methods that support increased tree canopy. 2.3.5,2.3.7,2.3.8,
2.3.11
C. Clarify jurisdictional requirements along ODOT Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Low $ 2010 2011
right-of ways(99W,Hall Boulevard,Highway Planning 2.2.5,2.2.6,2.2.7,
217,and Highway 5). 2.2.8,2.3.5,2.3.8
d. Revise Tigard Municipal Code to establish permit Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Med. $$ 2010 2011
system for planting,removal,and replacement of Planning 2.2.5,2.2.6'
.2.5;2.2.6,2.2.8,
required trees. 2.2.9,2.2.10,2.3.5,
2.3.7,2.3.10,2.3.11
e. Incentivize the use,retention,and replacement of Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Med. $$ 2010 2011
long lived evergreens,broad-spreading deciduous Planning 2.2.5,2.2.6,2.2.79
varieties,native species,and other trees identified 2.2.8,2.2.9,2.2.10,
as of high importance. 2.3.1,2.3.5,2.3.7,
2.3.8,2.3.11
E Allow required landscape trees to count towards Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Low $ 2010 2011
mitigation,canopy cover,and/or tree density Planning 2.2.6,2.2.7,2.2.8,
standards. 2.2.9,2.2.10,2.3.5
g. Require landscape architects to develop Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, Low $ 2010 2011
landscape plans for projects of a certain type Planning 2.2.10,2.3.5,2.3.7,
and/or size. 2.3.11
h. Do not require new technologies that are cost Current 2.2.1,2.2.4,2.2.7 Low $ 2010 Ongoing
prohibitive. Planning
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) --Page 3 of 14
Implementation Goals
U �. U G.
2.2 Develop an inventory of tree plantings,removals,and replacements.
b. Develop procedures for when and how trees will Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 2012
be inventoried and permit activities tracked. Planning
a. Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GIS Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 Ongoing
and permit systems,a publicly accessible Planning
inventory of tree plantings and permitted
removals.
3.1 Focus on preserving large groves of native trees.
a. Establish standards and procedures for Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.3, High $$$$ 2010 2011
identifying and inventorying large groves of Planning 2.2.6,2.2.7,2.3.1,
native trees. 2.3.2,2.3.8,2.3.9,
2.3.11
b. Develop preservation and maintenance standards Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2:2.3, High $$$ 2011 2012
and procedures for tree groves that are identified Planning 2.2.4, 2.2-6,2.2.7,
for protection. 2.2.8,2.2.9,2.3.1,
2.3.2,2.3.3,2.3.5,
2.3.6,2.3.7,2.3.8,
2.3.9,2.3.11
3.2 Develop flexible and incentive based grove preservation program that meets the needs of affected property owners.
a. Reach out to property owners with identified Long Range 2.3.8,2.3.11 Med. $$ 2010 2012
trees groves early in the process so they have Planning
ample opportunity to participate.
b. Ensure any future tree grove regulations have Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Med. $$ 2011 2012
flexibility and incentives built in. Planning 2.3.6,2.3.8,2.3.11
Develop4.
4.1 Establish City storm and hazard tree response protocols.
a. Prior to land acquisition conduct a tree hazard Parks 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.4, Med. $$ 2010 Ongoing
assessment. 2.3.8
b. Develop and implement formal emergency Streets 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.4, Low $ 2010 Ongoing
response system for tree hazards on City streets. 2.3.8
C. Develop and implement formal emergency Parks 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.4, Low $ 2010 Ongoing
response system for tree hazards in City 2.3.8
parks/greenspaces.
d. Hire greenspace coordinator to manage Tigard Parks 2.2.1,2.3.4,2.3.8 High $$$$ 2011 2011
natural areas and develop a proactive hazard
abatement program.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) --Page 4 of 14
O O * O O
'%
Implementation Goals '^ o" 'v v� U o
p o k 0 c
0
U a
4.2 Establish City program to facilitate hazard abatement on private property.
a. Revise Tigard Municipal Code to grant authority Long Range 2.2.1,2.3.4,2.3.8, High $$ 2010 2011
to the City to become involved in private Planning 2.3.11
property tree hazards.
b. Develop and maintain criteria for what Current 2.2.1,2.2.2 Med. $$ 2010 2011
constitutes a hazard(define terms per ISA Planning
standards).
