Urban Forestry Code Revisions - Citizen Advisory Committee - 01/12/2011 City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC
MEETING #6 - (1/12/2011)
Table of Contents
1/12/2011 Meeting Agenda...........................................................................................................................................2
CAC Meeting Summary (11/10/2010) .......................................................................................................................3
Comments .....................................................................................................................................................................16
"Draft" Revised Project Timeline..............................................................................................................................28
Staff Response to 11/10/2010 CAC Comments on the Use of the Tree Replacement Fund ........................29
Log of Revisions by Staff to the Proposal for Use of the Tree Replacement Fund .........................................32
Staff Proposal for Addressing CAC Input on Urban Forestry Standards for Development ..........................38
Memo Updating the CAC on the Tree Grove Preservation Program ................................................................63
TACMeeting Summary (11/16/2010) .....................................................................................................................64
TAC Meeting Summary (12/21/2010) .....................................................................................................................67
-1-
City of Tigard
y , Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC — Agenda
MEETING DATE: Wednesday,January 12, 2011, 6:30-8:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard, OR 97223
MEETING GOALS: Discuss revised timeline for the Urban Forestry Code Revisions project
Review and recommend revised proposal for the use of the Tree Replacement
Fund
Review and discuss preliminary staff proposal to address CAC input on Urban
Forestry Standards for Development
Receive presentation and ask questions about the status of the Tree Grove
Preservation Program
1. (Info) Welcome, introductions and agenda overview 6:30-6:40 PM
• Review Meeting packet materials
• Recap Meeting#5
• Approve Meeting#5 Summary
/Adrienne DeDona/
2. (Info) Public Comment 6:40-6:50 PM
3. (Info) Revised Project Timeline 6:50-7:00 PM
/Marissa Daniels/
4. (Action) Revised Proposal for Tree Replacement Fund 6:55-7:15 PM
/ Gary Pagenstecher /
BREAK
5. (Discussion) Preliminary Proposal for Urban Forestry Standards for
Development 7:20-8:05 PM
/Gary Pagenstecher/
6. (Info) Tree Grove Preservation Program Presentation 8:05-8.25 PM
/Darren Wyss/
7. (Info) Wrap up/Next Steps 8:25-8:30 PM
8. (Info) Thanks and adjourn 8:30 PM
Next meeting: February 9, 2011
URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISIONS CAC AGENDA—January 12, 2011
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC
Meeting #5
November 10, 2010
Summary Notes
Committee members in attendance:
Don Schmidt, Planning Commission Tony Tycer,Tree Board
John Wyland, Developer John Frewing, Citizen at-large
Morgan Holen, Certified Arborist Dave Walsh, Planning Commission
Ken Gertz, Portland Metro Homebuilders
Committee members absent:
Brian Wegener,Tualatin Riverkeepers
Scot Bernhard, Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee
Consultant staff present:
Adrienne DeDona,JLA Public Involvement
Sylvia Ciborowski,JLA Public Involvement
Staff present:
Marissa Daniels, City of Tigard Cheryl Caines, City of Tigard
Todd Prager, City of Tigard Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard
Members of the public present:
Susan Keller
Information requests from this meeting:
• None, but request for TAC members who write code to attend CAC meetings
Parking lot items and items for further discussion:
• Consider how to put into place some process or commitment by the City to revisit or tweak
the Tree Code more frequently (every 5 years).
-3-
Overview Summary
The following is an overview of the main comments made by members for the three topics/sections of
code discussed at the November 10, 2010 CAC meeting.
Overview of comments on Revised Draft Street Tree Non-Development Code
• For the most part members are comfortable with the revised draft
• There was still some concern on the part of one member that the City should assume risk
when it declines an application for removal of a tree, and the contractor should be held
responsible in the case of poor workmanship of tree pruning.
• Suggestion from one member to increase the fine for illegally removing a tree.
• Concern from one member about being double-billed for removal of a tree.
• Concern from one member that the $125 amount to plant trees is outdated. Most other
members disagreed with this concern.
Overview of comments on Proposed Use of Tree Replacement Fund (Current Mitigation Fund)
• Most members thought that the language in Exhibit A could be more specific to ensure that
existing mitigation funds spent on grading and unwanted plant removal be used for the
limited purpose of what is required for tree planting.
• One member thought that the fund should not be used for grading at all.
• One member suggested moving the sentences about unwanted plant removal and grading
and filling to the "Soil Preparation" bullet.
• Members were concerned about how much money was spent on site prep for planting trees
with little value. One member suggested that there should be a limit for how much money is
spent on site preparation, such as applying a ratio of$250-275 per caliper tree inch. Others
generally agreed.
• All members agreed that the fund should not be used to support maintenance for the lifetime
of the tree after planting on public property. Most thought that using the fund for 2-3 years
of maintenance for public trees was adequate.
• One member suggested that the mitigation fund pay for maintenance for up to 5-7 years for
trees planted on private property.
• One member worried about the difficulty in an accounting system that tries to keep separate
mitigation trees from other trees.
• One member expressed concern over who was responsible for maintaining trees planted on
private property with a conservation easement on it.
• One member expressed approval of the language in Exhibit A about striving to find
partnerships for plantings and maintenance, and to stipulate those partnerships in writing.
Overview of comments on Urban Forestry Standards for Development Brainstorming
• See matrix in Meeting Summary
-4-
Introductions and Agenda Overview
Adrienne DeDona welcomed everyone to the meeting and reviewed the agenda.
Todd Prager introduced Cheryl Caines who works as an Associate Planner and Development Code Editor
for the City of Tigard. Cheryl will attend the remainder of the CAC meetings and will make sure the tree
code revisions fit into the current development code.
Meeting Packet
Todd noted that the meeting packet only includes changes to the draft code made since the last
meeting, rather than reprinting the entire section of code.
Adrienne went over the meeting packet and noted that it includes some emails from committee
members and one mail from a member of the public. Adrienne recognized that time for discussion
during meetings is limited, and the timeline is aggressive to get through all code topics. Staff has tried to
accommodate for this by adjusting the format of meetings in response to members' comments as well
as allowing for topics to span multiple meetings.
Committee Process
Adrienne directed members to the "UFCR CAC Process" handout which outlines how topics are
discussed over multiple meetings.There will be three chances to talk about each topic, and then time to
review and discuss each topic as part of the comprehensive review at the end of the process. She noted
that staff is also keeping a running list of all parking lot issues from all meetings.At end of process,
members will get a chance to revisit all parking lot issues to see whether they require more discussion,
whether they should be carried forward to City Council, or if they belong in some other process.
Committee Comments:
• Tony Tycer suggested that during the tertiary review, a representative from the TAC be present
at the CAC meetings.
• John Frewing expressed concern with rushing through topics in this committee because once the
Tree Code is revised, it will be very difficult to change again and probably won't be
comprehensively revised for another decade or so. He noted that if there were some process or
commitment to revisit or tweak the Tree Code more frequently,this would resolve some of his
concerns. He would like more agile ability and willingness on the part of the City to change the
Code.
o Ken Gertz agreed and added that he would like to see such flexibility to change minor
problems with all City codes.
o Dave Walsh commented that minor Code revisions can be made relatively quickly,
especially when the Code contains a clear mistake. However, significant changes to the
Code require a public process which takes more time.
o Gary Pagenstecher added that proposed change can be made quickly if they are in line
with a Committee Development Director's list of priorities.
Adrienne recognized that some members prefer more time to think about the topic areas, and they are
welcome to send emails to staff in-between meetings.Those comments will be added to the list of
topics and concerns for discussion.
-5-
Addition to Hazard Tree Code
Gary noted that the Hazard Tree Code draft language has been revised to include clarification on
"claimant."The code clarifies that a claimant only has standing to bring a claim if he or she can
demonstrate potential to be affected by the tree in question.
Approve Meeting#4 Summary
Members approved Meeting#4 Summary with no changes.
Public Comment
One member of the public was present, but made no comment.
Open House Update
Marissa Daniels passed around the Tree Grove Preservation Program Open House Final Report.The
document includes all comments received from the October 6 open house along with staff responses.
Marissa noted that comments in the summary are organized by whether or not the commenter owns
property, and whether or not they support City efforts.
Revised Draft Street Tree Non-Development Code
Gary reviewed staff responses to CAC comments made at the October 13 CAC meeting regarding the
Preliminary Draft of the Street Tree Code. CAC comments and staff responses are outlined in pages 32-
34 of the meeting packet. Changes to the Draft Code in response to these comments are shown on page
35.
Committee Discussion
• Discussion on the issue of whether the Code should specify that the City assumes risk when it
declines an application for removal of a tree:
o Tony expressed concern that if the City declines a property owner's requests to remove a
tree, and the tree subsequently falls on or harms another person or land,then the
property owner is still responsible. He believes that the City should assume liability in such
a situation.
o Gary responded that in such a case,the City would have gone through a hazard tree
assessment process and would have a rationale for denying the application.
o Todd added that staff discussed this issue with the Risk Management Division. If someone
feels that the hazard tree assessment was in error,they can appeal it. If the City was truly
negligent in their evaluation,then they will be liable. However, rewriting the Code to hold
the City liable every time it denies a permit seems to put too much burden on City.
o Ken added that if a petitioner's tree removal request is denied and the tree later does
actually become hazardous, then the property owner can reapply to remove the tree.
• Discussion on whether the contractor should be held responsible in the case of poor
workmanship of pruning trees:
o Tony clarified his position on this issue.Tree contractors work under the direction of
whoever hired them. If a contractor does bad work, it should be held responsible. His
concern is that, since the contractor works at the behest of somebody,the person who
retained the contractor to do the work also needs to be responsible.The burden of
-6-
punishment should be shared by the person who did the pruning and the person who
hired him.
o John W. was concerned about who decides or monitors to see whether a tree has been
pruned correctly or not.
o Ken asked if there is any certification or standard of performance required of tree
contractors.Tony responded that there is no licensed required to be a tree contractor.
o Ken asked whether, in the case of an arborist doing a poor job,there is another avenue for
redress rather than getting the City involved. Morgan answered that a lot of qualified tree
services don't have arborists on staff, so they are not certified.
Round Robin Poll
Adrienne asked members to consider the Draft Street Tree Code language and to respond whether they
are okay with the language or would like to see more revision.
Members responded:
• Ken responded that he is okay with the language as it stands.
• Dave responded that he is okay with the language as it stands.
• Don responded that he is okay with the language as it stands.
• John W. responded that he is okay with the language, but with one comment. He believes the
maximum fine for illegal removal of a tree should be higher than $125 per caliper inch. He gave
the example of a friend in Lake Oswego who illegally removed a tree and was fined $6,000, but
was thrilled because he paid so little to create a great view.
o Ken added that he likes the system of paying a fine on a per-caliper-inch basis. He
expressed concern that there are a couple of things in the Code that one could
hypothetically get double billed on. He can understand being double-billed for illegally
removing a heritage trees, but does not think a street tree has any more value than a tree
on private property.
• John F. responded that he is okay with the language, but with one comment. He is concerned
that the $125 amount to plant trees is outdated, as this was the figure 10 years ago. Other
members did not agree.
• Morgan responded that she is okay with the language as it stands.
Proposed Use of Tree Replacement Fund
Gary discussed the issue of what uses should be allowed for the existing tree replacement fund (i.e.,
existing mitigation fund). He noted that the meeting packet includes a lengthy email exchange between
Ken and John W. about the range of uses the fund should cover.
Gary reviewed the matrix of staff responses to CAC member comments regarding the allowed uses for
the existing tree replacement fund.These are included on page 36 of the meeting packet.The memo on
page 37 and accompanying Exhibit A on page 38 outline a proposed Resolution for City Council's
consideration regarding what uses are allowed for the current Tree Replacement Fund.
Committee Discussion:
• John F. commented that he is happy with proposed uses outlined in Exhibit A.
• Discussion on whether"Tree Planting Site Preparation"should be included as an allowed use of
the current fund as outlined in Exhibit A:
-7-
o Ken commented that grading and unwanted plant removal is usually not part of planting
trees. His priority is to see as much canopy go up as possible. He would rather see money
go towards more trees, not towards grading and unwanted plant removal, which are
activities that should be paid for by the City's other funds. Developers should pay to plant
trees, not prepare the property.
o Gary responded that the language intends to include grading only for the purpose of
planting, not mass grading.
o Ken suggested that the Code be more specific to only include site preparation absolutely
necessary for planting mitigation trees in order avoid misappropriation of funds. He added
that the HBA paid money to plant trees—and that is it. Using the fund for other purposes
is not okay. Grading should be paid for by some other fund.
o Todd responded that the City does not just do grading for the purposes of wasting money.
There have been cases where a site is really compacted and there needs to be some tilling
and re-grading in order to prepare the site for tree planting. Furthermore,the introductory
paragraph to Exhibit A requires that all activities are for the purposes of planting trees.
o Dave asked Ken whether he supports grading for site planting preparation. Ken responded
that he would support the fund's use for augmenting the soil and digging a hole, but not
grading because trees can be planted in places that don't require grading.
o John F. commented that the last two lines on page 39 do limit grading to something that is
absolutely required for a particular tree planting project. He agreed with Todd that there
are some situations where some grading is necessary for planting. He doesn't want sites to
be graded with tree money generally, but should be included if required for tree planting.
o John W. suggested amending the language to specify that mass grading is not included.
o Don agreed that the language needs to be specific to planting of trees.
o Morgan commented that the language is clear that grading is only for particular tree
planting, but she would not be opposed to clarifying the language to be even more
specific. She suggested moving the sentences about unwanted plant removal and grading
and filling to the "Soil Preparation" bullet.
o Tony commented that funds should be spent in the way the City promised to spend them
when collected. He also suggested that this is a good time to talk about privatized planting.
He also suggested that there should be a limit for how much money is spent on site
preparation, such as applying a ratio of$2S0-27S per caliper tree inch.The City should not
plant trees in areas where it costs a lot to prepare the site. The goal should be increasing
canopy.
O John F. agreed, noting that the City should not be spending$10,000 to prepare a
site for 2-inch street trees.
• Discussion on how long trees should be maintained using the Tree Replacement Fund:
o Dave asked how long the City plans to use Tree Replacement Funds to support the
maintenance of trees.Todd responded that the proposal is to support maintenance for the
life of the tree using Tree Replacement Funds.
o Ken commented that the Fund should only maintain mitigation trees for 2 years, and after
that the City budget should pay for tree maintenance.
o Todd added that currently,the City maintains trees for 3 years.
o Dave asked what is a "city planted"tree is.Todd responded with the example of the City
planting a tree using the mitigation fund in Cook Park,then the City will use the mitigation
fund to plant the tree, and then to maintain the tree for the life of the tree.
-8-
o Dave asked how funds will be apportioned so that they aren't just used for for maintaining
all trees.Todd responded that each mitigation fund tree is given GPS coordinates. Dave
worried that this could become an accounting nightmare.
o Adrienne asked all members to weigh in on the topic.They responded:
O Ken thinks the mitigation fund should just be used for tree planting plus two years
of maintenance.
O Dave commented that he is not opposed to use of funds for long-term maintenance,
but think it would be an accounting nightmare to separate mitigation trees from
other trees.
O Tony commented that a person can tell whether a tree will survive or fail within two
years after planning it.The mitigation fund should only include maintenance for 2 or
3 years, not the lifetime of the tree. Once a tree is established, there are all types of
things that could happen to kill a tree and at that point the culpable party should
assume the risk of tree liability. He added that he would be comfortable with the
mitigation fund paying for maintenance for up to 5-7 years for trees planted on
private property
O Don commented that 2-3 years of maintenance is reasonable, but not lifetime
maintenance.
O John W. agreed that lifetime maintenance is too long. He asked who is responsible
for maintaining trees planted on private property with a conservation easement on
it. He thinks 2-3 years of maintenance for trees planted on public property is
reasonable, and conservation in private property is up for more discussion.
O John F. commented that he is comfortable with 3 years for maintenance. He
acknowledged that if the Fund pays for maintenance for 3 years rather than 2 years
this means less money for tree plantings, but he is more inclined to be more
conservative with plantings to ensure healthier trees in the long run.
O Morgan agreed that 3 years is a good timeframe to see if tree is well-established.
• Morgan added that she really approves of the language in Exhibit A about striving to find
partnerships for plantings and maintenance, and to stipulate those partnerships in writing.
Urban Forestry Standards for Development Brainstorming
CAC members completed a survey the week prior to this meeting on the topic of Urban Forestry
Standards for Development. Gary noted that the survey showed were some areas of agreement and
some that will take more discussion, as clarified in Todd's November 8 memo which interprets the
results of the survey. He added that this topic includes material that is scattered throughout various
development code chapters. Staff would like to take sections from these various chapters that deal with
urban forest and consolidate them into a single Urban Forest Standards for Development standalone.
The survey asked about code-specific changes within the various chapters, but they would be
constructed as specific items in a standalone chapter.
Adrienne ran over the list of areas of general agreement that resulted from the survey.These include:
• Give credit for preserving non-nuisance tree types.
• Give credit for planting street trees and parking lot trees.
• Investigate whether minimum density requirements could be reduced to preserve trees.
• Provide financial incentives such as tax relief, conservation easements and transfer of
development rights.
-9-
• Provide preservation incentives such as non-monetary recognition, flexible street standards and
flexible lot sizes and dimension standards.
• Provide an option for discretionary review of tree plans in addition to clear and objective
review.
• Allow for modification of tree plans.
• Develop boiler plate tree preservation standards for smaller development projects that would
negate the need to hire an ISA certified arborist.
• Establish soil volume standards.
• Establish limits on costs to achieve soil volume standards through 'in lieu of planting fee'.
• Establish 'in lieu of planting fee'for reasons such as views/solar access.
• Allocate 'in lieu of planting fee'funds towards:
o S2% planting and restoration
0 21% preservation
0 13% long-term maintenance
0 12%education and outreach
0 2% Urban Forestry Planning
• Require a guarantee period for all required trees planted (street trees, parking lot trees and
landscape trees), not just mitigation trees.
Small Group Breakout Exercise
Adrienne broke members into small groups to review the areas of agreement and consent to moving
forward with those items, or identify areas of concern and discuss those areas that the survey showed
as needing more discussion (due to lack of agreement by the group, or needing more clarification). Each
group made the following comments:
Comments on discussion items page 1 (areas of agreement):
• Tony: Would rather not have boiler plate tree preservation standards for smaller
development projects. City should always hire an ISA certified arborist.The City could create
an on-call agreement with arborist for this work.
• John W,John F and Don: Would like a definition of non-nuisance trees.
Comments on discussion items page 2 (areas needing further discussion):
Questions Ken and Morgan Dave and Tony John W,John F and
Don
1)Should the City • Current code • Should have no • Yes,with discussion
establish a tree density penalizes people preservation and flexibility.
standard through who own property standard.
preservation and with trees. Code
should be modified
planting of trees? to remove this
burden.
• It is unreasonable to
put the same
standards on all
-10-
zoning types.Tree
density standards
should be zoning
specific.
Should have an opt-
out option for
people that don't
want trees on their
property.
2) Should the City No. Not good to There shouldn't be a Yes, with discussion
require a base level of have percentages hard limit for and flexibility.
preservation of a because we don't percentage of
certain %of healthy know how many healthy trees.
healthy trees are on Minimum
trees as part of the property to requirements will
development? begin with. significantly impact
• Too inflexible infill development.
Instead, offer • There should be
incentives for incentives for
preservation that is preserving canopy
transferrable to coverage.
other properties. • Tony: Preserve
personal freedom for
private property
owners.
3) In order to prevent • No. Increasing time • Yes. Increase to 2 • How do you
clearing of trees prior does not make a years. monitor this?We
to development, difference. can increase the
should the City 4 The same rules time limit, but
should apply to seems like it would
increase the time property with trees be difficult.
period that trees and non-treed F Clackamas County
should be subject to property. The rules direction which
tree plan should not be limits the number
requirements? punitive towards of trees allowed to
people who have be removed per
trees on their year seems
property. reasonable and
Instead of making enforceable.
property owners pay
to remove trees,
spread the burden
among all citizens.
4-5) Should the City This makes sense Yes, they could be Yes, Agree.
require tree plans in within the goals, but applied to all/most Need to find the
-11-
other circumstances not sure that adding other circumstances right threshold
(i.e. demo permits, tree plans would as long as logical (Value?Area
grading permits, really result in a criteria are applied to affected?)
building additions)? If change of tree each circumstance
management. (each item should
yes,which types should • Is it a problem that have specific criteria,
they be applied to? these additional i.e.,the percentage
circumstances don't of lot grading, certain
have tree plans? If %of footprint of
trees normally home being
survive such increased in remodel,
circumstances, it etc.).
does not seem like
we should require
tree plans for them.
• Need to know how
big the problem is.
• Outreach and
education on tree
care may be
adequate.
• Adding more
regulations may
entice people to do
the work illegally
without the permit.
Don't want to add
unnecessary red
tape.
6) Should the City allow • Maybe. Allowing low impact • LID-Conversion
alternative low impact • Low impact development data? May be
development development is techniques would be difficult to quantify
techniques to geared more okay if tied to equivalency.
substitute for planting towards hydrology incentives for green . Yes, but may be out
of a site (like building(for of scope for this
or preserving trees? swales). example, provide a projects
Why or why not? . Harder to plant trees 50%cap on . LID examples from
in stormwater mitigation costs for outside the region
management areas. green building (Seattle's "Green
• May be okay in areas practices). Factor"), converting
that don't have requirements can
space for tree be complex.
planting.
• Maybe yes, if the
alternative gives a
-12-
comparable public
benefit.
7) How should the City • Yes, should monitor • Yes, monitoring • Not addressed.
monitor tree • Should not be rigid requirements should
protection during code be codified.
development? Should • Should be able to
requirements be change frequency of
inspection based on
codified? Why or why the project type,
not? size, etc.
• Code could read:
"Monitoring
required per
conditions of
approval of permit".
• Keep record of
monitoring. The
code should require
documentation of
what is discovered in
the monitoring
process.
• Provide flexibility in
type of protective
fencing that can be
used.
8) Should only • No.This is a waste, No. Recording all • How do we make
preservation trees be no point trees in the deed is this happen?
documented in the overkill. • Work on it. Current
property deed? Why process is not
or why not? effective and there
may be better
alternatives.
9)Should the City • No. Many arborists • Photographic • Not addressed.
require photographic do take photos of documentation could
record of the condition trees and the info is be useful.
of trees prior to useful, but this
should not be
development? required in the Code.
-13-
Report Out from Small Groups
The facilitators from each small group briefly reported out what the group had discussed.
Todd asked for more direction from the group on the issue of whether there should be minimum
requirements for preservation. Members made the following comments:
• John F. commented that there should be some minimum requirement, but not so high as to
prohibit development. He added that a minimum canopy standard could work.
• Morgan commented that her group was more interested in providing positive incentives to
retain healthy trees.The group struggling with making a standard minimum for everybody in
every situation.
• Dave commented that the Urban Forestry Master Plan considered a canopy target for the whole
city 15 or 20 years out.That kind of approach rather than preservation standards per trunk
would be better.
Todd added that the answer to the question about minimum requirements for preservation will affect a
lot of other things under the topic of Urban Forestry Standards for Development. He added that staff
will compile the comments from each group and identify common themes and areas that might need
further discussion. If necessary, staff will send out a survey to follow up on any areas that need further
discussion.
John F. commented that he emailed a list of thirteen items to Todd for discussion this evening. Adrienne
asked folks to give this list some consideration,which is available in the handouts.
Tony reiterated that he would like TAC members who write code to be present at the CAC meetings, and
expressed that he was glad Gary and Cheryl were at this meeting.
Next Steps
Gary and Todd will come up with first draft of code for the topic of urban forestry standards for
development, and present this at the next meeting.
The next meeting will be held on Wednesday,January 12.There will be no meeting in December.
-14-
Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC
Decision Log
July 7, 2010— Members approved Meeting Protocols by consensus.
-15-
Patty Lunsford
From: John Frewing Ufrewing@teleport.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 4:51 PM
To: Todd Prager; adrienne@jla.us.com
Subject: Urban Forestry Meeting 5 - Issues Regarding 'Standards for Development'
Todd and Adrienne,
I've looked over the packet received this past week in preparation for Meeting 5. Appended below are some additional
issues which I think need to be addressed as we consider'Standards for Development'. I am happy to raise these at the
next meeting, but as we all know, meeting time is quite limited; perhaps if you could provide some preliminary staff
response for discussion at the meeting, we would be further along. At any rate, please help all the committee members
by providing them a copy of these issues, so they don't have to take extensive notes.
Thanks, John Frewing jfrewin@teleport.com
URBAN FORESTRY STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT: NEEDS AND IDEAS FOR IMPROVEMENT
1 Create overlay zones where enhancement of the urban forest is most needed and reflect this need in development
regulations.
2 Sharpen the definition of development so as to require a tree plan whenever a building permit is requested over$X
thousand dollars; include demolition permits as items requiring a tree protection plan.
3 As suggested in the questionnaire,give rewards to development sites with trees when x density is retained, require a
minimum density of new trees on sites without trees.
4 Reflect the comp plan purpose in the purpose statement of 18.790—"enlarge, improve, sustain' our urban forest.
5 In development regulations implement the comp plan finding that 'mature and well managed trees lead to maximum
public benefits'—give special weight to preserving such trees. Mature trees consume as much as 1000 times more CO2
than small trees.
6 Add the general term 'social'to the acknowledged value of trees; see for example the recent Oregonian article on
better safety in treed neighborhoods.
7 Implement the comp plan charge in Action Measure ii to address the 'challenges of change of ownership' as a site goes
through the development, build, own cycle.
8 In mitigation rules,follow the comp plan policy and action plans to 'minimize reduction of existing tree cover'; a 2"
tree does not compensate at all for a 16"tree when it comes to tree cover.
9 Provide minimum penalties in the enforcement section of the tree code, replacing words which say the city"may"
impose some penalties.
10 Require 'coordination' of tree plan provisions with the needs of other government agencies by providing notice and
opportunity for review/comment.
11 Specify how the preference for'protection' or'retention' over'removal' in the code is to be shown, eg by comparison
of alternatives for the site.
12 Modify the regulations regarding a 'deed restriction' for retained trees to require that such deed restriction be filed
with City of Tigard and become part of the development file record.
13 The city cost of$125 per caliper inch for tree planting has been in effect for many years; inflation has affected every
other cost of the city—this cost should be updated in the code.
1
-16-
Patty Lunsford
From: Ken Gertz [Ken@Gertzco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 8:36 AM
To: Tree Board Adrienne DeDonna; Todd Prager; Cheryl Caines
Subject: Interesting article about the current shortage of needed housing in America
Adrienne,
Interesting article about the 3.28 million unit shortage of needed housing in America and how
that all works.
http://www.nbnnews.com/NBN/issues/2010-11-15/Front%2BPage/index.html
Ken Gertz
President
Gertz Fine Homes
Voice 503-692-3390
Fax 503-692-5433
1
-17-
Patty Lunsford
From: Ken Gertz [Ken@Gertzco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 1:50 PM
To: Bill McMonagle
Cc: Darren Wyss; Jay Harris; Marland Henderson (external); Todd Prager; aland@worldstar.com;
erniep@hbapdx.org; Tree Board Adrienne DeDonna
Subject: Re: SPECIFIC TREE GROVES
Adrrienne,
This from Bill McMonagle, a respected Local Engineer and and long time business owner and resident. Please attach to
the next packet.
Ken Gertz
President
Gertz Fine Homes
Voice 503-692-3390
Fax 503-692-5433
On 12/7/2010 11:48 AM, Bill McMonagle wrote:
& _�
ALxvv&&ftvjr Zncm
�wea�sr� a■r
TUA /sem-his -■■moi o�
DARREN, I HAD PREVIOUSLY FOUND THE PAGE YOU SENT ME BUT THIS IS NOT DETAILED ENOUGH
TO SHOW WHICH TAX LOTS ARE AFFECTED. AS A PROPERTY OWNER I SHOULD BE ABLE TO
ACCESS A MAP THAT SHOWS MY TAX LOT AND HAVE THE IMPACT OF A TREE GROVE UPON THAT
PORTION OF MY PROPERTY SHOWN.
IN ACTUALITY THE TREE GROVE IS A RESTRICTED USE ISSUE THAT AFFECTS THE DENSITY OF THE
CURRENT ZONING OF THE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE THE VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY.
WHILE THE CITY HAS VARIOUS COMMITTEES INVOLVED IN ATTEMPTING TO COME UP WITH A
WORKABLE TREE PRESERVATION CODE, UNTIL EACH AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER IS
SPECIFICALLY SHOWN THE AFFECT THE PROPOSED CODE WILL HAVE ON THE USE OF THEIR
PROPERTY, THIS CODE IN MY OPINION IS DOMED TO FAILURE.
IF THE THOUGHT IS TO ALLOW THE INTENSITY/ DENSITY UPON THE LAND TO INCREASE THE
RESIDENTS OF OTHER LANDS ADJACENT TO THE TREE AFFECTED SITE WILL COMPLAIN AND
RIGHTLY SO.
IT HAS BEEN AT LEAST 2-PLUS YEARS THAT THIS TREE CODE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AND IT
CONTINUES. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE QUESTION THAT REALLY NEEDS TO ANSWERED IS "IF THE
DESIRE OF THE CITY IS TO CREATE A WORKING TREE CANOPY" THEN WHY NOT JUST CONDITION
EACH LOT DEPENDING ON ITS SIZE TO PLANT A CERTAIN NUMBER OF TREES WHEN THE HOMES
i
-18-
ARE CONSTRUCTED. IT SEEMS THIS GETS THE JOB DONE, IT'S SIMPLE TO KEEP TRACK OF AND
BESIDES I WOULD BE WILLING TO BET THAT THE CITY WOULD NOT GET VERY MANY IF ANY
COMPLAINTS IN FACT YOU WOULD MOST GET COMPLEMENTS AND BECOME A MODEL FOR
REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT.
BILL MC
z
-19-
Patty Lunsford
From: Ken Gertz [Ken@Gertzco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 11:32 AM
To: Tree Board Adrienne DeDonna; Todd Prager; Ernie Platt; Dave Nielson
Subject: Response to Mr. Frewing e-mail of November 7, 2010
Response to Mr. Frewing e-mail of November 7, 2010
Please attach to the packet.
As I did not have the original e-mail to work from, I will just list my comments and you will have to refer to Mr
Frewing's e-mail for his original proposals.
1: I am interested to hear John's thoughts about how this would work and not be discriminatory. My
preference is to apply the tree code evenly across the city, thereby not singling out one group of people more
than the other as the code does today. I think the common goal is to provide additional safe canopy throughout
the City either by planting, and when reasonable, saving existing trees, but it shouldn't be a prerequisite.
2: A Tree plan should only be required for the area of disturbance. No plan should be required if no disturbance
or if x% of area is left undisturbed. There should be a prescriptive path that any home Owner can follow. If
permits are too complicated, when changes are made to property it encourages the owner to proceed without
any permits at all.
3: Fair and equitable tree code a must in my opinion.
4: As long as it does not deter the property owners ability to develop their property to its potential as stated in
the UFMP.
5: I think a balanced tree plan will do that without deterring the property owner's ability to develop their
property to its potential
6: Social value of trees is not quantifiable and has no special relevance in a development code. Codes require
clear and objective standards.
7: Change of ownership is a challenge. Once the property leaves the control of the Developer, he has little or
no control over what the succeeding owners do or do not do with their property. Deed restrictions are
ineffective, and were overwhelmingly disliked at our last meeting.
8: As long as it does not deter the property owners ability to develop their property to its potential as stated in
the UFMP.
9: I think"May" should stay. The Director should have the ability to wave any penalties just as a Judge has the
ability to wave penalties in court. There are too many unforeseen problems that may happen where a tree owner
should not be penalized.
10: I disagree. This would add an additional layer of red tape to an already cumbersome process with no
appreciable improvement in outcome. I believe the City of Tigard should have sole jurisdiction over their tree
canopy. They have a capable staff and know what their goals are, as well as what is expected in the
surrounding area. Other entities currently have the opportunity to comment on developments. Trying to get
anything out of CWS, PGE etc. is already like pulling teeth, and I doubt that they would be very interested in
adding to their work load. I know of no other jurisdiction that asks for comments on trees and it would open the
door to more opportunity for appeals.