C. Develop and maintain criteria for hazard Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.4, Med. $$ 2010 2011
abatement procedures and mitigating risks(per Planning 2.3.11
ISA standards).
d. Develop procedures for mediating disputes Long Range 2.3.4,2.3.11 High $$$ 2010 2011
including assigning responsibility. Planning
e. Make information about hazard program Current 2.3.4,2.3.8 Med. $$ 2010 2011
available to the public. Planning
;.1 Begin developing a tree and urban forest inventory.
a. ` Develop procedures for when and how protected Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 2012
trees,tree groves,street trees,heritage trees,and Planning
required landscape trees will be inventoried and
permit activities tracked.
b. Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GIS Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 Ongoing
and permit systems,a publicly accessible Planning
inventory of protected trees,tree groves,street
trees,heritage trees,and required landscape trees.
C. Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GIS Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7 Med. $$ 2011 Ongoing
system,a publicly accessible inventory of sites Planning
where urban forestry fees are being utilized. Link
sites with the City's accounting system so detailed
analyses of urban forestry expenditures can be
obtained.
5.2 Improve management of City owned trees and forests.
a. Create and route a budget sheet to appropriate Parks 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, Low $ 2010 2011
divisions prior to park and greenspace 2.3.4
acquisitions so anticipated costs and benefits can
be identified and evaluated.
b. Hire greenspace coordinator to manage City Parks 2.2.1,2.3.4,2.3.8 High $$$$ 2011 2011
owned natural areas.
C. Develop a written set of urban forestry standards Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.5, High $$ 2011 2012
and specifications for City projects to follow. Planning 2.2.6,2.2.7,2.3.1,
2.3.3,2.3.7,2.3.9
77. Identify and secure long term funding Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7 Low $ 2014 2016
sources for urban forestry projects as Planning
mitigation funds decline.
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) --Page 5 of 14
Implementation Goals A a ;^ cn J c
U CL U U c
6.Develop an urban
6.1 Develop and provide urban forestry-outreach materials.
City to provide public with pertinent urban Current 2.2.7,2.3.8 Med. $$ 2012 2013
a. forestry outreach information(workshops,flyers, Planning
online tools,"ask the arborist"service,etc.)
Maintain a list of invasive plants,discourage their Current 2.2.1,2.2.7,2.2.8, Low $ 2012 2013
b. sale and propagation,and promote their removal. Planning 2.2.9,2.3.8,2.3.11
6.2 Fund urban forestry projects for private property owners.
Utilize mitigation and other funding sources for Current 2.2.7,2.3.8 High $$$ 2013 2014
a. tree planting and urban forest management on Planning
public and private property and public right-of-
wa _
63 Prevent pre-development clearing of lots.
a. Develop standards that require tree removal Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, Med. $$ 2010 2011
permits prior to the removal of a specified Planning 2.3.1, 2.3.8
number of trees per year.
6.4 Regularly update Urban Forestry Master Plan,set achievable goals,and continually monitor progress.
Update Urban Forestry Master Plan every 5-7 Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.11, High $$$ 2015 2016
a. years. Planning 2.3.1,2.3.8
b. Strive to achieve no net loss in citywide tree Current 2.2.7,2.2.11,2.3.8 Low $ 2015 2015
canopy from 2007-2015. Planning
Strive to achieve 32%citywide tree canopy by Current 2.2.7,2.2.11,2.3.8 Low $ 2027 2027
C. 2027 Planning
Strive to achieve 40%citywide tree canopy by Current 2.2.7,2.2.11,2.3.8 Low $ 2047 2047
d. 2047 Planning
*Low=0-8 hours of staff time ** $_ <$1,000
*Med. =8-40 hours of staff time **$$_$1,000-$10,000
*High=over 40 hours of staff time **$$$=$10,000-$50,000
**$$$$=>$50,000
Through implementation of the goals, sub-goals,and action measures in this Plan,progress will be made towards the
adopted vision of the UFMP CAC:
`Tigard's urban forest is valued and p�ntected by Citysidents as a thriving interconnected ecosystem managed to improve quality of life,
increase community identity, and maximise aesthetic, economic, and ecological benefits."
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (Draft) --Page 6 of 14
a.