11: The Developer is required to hire expert consultants in the development of a tree plan. I believe a
Professional Arborist, the Project Engineer, City Arborist and the City Engineer are fully capable of
1
-20-
determining if a tree should be saved, or if trees should be planted instead. Trying to justify various methods for
saving or not saving a tree should not be required. The tree code needs to be clear and objective and trying to
come up with a quantifiable set of guidelines applicable to any situation is impossible to achieve, and would
leave the City open to appeal after appeal and a massive loss of time and money .
12: I believe deed restrictions are a waste of time and effort. If a future owner wants to kill a tree, there is little
anyone can do about it. One would hope that trees are being planted at a rate that would sustain the loss of an
occasional tree without having to go to court. Additionally, I doubt the City could enforce a deed restriction
even if they had the resources to do it. Deed restrictions of any kind are overwhelmingly disliked by the
public. All you have to do is ask yourself, given two similar properties, would you buy, the one with or the one
without a deed restriction?
Thank you for your consideration
Ken Gertz
Gertz Fine Homes
2
-21-
URBAN FORESTRY STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT: ADDITIONAL NEEDS AND IDEAS FOR
IMPROVEMENT
(proposed by John Frewing, responses provided by Ken Gertz)
1. Create overlay zones where enhancement of the urban forest is most needed and reflect this
need in development regulations.
1 am interested to hear John's thoughts about how this would work and not be discriminatory.
My preference is to apply the tree code evenly across the city, thereby not singling out one group
of people more than the other as the code does today. I think the common goal is to provide
additional safe canopy throughout the City either by planting, and when reasonable, saving
existing trees, but it shouldn't be a prerequisite.
2. Sharpen the definition of development so as to require a tree plan whenever a building permit
is requested over$X thousand dollars; include demolition permits as items requiring a tree
protection plan.
A Tree plan should only be required for the area of disturbance. No plan should be required if no
disturbance or if x%of area is left undisturbed. There should be a prescriptive path that any
home Owner can follow. If permits are too complicated, when changes are made to property it
encourages the owner to proceed without any permits at all.
3. As suggested in the questionnaire,give rewards to development sites with trees when x
density is retained, require a minimum density of new trees on sites without trees.
Fair and equitable tree code a must in my opinion.
4. Reflect the comp plan purpose in the purpose statement of 18.790—"enlarge, improve,
sustain'our urban forest.
As long as it does not deter the property owners ability to develop their property to its potential
as stated in the UFMP.
5. In development regulations implement the comp plan finding that'mature and well managed
trees lead to maximum public benefits'—give special weight to preserving such trees. Mature
trees consume as much as 1000 times more CO2 than small trees.
1 think a balanced tree plan will do that without deterring the property owner's ability to develop
their property to its potential.
6. Add the general term 'social'to the acknowledged value of trees; see for example the recent
Oregonian article on better safety in treed neighborhoods.
Social value of trees is not quantifiable and has no special relevance in a development code.
Codes require clear and objective standards.
7. Implement the comp plan charge in Action Measure ii to address the 'challenges of change of
ownership' as a site goes through the development, build, own cycle.
-22-
Change of ownership is a challenge. Once the property leaves the control of the Developer, he
has little or no control over what the succeeding owners do or do not do with their property.
Deed restrictions are ineffective, and were overwhelmingly disliked at our last meeting.
8. In mitigation rules,follow the comp plan policy and action plans to'minimize reduction of
existing tree cover'; a 2"tree does not compensate at all for a 16"tree when it comes to tree
cover.
As long as it does not deter the property owners ability to develop their property to its potential
as stated in the UFMP.
9. Provide minimum penalties in the enforcement section of the tree code, replacing words
which say the city"may" impose some penalties.
1 think "May"should stay. The Director should have the ability to wave any penalties just as a
Judge has the ability to wave penalties in court. There are too many unforeseen problems that
may happen where a tree owner should not be penalized.
10. Require 'coordination'of tree plan provisions with the needs of other government agencies by
providing notice and opportunity for review/comment.
I disagree. This would add an additional layer of red tape to an already cumbersome process
with no appreciable improvement in outcome. 1 believe the City of Tigard should have sole
jurisdiction over their tree canopy. They have a capable staff and know what their goals are, as
well as what is expected in the surrounding area. Other entities currently have the opportunity
to comment on developments. Trying to get anything out of CWS, PGE etc. is already like pulling
teeth, and 1 doubt that they would be very interested in adding to their work load. 1 know of no
other jurisdiction that asks for comments on trees and it would open the door to more
opportunity for appeals.
11. Specify how the preference for'protection' or'retention'over'removal' in the code is to be
shown, eg by comparison of alternatives for the site.
The Developer is required to hire expert consultants in the development of a tree plan. 1 believe
a Professional Arborist, the Project Engineer, City Arborist and the City Engineer are fully capable
of determining if a tree should be saved, or if trees should be planted instead. Trying to justify
various methods for saving or not saving a tree should not be required. The tree code needs to
be clear and objective and trying to come up with a quantifiable set of guidelines applicable to
any situation is impossible to achieve, and would leave the City open to appeal after appeal and
a massive loss of time and money.
12. Modify the regulations regarding a 'deed restriction'for retained trees to require that such
deed restriction be filed with City of Tigard and become part of the development file record.
/believe deed restrictions area waste of time and effort. If a future owner wants to kill a tree,
there is little anyone can do about it. One would hope that trees are being planted at a rate that
would sustain the loss of an occasional tree without having to go to court. Additionally, 1 doubt
the City could enforce a deed restriction even if they had the resources to do it. Deed restrictions
of any kind are overwhelmingly disliked by the public. All you have to do is ask yourself, given
two similar properties, would you buy, the one with or the one without a deed restriction?
-23-
13. The city cost of$125 per caliper inch for tree planting has been in effect for many years;
inflation has affected every other cost of the city—this cost should be updated in the code.
-24-
ODFW TREE RECOMMENDATIONS for City Development Codes
Created by: Elizabeth Ruther,District Habitat Biologist
Last revision: 12/21/10
Background Information
Trees provide many needs for wildlife. In urban areas they are particularly important for birds.
Trees provide food(nectar, insects, seeds,bark),places to nest,and places to hide/escape,rest, or
perch while hunting for food.
When bird habitat is gone,birds react two ways. They go elsewhere or their population declines
when reproduction success drops, eventually leading to smaller populations and extinction.
Unfortunately,the latter is occurring more than the former because `elsewhere' doesn't
necessarily exist if a given bird species has specific habitat needs. The common birds we know so
well, like jays, crows,robins, and sparrows, are called generalists because they adapt to change
well and even have learned how to exploit the human landscape for their benefit.Many,many
other bird species are called specialists and do not thrive in the human landscape.Among the list
of needs includes specific trees, specific nesting sites, and specific food sources. These are the
species of birds that are declining in the region. Slight changes in tree management can greatly
offset impacts to these species and help stabilize, if not increase,their populations.
It is important to understand the value of mature trees and the length of time that value is lost
after a mature tree is removed.Not only do large trees increase property value,provide cooling
shade,and nice views,they provide habitat that is not replaced by young `mitigation' plantings.
Trees mature over long periods of time. The quickest(relatively speaking)are riparian trees(30-
50 years)and others,like oak take much longer(100-200 years). Mature trees provide habitat
structure,nesting sites, and food sources that young trees don't provide.When applied to standing
dead tress (snags), add the time to maturity that is mentioned above plus the time the tree lives
after it matures and it becomes clear why snags are becoming rarer in the area. Depending on the
species,mature tree snags take 30 to 300 years or greater to replace. Every time a mature tree or
snag is removed for development, depending on the species, it may take from one to multiple
human lifetimes to replace the value that is lost. From this perspective,it is important to know
what tree resources the City possesses,how to reduce long term impacts, and conserve/support
mature tree habitat within City limits.
The recommendations in this document stem from impacts observed while commenting on land
use applications. The recommendations are structured so that the recommendation is underlined
and stated first. The reasoning for the recommendation is provided in the paragraph following
each recommendation.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are actions that the City of Tigard could implement to increase
the wildlife-friendliness of the city and support the bird populations that are declining the region.
1) Consider requiring only native species be planted in developments. Require `street trees'
be native species. At the very least,replace native trees with native trees.
Native trees that have evolved with our native bird species are often removed during
development of commercial and residential buildings and non-native trees are planted in their
-25-
place.Non-native trees do not necessarily provide the same services as the native tree that
native birds use. For instance,non-native trees may have a different branch structure that
doesn't support the nest of a native bird, or a food source is lost because insect communities
change from tree species to tree species. Also,the non-native tree may not have the tendency
to produce cavities like a native tree,resulting in the removal of nesting habitat. There are
many aesthetically pleasing native trees that also have the bonus of providing great habitat.
2) Require planting plans from developers that consider spatial arrangement and vertical
structure as well as species and quantity of trees.
Landscape with wildlife in mind.Planting plans for commercial development have limited
habitat function. Habitat is made up of a number of factors,not just a certain plant. Spatial
arrangement of plants is also important. Planting in clusters of 3-5 of the same native shrub
provides more habitat than 5 shrubs equally spaced. The current tradition of planting one tree
every 20 feet is not natural and has limited habitat potential. One tree and two shrubs, or
clumping three trees nearer each other is better than a row of widely spaced trees for birds. It
also has the benefit of being more aesthetically pleasing.
3) Consider implementing a snag removal permitting process similar to the tree removal
permit process encouraging avoidance first,trimming second, and requiring removal
mitigation third.
a. Leave snags when possible.
b. If there is a public safety concern, determine safety hazard. If only part of the tree
is hazardous,trim offending branch(es),leaving as much of the snag as possible.
c. If all branches are unsafe,trim branches and leave the trunk.
d. If the trunk is very tall and considered unsafe, leave 20—40 feet.
e. Snags in n City parks are the easiest to maintain because structures areeg n�X
not nearby and the property is publicly owned. Plant underneath the tree to
provide a branch drop zone that is people-free.
Dead trees (snags) are very important habitat elements. Raptors like to perch on them,birds
that don't nest in other trees nest in them,the insects that are eating the dead wood feed
woodpeckers and other species. However, dead trees can also be considered a safety hazard.
A more detailed decision process about the dead tree and its removal can remove the safety
hazard,while maintaining some of the tree for habitat.
4) Require that dead trees be inventoried.
Right now, the arborist report that developers are required to obtain for the City's permitting
process do not inventory dead trees and they are removed as if they don't exist. Dead trees
are a natural resource and it is important for the city to be aware of how much of the resource
is being removed in order to make an educated decision about the policy surrounding this
resource.
5) Implement a tree removal season: September I't to February I",with special
consideration given to the months of August and March.
Right now,many trees are removed during the nesting season,the most critical time for birds.
During the nesting season,a usually wide-ranging group,they are bound to one place(their
nest), and they use an amazing amount to energy to build the nest,reproduce, find food for
their offspring, and protect their territory. For many species, if their nest is removed,that is it
-26-
for the season and a nest that could have produced 1-2 offspring failed. The cumulative
effects on bird populations from tree removal during this time become clear. It is important
to remove trees/shrubs in preparation for construction,for yard maintenance, or to remove a
hazard tree, outside of the critical nesting period.The critical nesting period for birds is April
1St to August 1St. Many raptors begin nesting earlier than April 1St,as does Anna's
Hummingbird. The ideal tree removal season is from September 1St to January 1St. It is
important to note that active nests(occupied)are protected by federal law under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This Act has been getting more attention in the last year. The City
of Portland implemented their vegetation removal season this year.
6) Require that tree habitat potential be included tree inventories.
Currently, arborist reports grade trees on their condition and determine removal through this
established system. However, less than perfect trees(i.e. lopsided crowns, a stumpy dead
branch, a hole in the branch or trunk) are the trees that provide the most niches and habitat for
wildlife and are also the most frequently removed based on the current approach to inventory.
Habitat value should be considered when grading a tree's condition and less than perfect
trees,if healthy overall, should not be removed.
-27-
City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Code Revisions — Project Timeline
Project Kickoff
_ Assessment and Collaboration
I I I I I I I I
Draft Code Revisions
Peer
Review
Adoption Process
(_�R c�R CaR C)R c�R CaR cap CaR cat c�R c�R &i q cue (IR cap O O O O
Hazard Hazard Street Use of Dev.Code I Dev.Code I Dev.Code II Dev.Code II Compre- Compre- Planning Planning City City
Trees Trees Trees Current hensive hensive Commission Commission Council Council
Tree Dev.Code II Tree Tree Review Review Workshop Hearing Workshop Hearing
Use of Replace- (Tree Grove Permit Permit of all of all
Current ment Preservation Require- Require- Code Code
Tree Fund Program) ments ments Changes Changes
Replace-
ment Dev.Code I
Fund (Tree Plan
Requirements)
Existing Grove,
GIS Review
Tree Grove Inventory
ESEE Analysis Report
1
Draft Program
I I I I I I
® c�3 Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting c�ROTechnical Advisory Committee Meeting O Planning Commission or Council Meeting
*Dates for Planning Commission and City Council meetings are subject to change.Please check the city's website for updates.
-28-
q
Staff Response to November 10, 2010 CAC Comments on the
y , Preliminary Draft of the Resolution Clarifying the Allowed Uses of the Existing Tree Replacement Fund
CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE
SECTION
1. Most members thought that the language in The "Grading and Filling"bullet in Exhibit A has been removed and language Exhibit A
Exhibit A could be more specific to ensure that has been added to the "Soil Preparation" and"Soil Amendment" bullets to
existing mitigation funds spent on grading and clarify that grading and filling activities shall be the minimum necessary for the
unwanted plant removal be used for the limited purpose of preparing compacted or low fertility soils for tree planting.
purpose of what is required for tree planting.
2. One member thought that the fund should not be Establishing a finish grade (grading) is necessary for some projects, especially Exhibit A
used for grading at all. when tilling is required to amend or relieve compacted soils. The language in the
"Soil Preparation" and "Soil Amendment" bullets in Exhibit A has been clarified
to avoid grading that is unrelated or indirectly related tree planting.
3. One member suggested moving the sentences Items relating to grading and filling have been included in the "Soil Preparation" Exhibit A
about unwanted plant removal and grading and filling and "Soil Amendment" bullets as described above. Staff's recommendation is to
to the "Soil Preparation" bullet. leave "Unwanted Plant Removal" as a separate bullet since that activity is more
distinct. Language has been added to the "Unwanted Plant Removal' bullet to
specify that it shall be the minimum necessary to allow the planting of trees.
-29-
q
Staff Response to November 10, 2010 CAC Comments on the
y , Preliminary Draft of the Resolution Clarifying the Allowed Uses of the Existing Tree Replacement Fund
CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE
SECTION
4. Members were concerned about how much money In the introduction to Exhibit A,language has been added to place a limit on Exhibit A
was spent on site prep for planting trees with little costs. This is intended to alleviate concerns about runaway costs for grading,
value. One member suggested that there should be a unwanted plant removal, etc. The limit on the average cost to plant a tree in a
limit for how much money is spent on site particular year is proposed to be no more than 10%greater than the Tree
preparation, such as applying a ratio of$250-275 per Replacement Fee in the City's Master Fees and Charges Schedule (which is
caliper tree inch. Others generally agreed. reviewed and adopted annually by Council) for that particular year.
For example, this fiscal year's Tree Replacement Fee is $125/caliper inch or
$250 to plant a 2 inch caliper (average size) tree. Under this proposal,with the
10% contingency the City would be able to spend no more than $137.50/caliper
inch or$275.00 to plant a 2 inch caliper tree on average for all projects this fiscal
year.
This would allow some more expensive projects to occur in a given year as long
as they are balanced with some less expensive projects and the average cost is
equivalent to the Tree Replacement Fee. The 10% contingency is standard in
construction and is proposed to account for unknowns that may occur.
Staff has included language and recommends adding flexibility by allowing
Council to approve more expensive projects if they determine it furthers the
public interest.
5. All members agreed that the fund should not be Long term "maintenance"has been revised to "three (3) years of early Resolution
used to support maintenance for the lifetime of the establishment"in the proposed Resolution and Exhibit A to reflect the CAC's Exhibit A
tree after planting on public property. Most thought consensus that tree maintenance beyond 3 years should come from another
that using the fund for 2-3 years of maintenance for funding source.
public trees was adequate.
6. One member suggested that the mitigation fund The proposal has been revised consistent with the CAC majority to specify that Resolution
pay for maintenance for up to 5-7 years for trees up to 3 years only of early establishment could be covered by the Fund. Exhibit A
planted on private property.
-30-
q
Staff Response to November 10, 2010 CAC Comments on the
y , Preliminary Draft of the Resolution Clarifying the Allowed Uses of the Existing Tree Replacement Fund
CAC COMMENT STAFF RESPONSE CODE
SECTION
7. One member worried about the difficulty in an City's staff is developing a system using existing technology whereby
accounting system that tries to keep separate expenditures and work orders can be tied to tree planting projects and individual
mitigation trees from other trees. trees as recommended in the Urban Forestry Master Plan. The project manager
for the Tree Replacement Fund can code project costs to specific projects or
trees when paying invoices.
8. One member expressed concern over who was Currently when the City plants trees for private property owners through the Exhibit A
responsible for maintaining trees planted on private free street tree program, the property owner is required to sign a contract saying
property with a conservation easement on it. they will maintain the trees after planting and hold the City harmless for any
claims relating to the tree. Current practice is proposed to be carried forward in
the introduction to Exhibit A by recording the stipulations of such planting
partnerships in writing.
9. One member expressed approval of the language in This language is proposed to remain. Exhibit A
Exhibit A about striving to find partnerships for
plantings and maintenance, and to stipulate those
artnershi s in writing.
-31-
_ City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Use of the Current Tree Replacement Fund
Date: November 16,2010
The Urban Forestry Code Revisions (UFCR) Citizen Advisory Committee(CAC)provided staff with input
on the topic of"use of the current Tree Replacement Fund"at their October 13,2010 and November 10,
2010 meetings. Staff will carry forward this portion of the UFCR project as a Resolution for Council's
consideration. Resolutions represent a formal decision by Council and typically consist of two main parts.
The first part are the "whereas" clauses which provide background for why a particular decision is being
made. The second part is the"now therefore be it resolved"section which describes the action being taken.
Exhibits are also commonly referenced in Resolutions when there is lengthy or detailed information
associated with Resolutions.
Staff is proposing that the"whereas"clauses of the preliminary draft Resolution include the following:
• WHEREAS,Ordinance 98-19 established Chapter 18.790,and the Tree Removal standards in
the Tigard Development Code;and
• WHEREAS,the Tree Removal standards include a formula for tree replacement proportional
to the percentage and size of trees removed during development;and
• WHEREAS,the Tree Removal standards allow for an"in-lieu of"tree replacement payment by
developers that do not perform tree replacement themselves to cover the City's cost of tree
replacement;and
• WHEREAS,the City established Tree Replacement Fund Number 260 to accept"in-lieu of
tree replacement payments;and
• WHEREAS,the Tree Removal standards and the Tree Replacement Fund are not specific on
the allowed uses of funds collected as"in-lieu of'tree replacement payments;and
• WHEREAS,on February 16,2010 City Council directed City staff to clarify the allowed uses of
the Tree Replacement Fund as part of the Urban Forestry Code Revisions project;and
-32-
• WHEREAS,City staff has worked with community volunteers including the Urban Forestry
Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee and Tigard Tree Board to identify appropriate
uses of the Tree Replacement Fund that will support the City's broader urban forestry goals;
and
• WHEREAS,the consensus view expressed by the community volunteers to City staff was to
use the Tree Replacement Fund for activities necessary for the planting of trees and three 3
ears ofkarly establishment _of such trees to support the City's broader urban Comment[tpi]:The term"maintenance"is
forestry goals. changed to"three(3)years of early
establishment'to reflect the CAC's consensus
that long term maintenance(past 3 years)
Staff is proposing that the"now therefore be it resolved"section of the preliminary draft Resolution include the should come from another funding source.
following:
• SECTION 1: The Tree Replacement Fund Number 260 shall be renamed the Urban Forestry
Fund Number 260 to reflect its broader purposes.
• SECTION 2: The allowed uses of funds that have been or will be collected under the
auspices of Ordinance 98-19 and Chapter 18.790 of the Tigard Development Code,deposited
into the Tree Replacement Fund Number 260 (now known as the Urban Forestry Fund
Number 260),and available for City use shall be limited to only those tree planting and three 3
years of early establishment activities more fully described in Exhibit A.
• SECTION 3: This resolution shall be effective beginning Fiscal Year 2012 on July 1,2011.
"*xhibit A"is proposed to specify the tree planting and three 3)years of early establishment t-
activities that can be funded by the Urban Forestry Fund.
-33-
Exhibit A
Introduction
The Urban Forestry Fund Number 260(formerly the Tree Replacement Fund Number 260)shall be available for
City use to pay for the labor and materials necessary to complete only those activities listed below for tree planting
site planning,tree planting site preparation,tree planting,and three(3vears of earl tree establishment after
L _��_,.
pplanting -��whether on public or private property within the city]units of Tigard. The activities listed Comment[tp1]:3 years ofearly establishment
below are intended only for trees that have been or will be planted using Urban Forestry Fund Number 260. The has been added to specify that the Fund will not
cover any maintenance activities more than 3 years
activities listed below will only be implemented when determined necessary by the City for a particular tree planting after planting.
project.
When considering where to implement particular tree planting projects,the City shall consider both short and long
term costs and benefits,as well as how the projects will further the City's urban forestry goals. The City shall strive
to identify partnerships for planting and three(3)years of early tree establishment after planting- teti-Ilee
aeav=. whenever possible,and record the stipulations of partnerships in writing. The City shall record and track
information about each tree planting project in a publicly accessible inventory of trees and forests.], The average cost
to a plant and provide three(3)years of early establishment for each tree planted in a particular year shall be no
more than 10%greater than the Tree Replacement Fee in the City of Tigard's Master Fees and Charges Schedule
for that particular year unless otherwise approved by Tigard City Council. Comment[tp2]:This was added to provide a
reasonable limit to the costs of tree planting projects
that the City undertakes.Some flexibility is added to
Approved Tree Planting and Three(3)Years of Early Establishment"lai�� ���Activities allow some more expensive projects to occur in a
particular year as long as they are balanced by less
expensive projects in the same year. 10%
Tree Planting Site Planning contingency is added so the project cost is not
• Site Survey—Including by not limited to a survey of soil conditions,topography,drainage,water sources,water required to be exactly the cost in the Master Fees and
Charges Schedule since there are often unknowns
pressure,water availability,above and below ground utilities,buildings,infrastructure,street lights,intersections,street with construction. Tigard city council is proposed
signs,driveways,fire hydrants,existing trees,existing landscaping,existing pests and diseases,existing drainage,and to be given the authority to allow modifications to
project cost if they determine it is in the public's
any other existing site conditions that may be relevant to a particular tree planting project. interest.
• Lab Tests—Including but not limited to the collection and preparation of soil and/or plant samples for analysis by a
qualified testing laboratory in preparation for a tree planting project. The purpose of the tests may include but not be
limited to determining soil texture,soil fertility,and existing pests and diseases.
• Site Plan Preparation—Preparation of accurately scaled landscape drawings that reflect both existing site conditions
and future tree planting plans. Information displayed on the plans may include but not be limited to the site survey
information listed above,as well as proposed tree planting locations,proposed irrigation installations,proposed soil
amendments,proposed tree protection and erosion control materials and methods,proposed planting
details/specifications,proposed irrigation details/specifications and other information relevant to a particular project.
• Permit Acquisition—Securing of federal,state,regional,local and any other permits required for the execution and/or
completion of a particular tree planting project.
Tree Planting Site Preparation
• Tree Protection—Including but not limited to the planning,installation,monitoring,and removal of tree protection
methods and devices for existing site trees with the potential to be directly impacted by a particular tree planting
project. Tree protection shall be in a manner consistent with generally accepted industry standards for tree care
practices detailed in the most current version of the American National Standards Institute(ANSI)A300 Standards
for Tree Care Operations.In addition,the tree protection shall be in accordance with all federal,state,regional,and
local rules and regulations.
Page 1of4
-34-
Exhibit A
Unwanted Plant Removal—Including but not limited to the removal of unwanted plants by physical,mechanical,
biological and/or chemical means in order to prepare a particular site for tree planting in accordance with all federal,
state,regional,and local rules and regulationsl. Unwanted plant removal shall be the minimum necessary to prepare a
particular site for tree planting,and shall not be for the purpose of large scale unwanted plant removal unrelated or
indirectly related to tree planting, Comment[tp3]:Further clarification was added
as requested by the CAC to specify that the Fund
•
> should not be used for things like invasive species
control.Unwanted plants should only be removed if
------------------ it is required to allow for the planting of trees.The
• Drainage Installation—Including but not limited to the installation of drainage systems such as French drains,boring Fund should not be used as a guise for unrelated or
through hardpan soil layers,and otherwise amending/altering existing soli conditions to facilitate drainage in indirectly related activities.
accordance with all federal,state,regional,and local rules and regulations if required for a particular tree planting Comment[tp4]:The grading and filling item has
been removed as a separate bullet and included in the
project. Soil Preparation and Soil Amendment bullets to
clarify that grading and filling needs to be directly
• Irrigation Installation—Including but not limited to the installation of irrigation systems such as above or below linked to soil improvement activities directly tied to
ground sprinkler systems,as well as drip irrigation for the purpose of delivering water to trees if required for a tree planting.
particular tree planting project. Irrigation installation may include but not be limited to the additional requirements
such as installation of water meters,backflow preventers,valves,pumps,sprinkler heads,laterals,automatic timers,
and other equipment depending on the scope,requirements,and objectives for the particular tree planting project.
Irrigation installation shall be in accordance with all federal,state,regional,and local rules and regulations,and the
most current revision of the Irrigation Association's,Turf and Landscape Irrigation Best Management Practices.
• Soil Preparation—Including but not limited to the loosening-armtilling,import,removal,and/or finish grading of
soil in order to prepare compacted soil areas for tree planting in accordance with all federal,state,regional,and local
rules and regulations if required for a particular tree planting project. Grading and filling shall be the minimum
necessary to,prepare a particular site for tree planting,and shall not be for the purpose of mass grading or filling
unrelated or indirectly related to tree plantinua _ Comment[tp5]:Further clarification was added
as requested by the CAC to specify that the Fund
• Soil Amendment—Including but not limited to the amendment of soils with inadequate or low fertility with organic should not be used for things like mass grading and
materials,fertilizers,or other soil amendments at the required depth and ratio necessary to support tree growth if filling.The Fund should not be used as a guise for
required for a particular tree planting project. Soil amendment also includes necessary loosening,tilling,import, unrelated or indirectly related activities.
removal,and/or finish grading as described in the Soil Preparation item above in order to properly amend soil for tree
planting.Grading and filling shall be the minimum necessary to prepare as particular site for tree planting,and shall
not be for the,purpose of mass grading or filling unrelated or indirectly related to tree planing Comment[tp6]:Further clarification was added
as requested by the CAC to specify that the Fund
• Erosion Control—Including the planning,installation,monitoring,and removal of erosion control devices in should not be used for things like mass grading and
accordance with all federal,state,regional,and local rules and regulations prior to tree planting site activities when filling.The Fund should not be used as a guise for
required by a particular permit or project. unrelated or indirectly related activities.
Tree Planting
• Tree Selection and Purchase—Including the selection and purchase of the species,size,and number of trees identified
for a particular tree planting project. Trees shall meet the standards detailed in the most recent edition of the
American Standard for Nursery Stock(ANSI Z-60.1).
• Tree Delivery and Storage—Including but not limited to the delivery and storage of trees and associated materials in a
manner that protects the trees and associated materials from damage.
• Tree Planting—Including but not limited to the planting of trees in a manner consistent with generally accepted
industry standards for tree care practices detailed in the most current version of the American National Standards
Institute(ANSI)A300 Standards for Tree Care Operations. In addition,the tree planting shall be in accordance with
all federal,state,regional,and local rules and regulations.
Page 2 of 4
-35-
Exhibit A
• Root Barrier Installation—Including but not limited to the installation of root barriers per the manufacturers'
specifications for the purpose of protecting hardscape,infrastructure,utilities,and other features when required by a
particular permit or project.
• Tree Staking and Guying—Including but not limited to the staking and guying of any new planted tree identified as
requiring supplemental support in order to remain upright. Staking and guying shall be in a manner consistent with
generally accepted industry standards for tree care practices detailed in the most current version of the American
National Standards Institute(ANSI)A300 Standards for Tree Care Operations. Stakes and guys shall be monitored to
ensure they are not causing tree damage,and shall be removed as soon as a tree is able to stand upright without
supplemental support.
• Tree Protection from Wildlife—Including but not limited to the installation,monitoring,and removal of plant tubing
or wire caging for the purpose of protecting newly planted trees from damage or death from wildlife if required for a
particular tree planting project.
• Mulch Installation—Including but not limited to the installation of mulch in the form of wood chips,shavings,or
other acceptable material around the bases of newly planted trees in a manner consistent with generally accepted
industry standards for tree care practices.
Three(3)Years of Early Tree Establishment"lain4e a—ee
• Truck or Hand Watering of Trees—Including but not limited to the delivery and application of specified quantities
and frequencies of water during specified time periods using a tanker truck,hoses,and/or other equipment when
required for the survival of trees.
• Irrigation System Maintenance—Including but not limited to programming,monitoring,and maintenance of irrigation
systems necessary for the application of specified quantities and frequencies of water during specified time periods
required for the survival of the trees. Irrigation programming,monitoring,and maintenance shall be in accordance
with the most current revision of the Irrigation Association's,Turf and Landscape Irrigation Best Management Practices if
required for a particular tree planting project.
• Tree Pruning—Including but not limited to pruning of trees in a manner consistent with generally accepted industry
standards for tree care practices detailed in the most current version of the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI)A300 Standards for Tree Care Operations. Pruning objectives shall include the removal of dead,dying,and
diseased tree parts,establishment of strong tree structure,development of a desirable form,abatement of tree hazards,
and compliance with branch clearance requirements and other federal,state,regional,and local rules and regulations.
• Unwanted Plant Removal—Including but not limited to the removal of unwanted plants by physical,mechanical,
biological and/or chemical means in accordance with all federal,state,regional,and local rules and regulations in
order to limit competition and allow trees to survive and thrive if required for a particular tree planting project.
Unwanted plant removal shall be the minimum necessary to allow trees to survive and thrive,and shall not be for the
purpose of large scale unwanted plant removal unrelated or indirectly related to three(3)years of early tree
establishment. Comment[tp7]:Further clarification was added
as requested by the CAC to specify that the Fund
• Pest and Disease Control—Including but not limited to the control of tree pests and diseases using physical, should not be used for things tike invasive species
mechanical,biological and/or chemical means in accordance with all federal,state,regional,and local rules and control. Unwanted plants should only be removed if
it is required to allow for trees to survive and thrive.
regulations in order to allow trees to survive and thrive if required for a particular tree planting project. The Fund should not be used as a guise for unrelated
• Tree InventorY—Includin but not limited the use of global positioning system(GPS)and geographic information or indirectly related activities.
system(GIS)technology to identify the location,species,planting date,three(3)years of early tree establishment
tee-activities,fund expenditures and other pertinent information for a publicly accessible tree and urban
forest inventory.
Page 3 of 4
-36-
Exhibit A
• Tree Debris Disposal—Including but not limited to the collection and disposal of all debris generated from tree
planting site preparation,tree planting,and three(33vears of earlytree establishment min accordance with
all federal,state,regional,and local rules and regulations.
Page 4 of 4
-37-
City of Tigard
. . Memorandum
To: Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Todd Prager,Associate Planner/Arborist
Re: Staff Proposal for Addressing CAC Input on Urban Forestry Standards for
Development from the November 10, 2010 Meeting
Date: January 5, 2011
Introduction
The Urban Forestry Code Revisions (UFCR) Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) completed a web survey
for the topic of Urban Forestry Standards for Development. At the November 10, 2010 meeting, the CAC
confirmed the areas where there was general agreement as demonstrated in the web survey, and further
discussed the areas of general disagreement in the web survey to see if consensus could be reached on those
issues through small group discussion.