Implementation Goals
1. Revise Tigards tree code (Chapter 18.790, includes development regulations and niftigation).
1.1 Revise tree wde to allow for morn flexibility and ensure a qualjtative approach to tree prnsetvation.
a. Move tree code from'Tigard Development Code Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.1, Low $ 2010 2011
to Tigard Municipal Code in order to allow for Planning 2.3.2,2.3.3,2.3.6,
discretionary review. 2.3.7,2.3.9,2.3.10,
2.3.11
b. Modify code to focus less on mitigation and Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.9, High ;,, - 2010 2011
more on preservation of long-lived evergreen and Planning 2.3.1,2.3.2,2.3.3,
broad-leaf deciduous tree species,native and 2.3.4,2.3.6,2.3.7,
indigenous trees,and other trees identified as of 2.3.9,2.3.11
high importance.
C. Require private arborists to be involved in the Long Range 2.2.1,2.3.1,2.3.3, Low $ 2010 2011.
development process from site planning through Planning 2.3.6,2.3.7,2.3.8,
landscape installation. 2.3.9
d. Develop and implement regulations,standards, Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.1, $$ 2010 2011
and incentives for transferring density and seeking Planning 2.3.3,2.3.6,2.3.8,
variances and adjustments to preserve trees 2.3.9,2.3.11
identified as being of high importance.
e. Provide incentives for preserving smaller Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.9, Low $ 2010 2011
diameter trees that have a higher ability to Planning 2.3.1,2.3.2,2.3.3,
withstand development impacts. 2.3.4,2.3.6,2.3.7,
2.3.9,2.3.11
f. Ensure Incisive trees are exempt from Long Range 2.2.1,` , ,. 2011
preservation requirements through the adoption Planning 2.2.8,2.2.9,2.3.4
of an inclusive invasive species list. 2.3.7,2.3.8,2.3.11
i
g. Develop standards and procedures for tree code Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.3, Med. $$ 2010 2011
enforcement. Planning 2.2.6,2.3.1,2.3.8,
2.3.9,2.3.11
h. Develop procedures detailing when and how Current 2.2.1 $$ 2011 2012
protected trees will be inventoried and permit Planning
activities tracked.
1. Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GIS and Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 Ongoing
permit systems,a publicly accessible inventory of Planning
protected trees.
j. Create a tree manual with drawings and Current 2.11,2.2.2,2:2.8, High $$$ 2010 2011
specifications for development related tree Planning 2.2.9,2.3.1,2.3.2,
inventory and protection standards,and 2.3.3,2.3.6,2.3.7,
preferred species/tree types for preservation. 2.3.8,2.3.9
Low=0-8 hours of staff time *Med.=8-40 hours of staff time *High=over 40 hours of staff time
** $ _ <$1,000 **$$_$1,000—$10,000 **$$$_ $10,000450,000 ** $$$$ _>$50,000
Urban Forestry Mister Plan I City of Tigard Draft')
IL 4A M
Implementation Goals
1.2 Revise tree code so that standards do not solely impact those property owners with trees.
a. Develop canopy cover or tree density standards Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, High $$ 2010 2011
for all lots to be met by either preserving existing Planning 2.2.9, 2.3.1,2.3.2,
trees,or planting new trees. 2.3.6,2.3.7,2.3.9,
2.3.11
b. Create an urban forestry systems development Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, High $$ 2011 2012
charge for new development in order to Planning 2.3.8
administer an ongoing tree and urban forest
enhancement program.
parking2.Revise Tigards landscaping code (includes street trees,
2.1 Revise street tree planting,maintenance,and removal requirements.
Revise parking lot design requirements to Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Med. $$ 2010 2011
Incorporate stormwater management techniques Planning 2.2.7,2.2.8,2.2.10,
and methods that support increased tree canopy. 2.3.5,2.3.7,2.3.8,
2.3.11
b. Revise Tigard Municipal Code to establish a Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Med. $$ 2010 2011
permit system for planting,removal,and Planning 2.2.5,2.2.6,2.2.8,
replacement of required trees. 2.2.9,2.2.10,2.3.5,
2.3.7,2.3.10,2.3.11
c. Incentivize the use,retention,and replacement 7current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Med. $$ 2010 2011
of long lived evergreen and broad-leaf deciduous Planning 2.2.5,2.2.6,2.2.7,
tree species,native and indigenous trees,and 2.2.8,2.2.9,2.2.10,
other trees identified as of high importance. 2.3.1,2.3.5,2.3.7,
t 2.3.8,2.3.11
d. Allow required landscape trees to count towards Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Low $ 2010 2011
mitigation,canopy cover,and/or tree density Planning 2.2.6,2.2.7,2.2.8,
standards. 2.2.9,2.2.10,2.3.5
e, Require landscape architects to develop Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, Low $ 2010 2011
landscape plans for projects of a certain type Planning 2.2.10,2.3.5,2.3.7,
and/or size. 2.3.11
f. Create a design and maintenance manual with Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, High $$$ 2010 2011
drawings and specifications for species selection, Planning 2.2.5,2.2.6,2.2.7,
planting,and maintenance. 2.2.8,2.2.9,2.2.10,
2.3.5,2.3.7,2.3.8,
2.3.11
Clarify jurisdictional requirements along ODOT Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Low $ 2010 2011
right-of-ways(Highway 99W,Highway 217,and Planning 2.2.5,2.2.6,2.2.7,
Interstate 5). 2.2.8,2.3.5,2.3.8
*Low=0-8 hours of staff time *Med.=8-40 hours of staff time *High=over 40 hours of staff time
** $ = <$1,000 **$$=$1,Ooo—$10,000 **$$$ _$10,000450,000 **$$$$ = >$50,000
Of'ri-Itrd I Urban Forestry Master PImi
implementation 1
:.