Staff has listed below the areas of general agreement, areas of general disagreement, the results of the
November 10, 2010 CAC discussion on the areas of general disagreement, and staffs preliminary proposal
on how to address the CAC's input. Staff would like to determine whether the CAC is generally
comfortable with the direction of staffs preliminary proposal. Staff anticipates returning at the February
2011 CAC meeting with a more detailed proposal based on the additional CAC input at the January 2011
meeting.
-38-
Discussion
AREAS OF GENERAL AGREEMENT
Question 5 - If the City adopts a tree density standard and gives extra credit for preservation of
quality trees, which of the following would best define quality trees and implement the City's urban
forestry goals?
• A mix of young to mature native trees in good condition (excluding native tree types that can be
a nuisance).
• Mature native trees in good condition (excluding native tree types that can be a nuisance).
• A mix of young to mature trees of any type in good condition that are not nuisance species.
• Mature trees of any type in good condition that are not nuisance species.
Question 5 Web Survey Results -The City should give credit for preserving non-nuisance tree types (native or
non-native) that are in good condition and ranging from young to mature. However there is disagreement among
the group whether or not there should be a base level of tree preservation required.
Staff Proposal — Require all major development projects to achieve 40% effective tree canopy at maturity
through any combination of tree planting,tree preservation, or payment of a tree canopy fee in lieu-of planting or
preservation. Nuisance species would not receive canopy credit for planting or preservation. Preservation of
existing trees 6 inch DBH or greater (whether native or not)would be incentivized by allowing double the canopy
credit for preservation (e.g. preservation of 20% of existing canopy is worth the same as newly planted trees that
will achieve 40%canopy at maturity). No baseline level of preservation would be required.
Question 6 - If the City adopts a tree density standard would it implement the City's urban forestry
goals to give credit for required landscape trees such as street trees, parking lot trees, and buffer
trees?
Question 6 Web Survey Results -The City should give credit for planting trees such as street trees and parking
lot trees that are required by other code sections.
Staff Proposal-Allow any tree required by other code revisions (e.g. street trees,parking lot trees, etc.) to receive
credit towards the 40% effective tree canopy requirement. This will incentivize the planting of large stature trees
which provide the most benefits when planted in appropriate locations.
-39-
Question 7 - When reviewing incentives to encourage preservation of quality trees, should the City
investigate whether minimum density requirements could be reduced to preserve trees?
Question 7 Web Survey Results -The City should investigate whether minimum density requirements could be
reduced to preserve trees.
Staff Proposal - Allow reductions in minimum density requirements to preserve tree groves, and trees in
significant habitat areas. The Tigard Community Development Code (IDC) currently permits reductions to
minimum density requirements for developments that preserve inventoried significant habitat areas. Most tree
groves within the city overlap with significant habitat areas; therefore, this allowance already exists for many trees
within the city. Minimum density is a Metro requirement associated with Title 1 of the Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan and Tigard's target housing unit capacity for the region cannot be reduced. The
density reduction language was permitted for habitat areas since it was taken from a model ordinance drafted by
Metro. Minimum density and flexibility surrounding target housing capacities continue to be discussed within the
Metro region. Staff will monitor any future changes regarding density requirements and adapt codes whenever
possible.
Question 8 -What other incentives not currently provided through the development code could result in
increased preservation of quality trees?
Question 8 Web Survey Results - The City should provide financial incentives such as tax relief, conservation
easements,and transfer of development rights between properties to preserve groves.
Staff Proposal - Staff is proposing to focus on preservation credits and flexible development standards to
incentivize the preservation of individual trees. Preserved canopy is proposed to be granted double the canopy
credit which can be used towards the 40% effective tree canopy requirement. The goal is to encourage
preservation of existing trees rather than planting of new trees to meet minimum canopy requirements.
In addition, flexible development standards and incentives already found in the TDC will be enhanced to increase
their use by applicants. These incentives for tree preservation include density bonuses, off-street parking and
landscaping reductions, flexible setbacks and lot width/depth requirements, lot size averaging, and flexible
sidewalk/street design standards. Staff will review and improve these standards, which will provide flexibility
without requiring the applicant to request adjustments or go through a Type III Planned Development
process. This will save the applicant time and money. Staff will also work closely with applicants in the
design phase to seek opportunities for tree preservation that will benefit the applicant, the neighborhood, and
the community.
Incentives for tree preservation (possibly tax relief, conservation easements, and transfer of development
rights) will be the primary focus of the upcoming tree grove preservation program. Financial incentives
during development are not as easily offered for several reasons. There is currently no dedicated source of
funding that can be used to incentivize the preservation of individual trees or groves. Also, most other
development fees and charges are collected on behalf of other agencies or are earmarked for uses not
associated with trees; therefore, these fees/charges cannot be waived or reduced.
-40-
Question 9-Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals if there was an option for a discretionary
review of tree preservation and planting plans in addition to a clear and objective review?
Question 9 Web Survey Results - The City should provide an option for discretionary review in addition to a
clear and objective review.
Staff Proposal - Allow applicants a discretionary review option as an alternative to tree planting, tree
preservation, or payment of a tree canopy fee in lieu-of planting or preservation. The applicant would be
required to submit an alternative site plan to a designated review body and explain how their site provides
equivalent environmental functions and values otherwise provided by trees. Alternative methods could include
green roofs, rain gardens, habitat restoration, etc. The designated review body would be provided the discretion
to work with the applicant and accept or reject theapplicant's proposal.
Question 10 -Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals if there was a less rigorous option than
currently allowed to modify a tree plan after land use approval if the revised plan could demonstrate the
tree plan standards will continue to be met?
Question 10 Web Survey Results - The City should allow for the modification of tree plans after approval as
long as the overall tree plan standards will continue to be met. However, the CAC wants to review the details of
the modification process in the preliminary draft code to ensure the tree plan standards will continue to be met.
Staff Proposal - Allow two levels of modifications to tree plans after approval. The first level modification
would occur directly between staff and the applicant and address cases where: 1) existing trees need to be
removed due to decline or hazard (not due to a violation); 2) modifications to the quantity, species, or location of
newly planted trees provided the changes result in at least as much tree canopy as the previous proposal; 3)
modifications to the location of tree protection fencing provided the project arborist approves the changes; and,
4) maintenance of trees to improve their health and/or appearance.
The second level modification would require public notice and review of changes, and need to demonstrate
through a revised plan, continued compliance with the 40% effective tree canopy requirement. The second level
modification would be for items such as removal and replacement of existing trees due to unforeseen
construction conflicts, and payment of additional tree canopy fee in lieu-of planting or preservation if less trees
are feasible than originally pro osed.
-41-
Question 13 - If tree plans are required in the additional circumstances above, would it implement the
City's urban forestry goals to establish boiler plate tree protection standards (such as fencing to be
installed at the driplines of protected trees) that, if adhered to, would negate the requirement for
someone to hire an ISA certified arborist for smaller projects?
Question 13 Web Survey Results -The City should develop boiler plate tree preservation standards if required
for smaller development projects that would negate the need to hire an ISA certified arborist. However,the CAC
wants to review the details of the boiler plate standards in the preliminary draft code and how the standards
would be enforced.
Staff Proposal-After reviewing the CAC responses and further discussion of web survey questions 11, 12, and
13, staff is proposing that tree/urban forest plans only be required for larger (Type II or III) development project
types (Minor Land Partitions, Subdivisions, Conditional Use Permits, Site Development Reviews, Planned
Developments,Downtown Design Reviews,and Sensitive Lands Reviews).
The reason for staffs proposal is the CAC advised that requirements be expanded only if staff can demonstrate
there are tangible issues with not applying requirements to smaller projects. After reviewing existing project types
and conditions, staff determined that only the larger project types indentified above have the most consistent and
tangible impacts on trees. All of the larger project types currently require tree plans and a project arborist except
Type II or III Downtown Design Reviews and Sensitive Lands Reviews. Type II or III Downtown Design
Reviews and Sensitive Lands Reviews are similar in scale to the other projects, and staff believes it would be
appropriate to require similar tree/urban forest plan requirements as the other project types.
Since the project types require a project arborist anyway, staff does not recommend developing boiler plate tree
protection standards, but instead recommends allowing the project arborist to specifically tailor protection
standards to the project at hand.
Under staff's proposal above,the projects with the highest likelihood to impact trees and not require a tree/urban
forest plan and project arborist are residential building projects (house additions, retaining walls, landscape
grading,etc.). However, staff's review of past residential building projects illustrate that they rarely are designed in
ways that necessitate tree removal. Also, as demonstrated in the Urban Forestry Master Plan,residential property
has the highest tree canopy of all zoning types which implies that residential property owners are generally good
stewards of their tree resources despite a lack of regulations. If increased regulations on developed residential
properties are identified as necessary in the future as the City continues to develop, the code could be revised at
that time.
Staff's proposal above will address the redevelopment of existing commercial, industrial, and mixed use zones,
especially as buildable residential lands in Tigard continues to decrease. The Urban Forestry Master Plan
demonstrates that existing commercial, industrial, and mixed use zones currently have less than half the tree
canopy of residential zones. Staff's proposal is to require significant increases in tree canopy through
redevelopment of commercial, industrial, and mixed use zones through the tree/urban forest plan requirements.
Again,project arborists have been and are proposed to continue to be required for these types of redevelopment
projects, so staff does not recommend developing boiler plate standards that could be more specifically
developed by project arborists on a project basis.
-42-
Question 14 - Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to establish soil volume standards for
trees?
Question 14 Web Survey Results - The City should establish soil volume standards for trees, with a focus on
street trees and parking lot trees. However,as discussed in Question 15 below,the group is split whether the City
should require alternative methods to achieve soil volume that may be more costly in special circumstances such
as for street trees and parking lot trees.
Staff Proposal - Require soil volume standards for street trees and parking lot trees only since those tree types
have the most potential to have limited access to sufficient soil volumes. Alternative methods to achieve soil
volumes would not be required, but the applicant would be required to demonstrate how they will provide the
required soil volumes. For example, if the applicant wants to provide soil volume under pavement in order to
maximize parking, they would be required to demonstrate appropriate methods through a site plan by a registered
landscape architect. The City will provide standard drawings and specifications for alternative methods in the
Tigard Urban Forestry Manual for use by the applicant and their landscape architect.
Question 16 - It is currently unclear whether relatively minor projects such as commercial building
additions are required to perform certain upgrades such as street tree and parking lot tree planting.
Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to allow an "in lieu-of' planting fee if the cost to
meet soil volume standards for street tree and parking lot tree retrofit projects exceeds a certain
threshold or percentage of the total project cost?
Question 16 Web Survey Results - If the City does require these more costly methods to achieve soil volume
standards, there should be limits to the cost with an option to pay an "in lieu-of' planting fee. However, the
CAC wants to review the details of the preliminary draft code to see what the funds would be used for.
Staff Proposal - As described above, staff is not proposing to require costly methods to meet soil volume
standards, but instead will leave it to the applicant to design the project to balance the need for paving and
uncovered soil volumes.
-43-
Question 17 -Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to allow an "in lieu-of' planting fee if
people do not want to plant for reasons such as solar access or view corridors?
Question 17 Web Survey Results - The City should allow an "in lieu-of' planting fee if people don't want to
plant trees for reasons such as views or solar access. However,if the person could plant on the property in a way
that would not block views or solar access,then it seems like the CAC thinks people should be required to plant.
Staff Proposal - Allow the applicant to meet the 40% effective tree canopy through any combination of tree
planting,tree preservation,or payment of a tree canopy fee in lieu-of planting or preservation.
In order to place a value on tree canopy, staff is proposing to convert the PNW-ISA average unit tree cost (which
is based on the trunk size) to an"average unit canopy cost". The difficulty in this approach is there is not a linear
relationship between trunk size and canopy size. Therefore, staff is proposing to base the average unit canopy
cost on the PNW-ISA average unit tree cost of a 6 inch DBH coniferous Willamette Valley tree with the
assumption that a 6 inch DBH tree has a 30 foot canopy spread. Based on this approach,the current unit canopy
cost would be $2.16 per square foot tree canopy. For example, if an applicant wanted to have no trees on a
10,000 square foot lot,they would need to pay a fee equivalent to 4,000 square feet of tree canopy or$8,640.
Staff's rationale for this approach is that trees are worth more than just their cost to plant (according to current
industry accepted tree appraisal methodologies). Not planting trees eliminates the potential for them to achieve
their future value (which staff has conservatively estimated using existing methodologies and professional
judgment). Also, since the CAC recommended that future fees should be utilized for items such as tree
preservation, maintenance, education and outreach, and urban forest planning, in addition to planting, collecting
fees based solely on the cost of planting does not adequately relate to these more expansive community needs.
Using the example above, an applicant could provide 4,000 square feet of tree canopy on a 10,000 square foot lot
by planting 5 to 6 new trees (assuming each new tree will achieve a roughly 30 foot canopy spread or 706.5 square
feet of canopy). Local developers have consistently contented that they can plant new trees for much less than
$250 per tree, so they could meet the 40%effective tree canopy requirement by investing not more than $1,500 in
planting (compared to an $8,640 tree canopy fee in-lieu). Thus, the incentive for the developer would be to
"plant whenever possible"as is the CAC's preference. Staff does not recommend decreasing flexibility by making
planting a requirement before accepting a fee in lieu-of planting, but rather letting the market decide when a fee
in-lieu is warranted (such as when a special view or solar access is desired).
Finally,while trees required by other code chapters (street trees,parking lot trees, trees required to buffer adjacent
uses, etc.) are proposed to receive canopy credit, staff's proposal is to not allow an in lieu-of fee for these tree
types because they serve a more site specific purpose. Therefore, a certain base level of tree planting will be
required for these"utilitarian" tree types.
-44-
Question 19 - If the City continues to collect "in lieu-of" fees in the future, how should future funds be
utilized to implement the City's urban forestry goals? (Please keep in mind that mitigation and"in lieu-
of"fees for groves will be addressed as a future topic.)
• Utilize future funds for urban forestry projects and allocate funding as previously averaged by the CAC.
• Allocate funding differently than averaged by the CAC.
Question 19 Web Survey Results - Even though members were split on how to allocate future urban forestry
funds that are collected, the average for how the City should allocate funds (Question 20) had a similar
breakdown as proposed in Question 19 (41% for planting and restoration, 26% for preservation, 10% for long
term tree maintenance, 10% for education and outreach,and 7% for urban forestry planning).
Staff Proposal-After reviewing the CAC's responses and discussions regarding web survey questions 19 and 20,
staff recommends future canopy fees in lieu-of planting or preservation be deposited into the Urban Forestry
Fund and utilized/allocated as follows:
1. Tree Planting and Early Establishment(50%allocation);
2. Preservation of existing trees following a recommendation approved by majority vote of the City
board or committee designated by the City Manager to give such recommendations (25%
allocation);
3. Maintenance of those trees planted using the Urban Forestry Fund after the early establishment
period has ended (10% allocation);
4. Urban Forestry Education and Outreach following a recommendation approved by majority vote
of the City board or committee designated by the City Manager to give such recommendations
(10%allocation);and
5. Urban Forestry Planning for activities that support periodic updates of the City of Tigard's Urban
Forestry Master Plan, Municipal Code, or Development Code following a recommendation
approved by majority vote of the City board or committee designated by the City Manager to give
such recommendations 5%allocation).
Question 20 - If you said "allocate funds differently" in the previous question, please indicate what
percentage of funding should go to each of the following activities: (make sure total is 100%)
Question 20 Web Survey Results - The averages in question 20 (52% for planting and restoration, 21% for
preservation, 13% for long term tree maintenance, 12% for education and outreach, and 2% for urban forestry
planning) are similar to the percentages in question 19.
Staff Proposal-See staff proposal for question 19.
-45-
Question 23 -The City currently requires developers to guarantee mitigation tree survival during a two
year establishment period. Guarantees are not currently required for the establishment of street trees,
parking lot trees, and other required landscape trees. Which of the following would best implement the
City's urban forestry goals?
• Continue current practice of requiring two year guarantees for mitigation trees only.
• Require two year guarantees for all trees planted as a condition of development approval.
• Only require guarantees when automatic irrigation is not provided.
• Don't require guarantees, address required tree survival on a complaint basis.
Question 23 Web Survey Results - The City should require a guarantee period for all required trees (street
trees,parking lot trees,etc.) not just mitigation trees.
Staff Proposal-Require bonding for 2 years after planting for all required trees to ensure early establishment.
AREAS OF GENERAL DISAGREEMENT
Question 2-Which of the following would best implement the City's urban forestry goals?
• Continue to allow the removal of all trees in all cases as long as mitigation (not necessarily according to
the current formula) is provided.
• Require a base level of preservation of quality trees if feasible.
Question 2 Web Survey Results -The CAC was split as to whether there should be a base level of preservation
of healthy trees required as part of development.
Question 2 Small Group Discussion Results - 2 of 3 small groups opposed requiring a base level of
preservation.
Staff Proposal - Do not require a base level of preservation. Require all major development projects to achieve
40% effective tree canopy at maturity through any combination of tree planting, tree preservation, or payment of
a tree canopy fee in lieu-of planting or preservation. Preservation of existing trees would be incentivized by
allowing double the canopy credit for preservation (e.g. preservation of 20% of existing canopy is worth the same
as newly planted trees that will achieve 40%canopy at maturity).
Please note that the requirements for preserving tree groves in sensitive lands will be addressed as part of
upcoming topics.
-46-
Question 3 - Which of the following would best implement the City's urban forestry goals during
development?
• Require mitigation in increasing amounts based on the number of existing trees removed as is
current practice.
• Require mitigation on more of a "tree for tree" basis (one tree removed, one tree replaced).
• Require a tree density standard that can be met by a combination of preservation (if there are
quality trees on site) and planting (whether or not there are trees on site).
• Require a tree density standard as described above,but require a base level of preservation of
quality trees if feasible.
Question 3 Web Survey Results -The CAC generally agreed that establishing a tree density standard (that could
be met by preserving trees and planting new trees) is the right direction for the code revisions. However, as in
Question 2,there is disagreement as to whether there should be a base level of preservation of healthy trees.
Question 3 Small Group Discussion Results - 2 of 3 small groups opposed requiring a base level of
preservation.
Staff Proposal - Require all major development projects to achieve 40% effective tree canopy at maturity
through any combination of tree planting,tree preservation, or payment of a tree canopy fee in lieu-of planting or
preservation. Preservation of existing trees would be incentivized by allowing double the canopy credit for
preservation (e.g. preservation of 20% of existing canopy is worth the same as newly planted trees that will
achieve 40%canopy at maturity).
Please note that the requirements for preserving tree groves in sensitive lands will be addressed as part of
upcoming topics.
-47-
Question 4-Trees on site within one year of a development application are currently required to be part
of tree plan. This has created a loophole whereby trees are cut down over a year before development
application to avoid tree plan requirements. Which of the following solutions would best implement the
City's urban forestry goals?
• Increase the amount of time that removed trees have to be part of a tree plan.
• Limit the removal of over a certain number or percentage of non-hazardous or nuisance trees from
any site (if chosen this could be part of the upcoming"tree permits for non-development scenarios"
discussion).
• Continue current procedures.
• Other:All of these plans diminish the value of treed property;therefore, I don't think these are the way to stop people
from cutting dozen trees on their own property if they feel trees devalue theirproperty. Better to develop a plan that is
not punitive to people that own trees.
Question 4 Web Survey Results - In order to prevent pre-development clearing, most (5) responded that there
should be an increase in the time period that removed trees should be subject to tree plan requirements.
However, others (3) responded that there should be a limit to the number or percentage of trees removed to
prevent pre-development clearing.
Question 4 Small Group Discussion Results - 1 group said to just incentivize preservation, 1 group said to
increase the tree plan requirements to two years prior to development, and 1 group said to look at limiting the
number of trees allowed to be removed in a given year if no development is proposed.
Staff Proposal - Staffs proposal is to require all major development projects to achieve 40% effective tree
canopy at maturity through any combination of tree planting, tree preservation, or payment of a tree canopy fee
in lieu-of planting or preservation. Preservation of existing trees would be incentivized by allowing double the
canopy credit for preservation (e.g. preservation of 20% of existing canopy is worth the same as newly planted
trees that will achieve 40%canopy at maturity).
Under this scenario, there is no incentive to remove trees in advance of development since existing trees would
receive bonus credit. However, in order to prevent clearing of large numbers of trees outside of development
projects, staff recommends placing a limit on the number or percentage of trees that may be removed from a
property in a given timeframe. This is a common stopgap measure employed by other cities in the region. The
issue of limiting tree removal in non-development scenarios can be further discussed and refined as part of
upcoming topics.
-48-
Question 11 - Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to require tree plans in additional
circumstances such as prior to issuance of demolition permits, grading permits, building additions, and
capital improvement projects (infrastructure and utility upgrades)?
Question 11 Web Survey Results -The CAC was pretty well split (6 in favor and 4 opposed) as to whether the
City should require tree plans in additional circumstances such as demolition permits, grading permits, building
additions,etc.
Question 11 Small Group Discussion Results -All 3 small groups thought tree plans should be expanded to
additional circumstances as long as the right threshold is found.
Staff Proposal - After reviewing the CAC's responses and discussions regarding questions 11 and 12, staff
recommends continuing to require tree/urban forest plans for development projects where they are currently
required,and expanding the requirements to other projects that are similar in scale.
The new project types that would be subject to the new requirements include Type II and III Downtown Design
Reviews and Sensitive Lands Reviews. Type II and III Downtown Design Reviews are a new review type created
specifically for downtown Tigard, and replace Site Development Reviews in downtown. Since Site Development
Reviews currently require a tree/urban forest plan, it is appropriate for Downtown Design Reviews to meet the
requirements as well. Staff intended for Downtown Design Reviews to meet the tree plan requirements at the
time the code was adopted, but omitted the requirements in error. It was requested that this error be corrected
during the Urban Forestry Code Revisions project.
Sensitive Lands Reviews do not currently require tree plans, and there are current and tangible issues due to the
lack of requirements (a threshold for expanding the requirements requested by the CAC). According to the
Urban Forestry Master Plan, almost half of the City's tree canopy is currently in sensitive lands areas and
development projects in sensitive lands (utility projects, trail and road expansion projects, large accessory
structures, etc.) have a significant likelihood of damaging and/or removing existing trees. There has been a
number of these types of conflicts in recent years and staff recommends expanding the tree/urban forest plan
requirements to Type II and III Sensitive Lands Reviews to avoid these types of conflicts in the future. Also,
Type II and III Sensitive Lands Reviews are similar in scale to the other types of development projects that
require tree/urban forest plans, so meeting the tree/urban forest plan requirements for Type II and III Sensitive
Lands Reviews would not place a disproportionate burden on these types of projects.
-49-
Question 12 -If tree plans are required in additional circumstances (to land divisions, site development
reviews, planned developments, and conditional uses) which of the following projects should the
requirements be applied to in order to implement the City's urban forestry goals?
Listed in order of most responses:
• Grading permits
• Brand new construction of residential,commercial, or industrial property
• Other
• Demolition permits
• Only building additions over a certain value
• All capital improvement projects
• Only capital improvement projects over a certain value
• Only land divisions,planned developments,conditional uses,and site development reviews over a
certain value
• Any building addition
Question 12 Web Survey Results - The CAC generally responded that if tree plans are required in additional
circumstances, they should apply to projects requiring grading, new construction, demolition, building additions,
capital projects, as well as the project types where tree plans are currently required. The responses generally
seemed to favor applying the requirements to projects over a certain size and/or value. However, the larger
question of whether tree plans should be required in additional circumstances at all (Question 11) should be
clarified first.
Question 12 Small Group Discussion Results - Again, all 3 small groups thought tree plans should be
expanded to additional circumstances as long as the right threshold is found. The groups generally wanted to
make sure any new requirements are proportional to the scale of development, and address existing known
deficiencies.
Staff Proposal - Require tree/urban forest plans for Type II and III Minor Land Partitions, Subdivisions,
Conditional Use Permits, Site Development Reviews, Planned Developments, Downtown Design Reviews, and
Sensitive Lands Reviews. Type 11 and III land use decisions require public notice, and are the most significant
development related land use permits issued by the City. These land use permits typically involve the activities
identified in the survey such as grading,new construction, demolition,capital improvement projects, and building
additions.
Under staff's proposal, residential building projects (house additions, retaining walls, grading, etc.) that are not
part of Type II or III land use decision would be exempt from the tree/urban forest plan requirements.
However, staff's review of past residential building projects illustrate that they rarely are designed in ways that
necessitate tree removal. Also, as demonstrated in the Urban Forestry Master Plan, residential property has the
highest tree canopy of all zoning types which implies that residential property owners are generally good stewards
of their tree resources despite a lack of regulations. If increased regulations on developed residential properties
are identified as necessary in the future as the City continues to develop,the code could be revised at that time.
-50-
Question 15 -If soil volume standards cannot be met within existing soil areas,would it implement the
City's urban forestry goals to require alternative methods to achieve soil volumes such as the use of
engineered soils that can support tree growth under pavement?
Question 15 Web Survey Results - The CAC was split as to whether the City should require alternative
methods to achieve soil volumes that may be more costly in special circumstances such as for street trees and
parking lot trees. However, the CAC generally agreed (Question 14) that the City should establish soil volume
standards for trees. Cost appears to be the main concern regarding these alternative methods and the CAC
agreed there should be a cap (Question 16) on these costs.
Question 15 Small Group Discussion Results - This was not further clarified during the small group
discussions.
Staff Proposal - Require soil volume standards for street trees and parking lot trees only since those tree types
have the most potential to have limited access to sufficient soil volumes. Alternative methods to achieve soil
volumes would not be required, but the applicant would be required to demonstrate how they will provide the
required soil volumes. For example, if the applicant wants to provide soil volume under pavement in order to
maximize parking, they would be required to demonstrate appropriate methods by a registered landscape
architect. The City will provide standard drawings and specifications for alternative methods in the Tigard Urban
Forestry Manual for use by the applicant and their landscape architect.
Question 18 -Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to allow people to install green roofs,
water quality swales, or other low impact development techniques "in lieu-of'planting trees?
Question 18 Web Survey Results - The CAC was pretty well split (4 in favor and 6 opposed) to the idea of
allowing alternative low impact development techniques (such as green roofs, water quality swales, etc.) to
substitute for planting and/or preserving trees. Complexity and uncertainty with implementation seemed to be
the reason for not wanting the code to go in this direction.
Question 18 Small Group Discussion Results - All 3 small groups thought low impact development
techniques in lieu-of tree planting could be okay,but acknowledged that quantifying the benefits compared to tree
planting could be difficult.
Staff Proposal - Due to the difficulty in quantifying the equivalency of these alternative techniques, allow them
to be reviewed as part of discretionary review. The applicant would be required to submit an alternative site plan
to a designated review body and explain how their site provides equivalent environmental functions and values
otherwise provided by trees. Alternative methods could include green roofs,rain gardens,habitat restoration,etc.
The designated review body would be provided the discretion to work with the applicant and accept or reject the
applicant's proposal.
-51-
Question 22 - The City currently requires monitoring of tree protection fencing by a certified arborist
twice per month as a condition of land use approval. Which of the following would best implement the
City's urban forestry goals?
Codify the monitoring requirement.
• Do not codify the monitoring requirement,but continue to require as a condition of land use
approval when deemed appropriate.
• Do not require monitoring of tree protection fencing, just address violations when they arise.
Question 22 Web Survey Results - The CAC was pretty well split on how the City should monitor tree
protection during development (4 said codify monitoring requirements, 3 said do not codify but condition when
appropriate,and 3 said do not require monitoring).
Question 22 Small Group Discussion Results - 2 of 3 small groups thought the monitoring requirements
should be codified,but not necessarily according to current practice. 1 small group did not address the issue.
Staff Proposal - Codify the monitoring requirements in the code and reference the specific standards in the
Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. Generally,monitoring should be required:
• Prior to any ground disturbance to ensure the tree protection fencing is in place;
• Twice a month during periods of active construction;
Prior to final building inspection or project acceptance;and
• For planted trees,following planting and two years following planting to document establishment.
Question 24 - Trees that are preserved as part of a development project are noted on the deed of the
property, and their removal is restricted. Trees planted to meet landscaping requirements (street trees,
parking lot trees, etc.) and trees planted to meet mitigation requirements are not noted on the deed.
Which of the following would best implement the City's urban forestry goals?
• Continue current practice of only requiring preservation trees to be noted on the deed.
• Require all trees (both planted and preserved) to be noted on the deed.
• Do not note land use requirements on the deed (rely on a publicly accessible inventory of protected
trees).
• Other:Mixed feelings...let's discuss
Question 24 Web Survey Results - The CAC generally agreed with continuing current practice of noting
preservation trees on the deeds of properties. However others felt either all of the trees or none of the trees
(preserved and planted) should be noted on the deed.
Question 24 Small Group Discussion Results — All 3 small groups opposed requiring deed restrictions for
trees.
Staff Proposal- Do not require tree related requirements to be noted on the deed. Instead,inventory regulated
trees following final building inspection or project acceptance and include in a publicly accessible inventory of
protected trees. Continue the Tree Board's "Welcome to Tigard"postcard that is sent quarterly to all new Tigard
property owners that advises property owners to contact the City to determine if permits are required prior to
removing trees on their property.
ATTACHMENT: WEB SURVEY RESULTS FOR URBAN FORESTRY STANDARDS
DURING DEVELOPMENT
-52-
City of Tigard Urban Forestry Code Revisions
Standards for Development Survey Results
November 10, 2010
1) Names of survey respondents
• Tony Tycer
• Scott Bernhard
• Brian Wegener
• David Walsh
• Morgan Holen
• Ken Gertz
• Donald Schmidt
• Bret Lieuallen
• John Frewing
• John Wyland
2)Which of the following would best implement the City's urban forestry goals?
• Continue to allow the removal of all trees in all cases as long as mitigation (not necessarily
according to the current formula) is provided. (3 responses)
• Require a base level of preservation of quality trees if feasible. (5 responses)
Additional Comments:
1. This is a virtually meaningless question...it might be called a'push poll'type of question.
2. Especially,protection is recommended for all Old Growth and any Historic Trees.
3. Very ambiguous question. I cannot answer this because both responses are too vague.
4. Preservation of quality trees where feasible would probably better implement the urban forestry
goals,although"if feasible"is really open ended;the removal of all trees should continue to be
allowed with mitigation where preservation is not practical
S. Due to several considerations,many developments require removal of all trees making mandatory
preservation unfeasible.
6. Include demolition in the scope of'development',since this is when a number of quality trees are
removed during'redevelopment'.
7. "If Feasible"is the key here,there needs to be a definition as to what makes it not feasible to remove
the trees,and generally grading of the site is a major reason that developers are not able to retain
trees. Public utility locations per the City Master plans are another'exception'that creates feasibility
issues. I am all for saving a tree or 2 if it is feasible,but then require a type of mitigation for the trees
that do need to be removed to gain the proper density required by Metro.
3) Which of the following would best implement the City's urban forestry goals during
development?
• Require mitigation in increasing amounts based on the number of existing 1 response
trees removed as is current practice.
• Require mitigation on more of a"tree for tree"basis (one tree removed, one 1 response
tree replaced).
-53-
• Require a tree density standard that can be met by a combination of 4 responses
preservation (if there are quality trees on site) and planting(whether or not
there are trees on site).
• Require a tree density standard as described in c),but require a base level of 3 responses
preservation of quality trees if feasible.
Additional Comments:
1. Again,a push poll type of question. This is only part of the issue. Not taken into consideration are
Metro's density requirements,quality of young'adolescent'tree alluded to in the reading,and
plantings on private land. Incentives might be worked into this equation as well.
2. Have option for off-site mitigation in lieu of fees.
3. Require mitigation based on available growing space so that trees stand a chance at becoming long
term site amenities
4. A base level of preservation would be up to interpretation/appeal,and would be more trouble than
it is worth. Mandatory preservation could also render some parcels undevelopable to the extent of
its zoning.
4) Trees on site within one year of a development application are currently required to be
part of tree plan. This has created a loophole whereby trees are cut down over a year before
development application to avoid tree plan requirements. Which of the following solutions
would best implement the City's urban forestry goals?
• Increase the amount of time that removed trees have to be part of a tree 5 responses
plan.
• Limit the removal of over a certain number or percentage of non-hazardous 3 responses
or nuisance trees from any site (if chosen this could be part of the upcoming
"tree permits for non-development scenarios" discussion).