h. Do not require new technologies that are cost Current 2.2.1,2.2.4,2.2.7 Low $ 2010 Ongoing
prohibitive. Planning
2.2 Develop an inventory of tree plantings,removals,and replacements.
a. Develop procedures for when and how trees will Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 2012
be inventoried and permit activities tracked. Planning
b. Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GIS Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 Ongoing
and permit systems,a publicly accessible inventory Planning i
of tree plantings and permitted removals.
3. Develop a tree grove protection program.
3.1 Focus on preserving large groves of native trees.
Establish standards and procedures for identifying Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.3, High $$$$ 2010 2011
and inventorying large groves of native trees. Planning 2.2.6,2.2.7,2.3.1,
2.3.2,2.3.8,2.3.9,
4 2.3.11
` b. Develop preservation and maintenance standards Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.3, High $$$ 2011 2012
and procedures for tree groves identified for Planning 2.2.4, 2.2.6,2.2.7,
protection. 2.2.8,2.2.9,2.3.1,
2.3.2,2.3.3,2.3.5,
2.3.6,2.3.7,2.3.8,
2.3.9,2.3.11
3.2Develop a flexible and incentive based grove preservation program that meets the needs of affected property owners.
a. Reach out to property owners with identified tree Long Range 2.3.8,2.3.11 Med. $$ 2010 2012
groves early in the process to allow them ample Range
opportunity to participate in the development of
regulations.
b. IEnsure any future tree grove regulations have Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.4, Med. $$ 2011 2012
flexibility and incentives built in. Planning 2.3.6,2.3.8,2.3.11
4. Develop
hazard tree identification and abatement program.
4.1 Establish City storm and hazard tree response protocols.
a. Prior to land acquisition conduct a tree hazard Parks 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.4, Med. $$ 2010 Ongoing
assessment. 2.3.8
b. Develop and implement a formal emergency Streets 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.4, Low $ 2010 Ongoing
response system for tree hazards on City streets. 2.3.8
c. Develop and implement a formal emergency Parks 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.4, Low $ 2010 1 Ongoing
response system for tree hazards in City parks/ 2.3.8
greenspaces.
*Low=0-8 hours of staff time *Med.=8-40 hours of staff time *High=over 40 hours of staff time
** $_ <$1,000 **$$_$1,000410,000 **$$$_$10,000450,000 **$$$$ _ >$50,000
UrNin Forestry Master Plan I Ciq'of Tigard Draft
4.2 Establish a City program to fadlitate tree hazard identification and abatement on private property.
a. Revise Tigard Municipal Code to grant authority Long Range 2.2.1,2.3.4,2.3.8, High $$ 2010 2011
to the City to become involved in private Planning 2.3.11
property tree hazards.
b. Develop and maintain criteria for what Current 2.2.1,2.2.2 Meda $$ 2010
constitutes a tree hazard using the Tree Risk Planning
Assessment methodology developed by the
PNWISA. 1 :1
c. Develop and maintain criteria for hazard Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.3.4, Med. $$ 2010 2011
abatement and risk mitigation. Phuming 2.3.11
d. Develop procedures for mediating disputes Long Range 2.3.4,2.3.11 High $$$ 2010 2011.
including assigning responsibility. Planning
e. Make information about hazard tree Current 2.3.4,2.3.8 Med. $$ 2010 2011
indentification and abatement program available Planning
to the public.
management5. Improve urban
5.1 Begin developing a tree and urban forest inventory.
a. Develop procedures for when and how Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 2012
protected trees,tree groves,street trees, Planning
heritage trees,and required landscape trees will
be inventoried and permit activities tracked.
b. Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GIS and Current 2.2.1 Med. $$ 2011 Ongoing
permit systems,a publicly accessible inventory Planning
of protected trees,tree groves,street trees,
heritage trees,and required landscape trees
c. Develop and maintain,as part of the City's GIS Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7 Med. $$ 2011 Ongoing
system,a publicly accessible inventory of sites Planning
where urban forestry fees are being utilized.
Link sites with the City's accounting system so
detailed analyses of urban forestry expenditures
can be obtained.
5.2 Improve management of City owned trees and forests.
a. Create and route a budget sheet to appropriate Parks 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, Low $ 2010 2011
divisions prior to park and greenspace 2.3.4
acquisitions so anticipated costs and benefits
can be identified and evaluated.
*Low=0-8 hours of staff time *Med. =8-40 hours of staff time *High-over 40 hours of staff time
** $_<$1,000 **$$ _ $1,000—$10,000 **$$$_$10,000450,000 **$$$$ _ >$50,000
kA W
Implementation / .
L
Hire a greenspace coordinator to manage City Parks 2.2.1,2.3.4,2.3.8 High $$$$ 2011011
owned natural areas and develop a proactive
hazard tree identification and abatement
program for those areas.
c. Develop a written set of urban forestry Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.5, High $$ 2011 2012
standards and specifications for City projects. Planning 2.2.6,2.2.7,2.3.1,,
2.3-3,2.3.7,2.3.9
d. Identify and secure long term funding sources for Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7 Low $ 2014 2016
urban forestry projects as mitigation funds decline. Planning
e. Designate City Arborist as lead coordinator for Current 2.2.2,2.2.6,2.2.11, Low $ 2010 Ongoing
implementation of the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Planning 2.3.4,2.3.7
6. Develop an urban forestry p program.
6.1 Develop and provide urban forestry outreach materials.
a. Provide Tigard citizens with pertinent urban Current 2.2.7,2.3.8 Med: $$ 2012 2013
forestry outreach information such as workshops, Planning
flyers,online tools,"ask the arborist"service,etc.
b. Maintain a list of invasive trees and other plants, Current 2.2.1,2.2.7,2.2.8, Low 2012 2013
discourage their sale and propagation,and Planning 2.2.9,2.3.8,2.3.11
promote their removal.
6.2 Fund urban forestry projects for private property owners.
Utilize mitigation and other funding sources for Current 2.2.7,2.3.8 High $$$ 2013 2fl14
tree planting and urban forest management on Planning
public and private property and public
u c
'N right-of-way.
b. Present a cost/benefit study for a leaf pickup Current 2.2-7,2.3.8 Low $ 2013 2013
program for Council's consideration. Planning
6.3 Prevent pre-development clearing of lots.
a. Develop standards that require tree removal Long Range 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.7, Med. $$ 2010 2011
permits prior to the removal of a specified Planning 2.3.1,2.3.8
number of trees per year.
*Low=0-8 hours of staff time *Med.=8-40 hours of staff time *High=over 40 hours of staff time
** $_ <$1,000 **$$ _ $1,000—$10,000 •*$$$_$10,000450,000 **$$$$ _ >$50.000
Urban Forestry Master Pla I City ofTigard Draft i
i
IA
6.4 Regularly update the Urban Forestry Master Plan,set achievable goals,and continually monitor progress.
a. Strive to achieve no net loss in citywide tree Current 2.2.7,2.2.11,2.3.8 Lour 5 2015 2015
canopy from 2007-2015. Planning
b. Strive to achieve 32%citywide tree canopy by Current 2.2.7,2.2.11,2.3.8 Low $ 2027 2027
' 2027 Planning
c. Strive to achieve 40%citywide tree canopy by Current 2.2.7,2.2.11,2.3.8 Low $ 2047 2047
2047 Planning
d. Update Urban Forestry Master Plan every 5-7 Current 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.11, High $$$ 2015 2016
years. Planning 2.3.11 2.3.8
Low=0-8 hours of staff time *Med. =8-40 hours of staff time *High=over 40 hours of staff time
** $= <$1,000 **$$ = $1,000—$10,000 **$$$ = $10,000—$50,000 **$$$$ = >$50,000