• Continue current procedures. 1 response
• Other:All of these plans diminish the value of treed property,therefore,/don't think 1 response
these are the way to stop people from cutting down trees on their own property if they
feel trees devalue their property. Better to develop a plan that is not punitive to
people that own trees.
Additional Comments:
1. Allow land division to protect large forested groves.
2. First thought is to increase the look-back to 2 years but very open to hearing more about the second
option.
3. Verification/enforcement may be challenging
5) If the City adopts a tree density standard and gives extra credit for preservation of quality
trees,which of the following would best define quality trees and implement the City's urban
forestry goals?
• A mix of young to mature native trees in good condition (excluding native 2 responses
tree types that can be a nuisance).
• Mature native trees in good condition (excluding native tree types that can 1 response
be a nuisance).
• A mix of young to mature trees of any type in good condition that are not 6 responses
nuisance species.
• Mature trees of any type in good condition that are not nuisance species. 1 response
-54-
Additional Comments:
1. Must specify minimum standards for young trees so that the mix is not made up of all saplings.
2. I think there maybe some non-native trees that are beautiful and should count towards tree density.
Should the canopy the tree develops weigh in?
3. Sustainable trees that stand a chance at being desirable longterm site amenities.
6) If the City adopts a tree density standard would it implement the City's urban forestry
goals to give credit for required landscape trees such as street trees,parking lot trees,and
buffer trees?
• Yes (8 responses)
• No (Z responses)
Additional Comments:
1. Conditionally yes,but want to have a discussion on this topic.
2. These trees create canopy as much as any other tree and should be counted. Some development may
have no other place to plant other than street trees and parking lots.
3. I'm open minded about this,but my initial answer is no.
7) When reviewing incentives to encourage preservation of quality trees,should the City
investigate whether minimum density requirements could be reduced to preserve tree?
• Yes (9 responses)
• No (1 response)
Additional Comments:
1. Absolutely!
2. If development is of sufficient size,can also look at providing a density bonus on another part of
same or adjacent development to offset the reduction in minimum density.
3. I don't believe this is an option with current legislation.
4. Maybe.Do property owners and developers find this desirable?
8)What other incentives not currently provided through the development code could result
in increased preservation of quality trees?
6 Responses:
1. Incentives in the form of tax relief,purchase by the city of conservation easements,
willingness by the city do a trades in kind (unused street right of way vacated in exchange
for preservation easement),push back against county or ODOT requirements to 'Boulevard'
a street which produces many small planting areas with insufficient soil vaults for trees of
any size....thought you guys were taking notes?
2. Urban forestry designation that provides property tax discounts similar to historical
designation. Conservation easements.
3. Tax incentives. Some form of credit on city services. Development of a recognition program
to provide developer and eventual homeowner with some type of non-monetary
recognition for preserving trees.
4. Flexible street standards, Lot size and dimension requirements, Density bonus, Forgiveness
of solar requirements,Allow transfer of conservation tree bonus on one property to another
property
5. Still thinking...
-55-
6. Modification of planter strip requirements or placement of planter strip/sidewalk in
easement rather than include in the definition of a 'lot'.
9)Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals if there was an option for a
discretionary review of tree preservation and planting plans in addition to a clear and
objective review?
• Yes (9 responses)
• No (1 response)
Additional Comments:
1. Only if it results in greater tree preservation.
2. Only problem is how to staff this and who will pay for the review? Would it be a fee service for this
level of review? Should we modify the code to be Form Based so that the outcome is really trying to
meet a vision of the Urban Forestry Goals?
3. I may not understand the thinking here,but the code ultimately needs to be clear and objective or it
will be subject to appeal.
4. Applicants could potentially develop a plan that doesn't satisfy the clear and objective standards,but
might actually work to restore or enhance a native ecosystem or natural area; discretionary review is
a proper alternative for people--it will add to time and cost and should not be the primary avenue for
approval
5. Who would do the discretionary review?
10) Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals if there was a less rigorous option
than currently allowed to modify a tree plan after land use approval if the revised plan could
demonstrate the tree plan standards will continue to be met?
• Yes (10 responses)
• No (0 responses)
Additional Comments:
1. 'Continue to be met'is a pretty important idea...I have taken down trees that died as a result of some
schmuck painter dumping thinner at the base of huge grand fir and another where petroleum
distillates seeped down into a grove of Douglas Fir...my concern is that culpable parties be
determined if at all possible and some oversight during the development process be exercised.
2. As long as tree plan standards are
3. Sounds good but again,how will this be staffed,administered and enforced? Clear,discrete code
simplifies the administration.
4. It is foolish NOT to allow modification of Tree Plans. Just as there are necessary allowances for
adjustments to the development plans,there needs to be an allowance for the adjustment to the tree
plan
5. This would be helpful;so long as the revised tree plan will continue to meet the standards,staff could
review and approve modifications.Perhaps the number of modifications should be limited.This
would be especially helpful for project arborists who come into projects long after the initial tree
plan was prepared by someone else and has already been approved--so that they can update tree
data and recommendations for retention and protection,and demonstrate the tree plan standards
are being met.
6. So long as it required some public notice and public opportunity for input to the decision by city.
11)Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to require tree plans in additional
circumstances such as prior to issuance of demolition permits,grading permits,building
additions,and capital improvement projects (infrastructure and utility upgrades)?
• Yes (6 responses)
• No (4 responses)
-56-
Additional Comments:
1. Include remodels
2. Not entirely sure. What has been the extent of the problem without this level of permitting?
3. May be too cumbersome/costly to implement
4. This could work to provide better protection for existing trees during minor development projects
and work towards the urban forestry goals,but I'm also interested in hearing from citizens and staff
on this...
S. Too extreme. A tree plan in the above circumstances would be too burdensome. A simple question
on the permits as to if there would be any trees impacted due to the issuance of the permit and if so,
then there would be a tree plan required only for the proposed impacted area.
12) If tree plans are required in additional circumstances (to land divisions,site
development reviews,planned developments,and conditional uses) which of the following
projects should the requirements be applied to in order to implement the City's urban
forestry goals?
Listed in order of most responses:
• Grading permits (5)
• Brand new construction of residential,commercial, or industrial property(5)
• Other(5)
• Demolition permits (4)
• Only building additions over a certain value (4)
• All capital improvement projects (3)
• Only capital improvement projects over a certain value(3)
• Only land divisions,planned developments,conditional uses,and site development reviews
over a certain value(3)
• Any building addition (2)
Those who said "other"explained:
1. Remove"only" from the"land division" choice; and,note that in the"grading permit"choice,
grading could be expanded to include grade change (addition of soil over roots)
2. Pre-development land alterations.
3. Project sites with at least one non-hazardous tree of regulated size (diameter) located on-
site or within 30-feet of the limits of disturbance
4. Parking lot modifications
5. I would suggest that tree plans be limited to effected areas of the permits.
13) If tree plans are required in the additional circumstances above,would it implement the
City's urban forestry goals to establish boiler plate tree protection standards (such as
fencing to be installed at the driplines of protected trees)that,if adhered to,would negate
the requirement for someone to hire an ISA certified arborist for smaller projects?
• Yes (9 responses)
• No (1 response)
Additional Comments:
1. Not in favor of not having qualified tree people oversee process impacting tree ('negate the
requirement' never a good trade for'boilerplate')
2. Applicant should pay a fee to the city to cover the costs of compliance inspection. This would still
likely be cheaper than hiring an ISA certified arborist.
-57-
3. Sounds good but how will it be enforced?
4. Should have a prescriptive path for all tree preservation steps. Especially useful for small projects or
projects with few trees.
S. This will help with costs for private property owners with minor development projects,but someone
should be responsible for verifying the installation of tree protection measures and monitoring
protection throughout work.
One benefit of having an arborist involved is that they can provide much more information about the
condition of trees to be retained or removed,which theoretically results in higher quality trees being
retained and protected,and lower quality trees being appropriately replaced.
The City might also offer these same people information about tree health and maintenance,hazards,
planting the right tree in the right place,and when to hire an arborist.
14)Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to establish soil volume standards for
trees?
• Yes (8 responses)
• No (2 responses)
Additional Comments:
1. Todd Prager did an awesome presentation on exactly this,confirmation of soil quality right up there
with my concerns on this subject
2. For street trees and parking lot trees.
3. Major issue on commercial properties such as parking lots. Must tie standards to ISA or similar
professional standards.
4. In some instances,it may not be possible to achieve soil volume standards,so it would need to be
flexible,and therefore open to appeal. A recommendation would be appropriate
5. In planting strips and tree wells
15) If soil volume standards cannot be met within existing soil areas,would it implement the
City's urban forestry goals to require alternative methods to achieve soil volumes such as the
use of engineered soils that can support tree growth under pavement?
• Yes (5 responses)
• No (5 responses)
Additional Comments:
1. I think this is an very expensive dodge on the need to push back against some pretty obtrusive and
onerous metro density requirement
2. Engineered soils or tree vaults (Sylva Cells etc.) could meet this requirement.
3. Open to this discussion.
4. A recommendation would be appropriate.
5. Can we see some visual examples of these types of situations--where hypothetical soil volume
standards would not be met within existing soil areas?
I don't think that such alternative methods should be a requirement.The City might provide
information and encourage people to investigate such alternatives,but roots grow under pavement
anyway,and often cause infrastructure damage,and may not be appropriate for these sites--plant
smaller trees and shrubs in these places.
6. Not sure what you mean with this statement,growing medium under pavement?
16) It is currently unclear whether relatively minor projects such as commercial building
additions are required to perform certain upgrades such as street tree and parking lot tree
planting. Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to allow an"in-lieu-of'planting
fee if the cost to meet soil volume standards for street tree and parking lot tree retrofit
projects exceeds a certain threshold or percentage of the total project cost?
• Yes (10 responses)
-58-
• No (0 responses)
Additional Comments:
1. Common sense...or look at the ratio cost per tree averaged out as a function of total project cost...also,
make sure we have clear guidelines on how the city will spend the money! No more bickering over
changing rules on mitigation funds. and no more bait and switch similar to what seems to happen
with'underground utilities'
2. If excavation is involved,then upgrade
3. What do we do with the money?
4. Consider offering grants or some type of funding mechanism for assisting with retrofit projects--
could be worthwhile as street trees and parking lots trees provide the greatest net benefit for
managing trees in the urban environment.
17)Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to allow an"in-lieu-of'planting fee if
people do not want to plant for reasons such as solar access or view corridors?
• Yes (7 responses)
• No (2 responses)
Additional Comments:
1. See above...an aside:pruned a red oak recently within exactly this scenario (the enviro paradox)
2. Proper placement of trees can usually accommodate solar.
3. As long as the reasons are all included in criteria in the code,yes. Now,what do we do with the
money?
4. I don't think this helps to implement the urban forestry goals,but nevertheless am in favor of
allowing it because it's a real problem for people and I've seen cases where a fantastic view can be
worth more than a few individual trees.
5. Why can't the'people' (developer) plant trees where they want to to avoid solar access and view
corridors?
18)Would it implement the City's urban forestry goals to allow people to install green roofs,
water quality swales,or other low impact development techniques"in-lieu-of'planting
trees?
• Yes (4 responses)
• No (6 responses)
Additional Comments:
1. Sounds good in theory,but the reality seems to be very different(and not in a good way)
2. Some water quality facilities can accommodate trees.
3. Inclined to say no but again,look forward to the discussion. Has this been tried elsewhere and to
what success?
4. Often times these areas take more space than planting a tree,but can be more beneficial in the long
run.
5. I think that this would get too complicated.
19) The CAC discussed expanding the use of urban forestry funds collected after adoption of the
revised code. The average of the types of projects and percent funding were:
• 41%for planting and restoration
• 26%for preservation
• 10%for long term tree maintenance
• 10%for education and outreach
-59-
• 7%for urban forestry planning
If the City continues to collect"in-lieu-of'fees in the future,how should future funds be
utilized to implement the City's urban forestry goals? (Please keep in mind that mitigation
and"in lieu of fees for groves will be addressed as a future topic.)
• Utilize future funds for urban forestry projects and allocate funding as previously averaged
by the CAC (5 responses)
• Allocate funding differently than averaged by the CAC (5 responses)
20) If you said "allocate funds differently" in the previous question,please indicate what
percentage of funding should go to each of the following activities: (make sure total is 100%)
5 people allocated funds differently. The average of their allocation is:
• 52%for planting and grove restoration
• 21%for preservation of groves
• 13%for long term tree maintenance
• 12%for urban forestry education and outreach
• 2%for urban forestry planning
Additional Comments:
1. Separate out grove restoration from tree planting,under other include/establish a small
discretionary fund,when the money is collected from private residential see that it(substantially)
goes back into private residential benefit. I am suggesting a certain stinginess over planning,
education and outreach when we have city planners already on the pay roll,Tigard employs at least a
few teachers,and all residents already get a city newsletter. For maintenance,is there or is there not
a city forester? Let him advise the citizens and care for the city trees as well as code enforcement.
2. Retrofit of parking lots and streets to provide adequate soil volume for trees should be included in
the spending for planting and restoration.
3. Tree mitigation in the future should be more in line with required tree planting.I don't think groves
can be preserved without a funding from a greater source. The rest of the previous items should also
be from the general fund as they impact all citizens.
22) The City currently requires monitoring of tree protection fencing by a certified arborist
twice per month as a condition of land use approval.Which of the following would best
implement the City's urban forestry goals?
• Codify the monitoring requirement. 4 responses
• Do not codify the monitoring requirement,but continue to require as a 3 responses
condition of land use approval when deemed appropriate.
• Do not require monitoring of tree protection fencing,just address violations 3 responses
when they arise.
Additional Comments:
1. Tepid,lukewarm response. I remember Mr.Frewings pictures of utility trenching going right against
the base of a nice cedar tree. I personally have seen irrigation projects severe roots of the trees they
were designed to water...
2. Biweekly inspections are a great way to ensure implementation of the tree plan and to document the
protection throughout construction.The City should offer some flexibility in the monitoring schedule,
so that sites could be monitored biweekly at first and then perhaps monthly after several clean
inspections (so long as contractors are calling the arborist when work occurs near trees)and when
works slows down adjacent to protected trees.Must specify minimum standards for young trees so
that the mix is not made up of all saplings.
-60-
23) The City currently requires developers to guarantee mitigation tree survival during a
two year establishment period. Guarantees are not currently required for the establishment
of street trees,parking lot trees,and other required landscape trees. Which of the following
would best implement the City's urban forestry goals?
• Continue current practice of requiring two year guarantees for mitigation 1 response
trees only.
• Require two year guarantees for all trees planted as a condition of 6 responses
development approval.
• Only require guarantees when automatic irrigation is not provided. 1 response
• Don't require guarantees,address required tree survival on a complaint 2 responses
basis.
Additional Comments:
1. Trees 'saved' during construction should also have a guaranteed survival rate. When trees are
planted on city land (such as Cook Park or at a school)the city should bear some responsibility for
their care...oh,and trees might be planted on private land
2. Extend the guarantee to 7 years.
3. Need to work through how this requirement passes to eventual buyer of developed property or
home.
4. This is a hard one because after the project has been taken over by the owner,the developer does not
have any rights to force them to maintain the trees or to even to enter the property to inspect the
trees. I believe the new code will require planting enough trees to allow in the long run,for some
loss from owner lack of interest. Also some owners just plain don't like trees on or near their
property. Their removal of trees is also not under the developers control.
24) Trees that are preserved as part of a development project are noted on the deed of the
property,and their removal is restricted. Trees planted to meet landscaping requirements
(street trees,parking lot trees,etc.) and trees planted to meet mitigation requirements are
not noted on the deed. Which of the following would best implement the City's urban
forestry goals?
• Continue current practice of only requiring preservation trees to be noted 4 responses
on the deed.
• Require all trees (both planted and preserved)to be noted on the deed. 2 responses
• Do not note land use requirements on the deed (rely on a publicly accessible 2 responses
inventory of protected trees).
• Other: Mixed feelings...lets discuss 1 response
Additional Comments:
1. My sense is that the city is,in options 2 and 3,putting more of a burden on the citizen while opting
out of providing a service to that citizen.
2. Ineffective legislation.Street Trees are in the Public Right of way and need not deed restriction. Most
People don't even know about their CC&R's let alone a deed restriction on a tree. Would the City
really go after a private citizen if they cut down a tree? Hopefully in the future,more trees will be
planted allowing for the occasional unscheduled removal.
3. If not in deed,a number of trees will be gone before the loss is noticed. Being in the deed,the new
owner will perhaps read and follow this requirement.
-61-
25) Other comments or questions for discussion.
1. Do you have a time function on this survey? It may reflect to some extent the mental work
going into our responses.Please put on the board,even if only in the parking lot,those ideas
put up here that do not immediately win endorsement of the staff. I sometimes have the
sense that ideas are raised,briefly entertained,but then neglected,ignored until forgotten.
The questions reflect this to some extent.
2. Require as part of application some photographic record of the condition of trees before
development.
-62-
laCity of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Tigard UFCR Citizen Advisory Committee
From: Darren Wyss, Senior Planner
Re: Tigard Tree Grove Preservation Program
Date: January 4, 2011
Developing a tree grove preservation program was identified as a top priority of the community during the
Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP) process. This is partly in response to a significant decline in tree
grove acreage over the past decade. The intent is to preserve Tigard's remaining groves of native trees through
a flexible and incentive-based program,while allowing for the full development of property under current
zoning.
Tigard has contracted with a consulting firm,Winterbrook Planning, to assist with the project. The firm has
extensive experience with similar projects,including working with Statewide Planning Goal 5 natural resource
regulations and administrative rules. State Goal 5 rules are specific about process and evidence requirements
needed to adopt land use regulations intended to protect natural resources. Even though the City's approach
to tree grove preservation is proposed to be flexible and incentive based,it must meet the same Goal 5
standards as if a more regulatory approach was intended.
The general work program to develop a tree grove preservation program includes: 1) existing tree grove/GIS
data review; 2) tree grove inventory field work; 3) analysis of allowed/conflicting uses; 4) development of a
preservation program. Also,public involvement and information sharing will occur throughout the project.
Winterbrook has completed the first two tasks. The inventory resulted in 70 total tree groves, encompassing
544.1 acres, culminating with 663 property owners receiving Goal 5 notice that a portion of an identified tree
grove was on their property. Within the notice,property owners were invited to an open house to get more
information and provide feedback. The open house took place on October 6, 2010. Based on responses to a
comment card, conversations with attendees, and phone calls received by City staff, the support of the
community appears to be positive and consistent with the UFMP recommendation of developing a tree
grove preservation program.
Winterbrook is now working with staff to finalize step 3 of the process and develop a draft preservation
program based on this analysis. The draft preservation program will be developed around general concepts
that will be presented to the UFCR Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) for review at its February meeting.
These concepts may include regulatory, recognition,and tax incentives. Based on feedback gleaned from
both the CAC and from the community at an open house scheduled for February 17, 2011, the draft
preservation program will be completed and presented to the CAC at its April 2011 meeting.
If you have any questions that you would like to discuss before the meeting,please feel free to contact me at
darrengtigard-or.gov or 503-718-2442.
-63-
City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Code Revisions TAC —
TIGARD Meeting Summary
MEETING DATE: November 16,2010, 3:00-4:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Works Auditorium
8777 SW Burnham St.,Tigard, OR 97223
Members Present–Susan Hartnett (Assistant Community Development Director),Brian Rager (Assistant Public
Works Director), Gus Duenas (Development Engineer),Todd Prager (Associate Planner/Arborist),Ted
Kyle (City Engineer), Gary Pagenstecher (Associate Planner),Nate Shaub (GIS Analyst),Damon Reische
(CWS)
Visitors Present–Cheryl Caines (Associate Planner)
1. Call to Order,TAC Meeting#4 Summary
Susan Hartnett opened the meeting and noted that the TAC and CAC meetings are intended to ensure that ample
time is provided for both committees to discuss technical and community issues that arise over the course of the
process. She asked if anybody had revisions to make to the 9/21/2010 TAC Meeting Summary (page 3 in Meeting
#5 Packet). Gus Duenas noted one typo (change the word differed to deferred). The meeting summary was
accepted as final with one revision correcting the typo.
2. Staff Response to 9/21/2010 TAC Comments on Preliminary"Draft" Street Tree Code Amendments
Gary Pagenstecher called attention to the matrix (pages 6-8) detailing the comments received from the TAC on
9/21/2010 for the preliminary draft of the street tree code amendments. The staff responses for each comment
reflect the language changed by staff to incorporate the necessary revision with one exception—the item about
balancing safety and energy aspects of street trees with aesthetic aspects will require further discussion. Susan
Hartnett asked if we could begin numbering each comment for easier reference, and Todd Prager noted that the
CAC also asked for this.
3. Use of the Current Tree Replacement Fund Memo
Gary Pagenstecher summarized the memo (pages 9-10) drafted by staff which proposes contents for the Resolution
to be brought before Council concerning the Tree Replacement Fund. The Resolution will address changing the
name of the Fund to the Urban Forestry Fund and allowed uses of the Fund. Exhibit A (pages 11-13) specifies the
activities that can be funded by the Urban Forestry Fund. The CAC approved of Exhibit A with two primary
suggested revisions: limiting the total dollar amount that can be spent on each tree and restoring an emphasis on
funding the planting of trees over expenses for grading and filling soil.
Susan Hartnett suggested that Exhibit A should clarify between grading/removing soil and importing soil. Ted
Kyle said that we should specify that grading is only for the purpose of ensuring healthy planting, not landscape
clearing or reforming. Susan pointed out that a per-tree limit is incompatible with "premium projects"which serve
multiple goals and values, and which are high priorities from the City Council's perspective. Todd Prager reminded
-64-
that there is resistance from the CAC on precisely these kinds of projects because they conflict with another
priority: getting the most trees for the money available.
Todd Prager reported that the CAC is continuing to discuss options for maintaining trees planted using the Tree
Replacement Fund. Everybody would like the City to be able to provide care over the lifetime of the tree, but the
CAC hesitates to support a change beyond the three years of maintenance presently in place unless a separate
source of funding is secured for this purpose. Ted Kyle said that setting a time limit on maintenance for all trees
doesn't make sense because maintenance needs vary by tree. Todd Prager mentioned that the CAC also has
expressed some reservations about the Unwanted Plant Removal use. CAC consensus is that the fund is for
planting trees. Cheryl Caines said that the CAC is concerned about how closely and specifically the Tree
Replacement Fund collection and spending will be tracked. Todd Prager and Nate Shaub said that GIS will be used
for this purpose and will be detailed down to specific tree or areas of tree plantings.
Brian Rager and Susan Hartnett discussed possible applications of the Street Maintenance Fee and the General
Fund for long term tree maintenance. Todd Prager said it is important to clarify for the CAC,TAC, and Council
during the decision making process how other sources of funding could be used for items such as long term
maintenance to support the overall urban forestry program. This will allow a big picture approach when talking
about these limiting funding issues.
Brian Rager submitted that all questions about uses of the Tree Replacement Fund need to account for the fact that
the fee paid per tree is not paying for the entire cost of planting and maintaining its replacement, so the decision to
be made is to either allow the uses that will achieve the best results using available funds or raise the fee paid for
each tree. Susan Hartnett pointed out that tree preservation and maintenance are stated purposes of the Tree Code,
and City Council will ultimately decide what uses of this fund will be explicitly allowed.
4. Urban Forestry Standards for Development—Options Memo, CAC Survey
Todd Prager introduced the 11/2/2010 memo (pages 14-22) which describes CAC survey results on the urban
forestry standards for development. Gary Pagenstecher summarized a second memo (pages 23-26) describing the
areas of agreement within the CAC from their responses to a survey. He related that there is also a conversation
emerging about consolidating most of the tree related code language under one "tree title."
Ted Kyle questioned whether the level of technical detail being discussed in the CAC with respect to some of the
development standards such as how to achieve soil volumes was prudent. Todd Prager answered that until the code
is amended to authorize City staff to make administrative decisions on technical specifications, everything must be
approved by City Council and thus should be open for review by all parties,including the CAC and TAC.
Gary Pagenstecher then summarized the areas of disagreement within the CAC regarding development standards,
which focus primarily on setting a base level of tree preservation and on the relationship of any such standard to the
tree density standard which the CAC agrees should be established. Todd Prager said that Portland's draft tree code
provides an example of how to achieve tree density and preservation standards.
5. Urban Forestry Standards for Development—Discussion Questions
The group agreed to begin discussing the questions distributed by Todd Prager in his 11/8/2010 memo (pages 37-
38). Ensuing discussion on these questions is intended to inform staff and the CAC of the logistics and feasibility
of several scenarios that may result from the ongoing conversations over urban forestry standards for development.
-65-
Brian Rager asked,regarding question one,whether it is reasonable to expect that building or engineering inspectors
could perform inspections of tree planting or protection for which they are not trained. Todd Prager clarified that
the idea of including such checks into regular building or engineering inspections is meant to be about simple things
(for instance, "Is the tree protection fence where it was originally approved to be?") that any inspector could
identify and sign off on. The point is to eliminate the need for involving either a hired private arborist or specially
trained City staff for very basic monitoring. Susan Hartnett added that the key to making the idea work would be
defining the limited set of items for which this type of inspection would be appropriate. Ted Kyle suggested
implementing a reporting mechanism that would allow any inspector who visited a site to easily report what they
see. He also suggested that tying this sort of monitoring into erosion control, rather than building or engineering,
inspections might make more sense. He asked how often CWS visited development sites and whether their
inspectors could or would take on the task. Damon Reische responded that CWS inspectors check major
subdivision projects at least once every week while work permits are active. He said it was unlikely CWS would take
on these inspections except where they also applied to an erosion control plan.
Brian Rager and Ted Kyle commented with regards to question 4 that the use of structural soils to capture
stormwater has not been adequately proven to the degree where they think it should be implemented.
Brian Rager expressed concern about the idea contained within question five that a green roof could be an
acceptable alternative for either preserving and planting a tree or paying a fee-in-lieu. Green roofs have an
insufficient history to justify their use as an alternative to planting or preserving trees. Ted Kyle concurred and said
that green roofs and trees serve different functions; green roofs do not replace trees. Damon Reische added that
the low impact development benefit of green roofs is about water quality,whereas trees cover a range of benefits.
A green roof might already be a mitigation option at a site where water quality is an issue, so if a green roof was also
an acceptable alternative for tree mitigation on the same site, the developer would in effect be off the hook for the
trees entirely. Susan Hartnett noted that the low impact development options were alternatives to paying a fee-in-
lieu when preservation or planting have already been eliminated as options.
The group agreed to meet again on 12/21 to resume discussion of these questions.
-66-
City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Code Revisions TAC
Meeting Summary
MEETING DATE: December 21, 2010, 3:00-4:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Works Auditorium
8777 SW Burnham St.,Tigard, OR 97223
Members Present–Susan Hartnett (Assistant Community Development Director),Brian Rager (Assistant Public
Works Director), Steve Martin (Parks and Facilities Manager), Greg Stout (Grounds and Open Space
Coordinator),Todd Prager (Associate Planner/Arborist),Ted Kyle (City Engineer),Nate Shaub (GIS
Analyst),Damon Reische (CWS)
Visitors Present–Cheryl Caines (Associate Planner),Tim Lehrbach (Planning Assistant)
1. Call to Order,TAC Meeting#5 Summary
Susan Hartnett opened the meeting asked if there were any revisions to be made to the 11/16/2010 TAC Meeting
Summary (page three in Meeting#6 Packet). Susan made one revision (strike the words "in the code" from a
sentence on page two), and the group approved the summary.
Susan Hartnett updated the TAC on the project schedule. It will be proposed to the CAC that their monthly
meetings become bimonthly meetings of three hours each. This responds to the CAC's request for more time to
review documents and prepare for their meetings and also to City staff's desire for more time to produce the
documents for CAC review. The TAC will maintain its monthly meeting. The revised schedule will keep the
project within City Council's desired window for completion,but will ensure the process is thorough and well
vetted.
Susan Hartnett also updated the TAC on the ongoing discussion over the Tree Replacement Fund. The TAC and
CAC have generally identified the same issues, and the CAC will resume discussion at their January meeting. The
Tree Board will deliver the final proposal to Council after reviewing the CAC's consensus view.
2. Urban Forestry Standards for Development—Discussion Questions
The group resumed (from the 11/16/2010 meeting) discussing the questions on pages 14-16 of the Meeting#6
packet. Todd Prager revisited question one and reminded that the CAC is hesitant to expand the circumstances
under which tree protection and planting plans are required for development. He submitted that he will not
recommend any such expansions because he has no evidence that the lack of requirements for smaller projects are
having a significant negative impact on trees.
The group also briefly revisited question four regarding whether engineered soils could be used to meet stormwater
requirements. Todd Prager restated the CAC's consensus that emerging technologies have not been adequately
proven for purposes related to trees and should not be implemented as standards for development. Ted Kyle
suggested that allowing specific pilot projects, especially City projects,which utilize these technologies, could be
-67-
useful. Susan Hartnett and Todd Prager responded that there is no intention to prohibit a developer or the City
from using new technologies;rather, the discussion is about whether CWS could grant stormwater credits when
such technologies are utilized. Damon Reische noted that CWS provides an avenue for alternative review when
developers want to use these sorts of alternative technologies to meet their stormwater requirements. Susan
Hartnett asked the group to continue thinking about where this might fit into the forthcoming Tree Manual, as we
are talking about guidelines and not codified regulations. Todd Prager added that this item may be utilized during a
discretionary review option when the required amount of trees will not be provided.
Brian Rager offered in response to question two that placing sidewalks on easements located within private property
is allowed outright in the City code. Ted Kyle reiterated the point made previously by Development Engineering
that the City has little or no flexibility from curb to curb to provide any space for tree planting or preservation, and
Brian Rager agreed that focusing on sidewalk alignment is most useful.
Todd Prager called attention to question three about which City projects require or should require tree plans. He
reported that the CAC wants one set of standards for City and private development. He said that his own
recommendation is to continue requiring tree plans for major projects and also expand the requirement to Type II
and Type III Downtown Design Review and Sensitive Lands Review. Brian Rager submitted that City projects
should be setting the example for achieving results to meet or exceed standards, but not to create a separate set of
requirements just for City projects. Ted Kyle provided examples such as City sidewalk and utility projects that
would not be required to provide a tree plan,but could work with the City Arborist to maximize preservation and
planting. Steve Martin said that requiring tree plans has been wasteful for certain City projects, as when a private
arborist had to be hired to sign a plan created by Parks staff. He asked whether the City Arborist could be the
certified arborist for City projects. Susan Hartnett and Todd Prager answered that when land use review
necessitates an impartial City Arborist as a review body, that same person cannot be involved in creating the tree
plan. However, they added that if a tree plan is not a land use requirement, the City Arborist could work on
developing the plan.
Question six calls attention to the City's difficulty tracking inspection reports from private arborists during
development. Todd Prager reported that the CAC recommended requiring a private arborist to create the tree plan
and also be responsible for inspecting its implementation, and he said he agreed with the recommendation. Susan
Hartnett said that the City could not codify a requirement that the same person fill both of these roles, but instead
could require that any private arborist create the plan and perform the inspections (doesn't necessarily need to be
the same individual). Ted Kyle pointed out that the arborist who creates the tree plan might have a bias toward
covering up deviations from the plan. Todd Prager said the likely course is to make no specific revisions to the
current tree plan/inspection requirements, but to find solutions to the tracking issues with the City's Permit
Coordinator.
Todd Prager introduced questions seven and eight, regarding the relationship between City and ODOT standards
for street trees,with reference to an e-mail received from ODOT on the topic. He suggested it could be beneficial
to come to intergovernmental agreements with ODOT and for Pacific Highway and Hall Boulevard at the same
time. Brian Rager asked if the City could be satisfied with ODOT standards and not have to go farther. Todd
Prager noted one limitation in ODOT's standards: they only specify where street trees cannot be planted,not where
they should or must be planted. Cheryl Caines reminded that while applicants along the state highways must have
their street tree plans approved by ODOT, the City already requires further that the applicant follow City standards.
Susan Hartnett said that the TAC needs to better understand ODOT's standards, and compare them with the City's
objectives to explore these questions.
3. Adjournment
-68-
Susan Hartnett said the next TAC meeting, scheduled for January 18,is likely to be canceled, and the meeting was
adjourned.
-69-